## Facts

- Inspired by the Segway, Global Manufacture Group, LLC (Global) designed and sold an upright, motorized scooter called the “Q Electric Chariot” (Q scooter), intended as an alternative to a traditional wheelchair.
- Unlike the Segway, the Q scooter had four wheels and did not use a gyroscope balancing system.
- The Q scooter used a steering method that could be controlled gradually by leaning in the desired direction or more sharply by turning the handlebar.
- Global selected aspects of the Q scooter’s appearance, including the shape and length of the platform, for visual appeal; the design also included a curved handlebar and a recessed headlight.
- Global first sold the Q scooter through Wal-Mart’s website in October 2003, and its advertising emphasized engineering and performance advantages.
- In mid-2004, Gadget Universe.Com (Gadget) began marketing a competing four-wheeled upright scooter, the “Rietti Civic Mover Electric Scooter” (Gadget scooter), sold primarily online at a lower price point.
- Other manufacturers also sold upright scooters with differing appearances, including designs with markedly different shapes and color options.
- In 2005, Global obtained a utility patent covering, among other things, claims tied to the steering method and the ability to convert the scooter to a cargo rack, and also obtained a design patent covering ornamental aspects of the scooter.
- Global sued Gadget asserting multiple intellectual-property theories, including Lanham Act trade-dress infringement based on the overall configuration and appearance of the Q scooter.
- Gadget moved for summary judgment on the trade-dress claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Global identified a protectable product-design trade dress for the Q scooter, including whether the asserted configuration was nonfunctional and had acquired secondary meaning.
2. Whether Global presented sufficient evidence of a likelihood of consumer confusion between the Q scooter and the Gadget scooter to proceed to trial.

## Decision

- The court granted Gadget’s motion for summary judgment on Global’s Lanham Act trade-dress claim.
- The court held that Global failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the Q scooter’s product design had acquired secondary meaning identifying Global as the source.
- The court concluded that key aspects of the claimed configuration were functional—tied to the scooter’s stability, operation, and related utilitarian advantages—and therefore were not protectable as trade dress.
- The court also found Global’s evidence of likely confusion insufficient to create a triable issue, particularly given competing designs in the marketplace and the lack of strong confusion evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Trade dress may protect the overall look of a product, but it does not protect utilitarian “mechanics” or other features that are functional.
- Product-design trade dress cannot be automatically distinctive; it is protectable only if the plaintiff proves secondary meaning—consumer association of the design itself with a single source.
- A product feature is functional, and thus excluded from trade-dress protection, if it is essential to the product’s use or affects cost or quality; trade-dress law cannot be used to secure exclusive rights in useful design choices.
- To withstand summary judgment on a product-design trade-dress claim, a plaintiff must present evidence supporting (1) nonfunctionality, (2) secondary meaning, and (3) likelihood of confusion.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for Gadget because Global did not raise a genuine fact dispute that the Q scooter’s overall product design served as a source identifier (secondary meaning), much of the configuration reflected functional design choices outside trade-dress protection, and the record did not support a finding that consumers were likely to confuse Gadget’s scooter with Global’s.


Global Manufacture Group v. Gadget Universe.Com, 417 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (2006)