## Facts

- Groeneveld manufactured automated lubrication systems for commercial trucks and marketed its EP0 grease pump since the 1980s.
- Groeneveld claimed trade dress in the EP0 pump’s overall product configuration (external appearance and arrangement of components).
- Lubecore, a competitor entering the market around 2008, sold a grease pump that Groeneveld alleged was a “virtually identical” copy of the EP0 configuration.
- Both companies sold in a specialized industrial market to sophisticated commercial purchasers.
- Both pumps displayed prominent manufacturer names and logos (“Groeneveld” and “Lubecore”).
- Groeneveld sued under Lanham Act § 43(a) for trade dress infringement and asserted additional claims.
- The district court dismissed all claims except trade dress on Rule 50; the jury found for Groeneveld on trade dress and awarded damages; the court denied Lubecore’s renewed Rule 50 motion and awarded fees and expenses.
- Lubecore appealed the trade-dress judgment; Groeneveld cross-appealed the dismissal of its other claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Groeneveld presented legally sufficient evidence that the EP0 pump configuration was protectable, nonfunctional trade dress under Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether, given clear labeling and the industrial purchasing context, Lubecore’s similar configuration was likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying Lubecore judgment as a matter of law on the trade-dress claim and in dismissing Groeneveld’s other claims.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of Lubecore’s Rule 50 motion on the trade-dress claim and reversed the jury verdict for Groeneveld.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law for Lubecore on all claims.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of Groeneveld’s non-trade-dress claims.
- The majority held that no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion on the record, particularly in light of prominent branding and sophisticated purchasers.
- A dissent would have upheld the jury verdict based on the evidence of nonfunctionality, source-identifying significance, and confusion.

## Legal Principles

- A Lanham Act trade dress plaintiff must prove protectable trade dress (including nonfunctionality) and a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- Trade dress law protects source identification and does not prohibit copying of useful product designs absent likely confusion.
- Prominent, differentiating brand names and logos can strongly negate an inference that product configuration serves as a source identifier.
- In specialized industrial markets, purchaser sophistication and purchasing practices weigh heavily against finding likely confusion.
- Trade dress doctrine should not be used to secure a perpetual exclusive right in utilitarian product configurations more appropriately addressed, if at all, through patent protection.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit set aside the trade-dress verdict because Groeneveld failed to present sufficient evidence that Lubecore’s similar grease-pump configuration was likely to confuse sophisticated industrial buyers about product source where both products were clearly branded, and it directed entry of judgment for Lubecore on all claims.


Groeneveld Transp. Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore Int'l, Inc., 730 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2013)