## Facts

- Herman Miller manufactured and sold furniture designed by Charles and Ray Eames, including the Eames lounge chair and ottoman introduced in 1956.
- Herman Miller sold substantial quantities of Eames-designed furniture over decades and marketed the Eames lounge chair as a signature product.
- Herman Miller obtained an exclusive right, via agreement with the Eames estate, to use and enforce Charles Eames’s name and likeness for commercial purposes.
- Palazzetti manufactured and sold replica lounge chairs and ottomans closely copying the Eames design.
- Palazzetti used the Eames name in marketing its replicas.
- Herman Miller sued under the Lanham Act and related theories, including trademark infringement/dilution, unfair competition, trade dress infringement/dilution, false advertising, and violation of the right of publicity.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Palazzetti on trade dress claims and dismissed the false advertising claim, but other claims proceeded to trial.
- A jury found for Herman Miller on trademark infringement/dilution, unfair competition, and right of publicity, and the court entered a permanent injunction with a carve-out allowing Palazzetti to “fairly identify” the Eameses as original designers.

## Issues

1. Whether the product configuration of the Eames lounge chair and ottoman was protectable trade dress under Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether dismissal of the false advertising claim was proper.
3. Whether Michigan common law recognizes a post-mortem right of publicity, and whether Herman Miller could enforce it as assignee/licensee.
4. Whether Michigan right-of-publicity law could support injunctive relief affecting conduct beyond Michigan, including states that do not recognize post-mortem publicity rights.
5. Whether the wording and geographic scope of the permanent injunction, including the “fairly identify” carve-out, were proper.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for modification of certain relief.
- The court left in place summary judgment rejecting Herman Miller’s trade dress claims for the chair-and-ottoman design under § 43(a).
- The court upheld the jury verdict on trademark infringement/dilution and unfair competition.
- The court upheld liability on the right-of-publicity claim under Michigan law and rejected Palazzetti’s challenge to the existence of a post-mortem right of publicity.
- The court largely sustained injunctive relief but modified aspects of its wording and scope, including limits on how Palazzetti could refer to the Eameses when identifying the design history of its products.

## Legal Principles

- Product-configuration trade dress is protectable under Lanham Act § 43(a) only if it functions as a source identifier; aesthetic fame or copying alone is insufficient without protectable distinctiveness.
- Where the market contains many similar designs, a plaintiff bears a substantial burden to show that a product’s configuration has source-identifying significance rather than merely desirable design features.
- Michigan common law recognizes a post-mortem right of publicity that can be treated as a property-like interest capable of transfer and enforcement after death.
- A state’s right-of-publicity law may support injunctive relief against wrongful commercial exploitation that harms a right located in that state, but the injunction must be no broader than necessary to prevent misleading or unauthorized commercial use.
- Injunction language may permit limited, non-misleading attribution to historical designers while still preventing promotional use likely to cause confusion or invade exclusive commercial publicity rights.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit largely upheld Herman Miller’s victory on trademark, unfair competition, and Michigan post-mortem right-of-publicity claims arising from Palazzetti’s marketing of replica Eames lounge chairs, while denying trade dress protection for the product configuration and requiring targeted modification of injunctive language and scope to prevent misleading commercial use yet allow limited accurate identification.


Herman Miller, Inc. v. Palazzetti Imports & Exports, Inc., 270 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2001)