## Facts

- I.P. Lund Trading ApS and its U.S. distributor marketed the VOLA faucet, a minimalist wall-mounted faucet design identified with designer Arne Jacobsen.
- Lund claimed protectable trade dress in the faucet’s overall appearance, including cylindrical elements and a simplified geometric wall-mounted configuration.
- Kohler developed and prepared to market the “Falling Water” wall-mounted faucet after reviewing VOLA and aiming to create a similar but nonidentical design.
- The Falling Water faucet shared a minimalist wall-mounted look with VOLA but differed in certain dimensions and design details.
- Lund sued for (1) trade dress infringement under Lanham Act § 43(a) and (2) dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA).
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction on infringement (no likelihood of confusion) but granted a preliminary injunction on dilution, finding the VOLA trade dress “famous” and likely diluted by blurring.
- Kohler appealed the dilution injunction; Lund cross-appealed the denial of preliminary relief on infringement.

## Issues

1. What level of recognition is required for a product-design trade dress to qualify as “famous” under the FTDA: general-public fame or fame limited to a specialized market?
2. Whether the district court used a proper approach to determine dilution by blurring under the FTDA.
3. Whether trade dress in product design can fall within the FTDA’s protection, and what limits apply.
4. Whether the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction on § 43(a) trade dress infringement for lack of likely confusion.

## Decision

- Vacated the preliminary injunction granted on the FTDA dilution claim and remanded.
- Held Lund failed to show the VOLA faucet trade dress was “famous” under the FTDA; recognition largely within design and high-end fixture markets was insufficient.
- Indicated that, while trade dress may be covered by the FTDA in principle, the statute’s fame threshold must be applied narrowly to avoid overreach.
- Affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction on the § 43(a) trade dress infringement claim, agreeing Lund had not shown a likelihood of confusion on the preliminary-injunction record.

## Legal Principles

- FTDA protection is limited to truly “famous” marks; fame generally requires broad recognition by the general consuming public, not merely strong reputation within a niche market.
- A dilution claim under the FTDA focuses on the “lessening of the capacity” of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, not simply reduced demand caused by competition.
- Courts should be cautious about importing state-law dilution factor tests wholesale into FTDA analysis without close attention to the federal statutory standard.
- Trade dress infringement under Lanham Act § 43(a) requires a protectable trade dress (often shown through secondary meaning for product design) and a likelihood of confusion; sophistication of consumers and differences in product details and branding may weigh against confusion at the preliminary-injunction stage.
- Trade dress law should not be applied so broadly to product design that it grants exclusive rights over general design styles and unduly restricts competition.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit limited federal dilution protection by requiring general-public fame for FTDA claims and, on the preliminary record, declined to enjoin Kohler’s competing wall-mounted faucet on either dilution or confusion grounds, vacating the dilution injunction while affirming denial of the infringement injunction.


I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 1998)