## Facts

- Jeffrey Milstein, Inc., doing business as Paper House Productions, manufactured greeting and note cards featuring straight-on color photographs die-cut to the outline of the depicted object, typically with blank interiors and clear cellophane packaging.
- Greger, Lawlor, Roth, Inc., doing business as Triangle Enterprises, produced various die-cut stationery products and later introduced “tri-cut” photographic greeting cards.
- Triangle’s cards likewise used die-cut photographs but displayed the image across three panels (front, middle, and back), while Paper House’s cards placed the photograph on the front panel.
- Paper House claimed an unregistered trade dress described as die-cut, straight-on color photographic cards shaped to the image, with a blank white interior.
- Paper House sued under Lanham Act § 43(a) and New York common-law unfair competition, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Triangle from using the allegedly similar format.

## Issues

1. Whether Paper House’s claimed greeting card “format” constituted a distinctive, non-functional trade dress protectable under Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether Paper House showed a sufficient likelihood of consumer confusion to justify a preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
- The court held Paper House failed to show a protectable trade dress because the asserted “format” was defined at too high a level of generality and amounted to an unprotectable idea (using die-cut photographs on greeting cards).
- Without a valid, distinctive trade dress, Paper House could not establish likely success on the merits of its § 43(a) claim, making extended confusion analysis unnecessary for preliminary relief.

## Legal Principles

- To prove unregistered trade dress infringement under Lanham Act § 43(a), a plaintiff must show (1) a distinctive trade dress and (2) a likelihood of confusion.
- Trade dress protection cannot be used to claim exclusive rights in a general product idea or concept; it protects a source-identifying overall appearance, not an abstract format.
- A trade dress claim framed in broad, conceptual terms risks granting a de facto monopoly and is disfavored, particularly where competitors need access to the design approach to compete.
- Where the plaintiff fails to establish a protectable trade dress, the likelihood-of-confusion inquiry does not support injunctive relief based solely on similarity of general format.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin a competitor’s photographic die-cut greeting cards because the plaintiff’s asserted trade dress described a general concept rather than a specific, distinctive, source-identifying product appearance protected by the Lanham Act.


Jeffrey Milstein, Inc. v. Greger, Lawlor, Roth, Inc., 58 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995)