## Facts

- Dirk Laureyssens designed foam rubber “flat-to-cube” puzzles consisting of six interlocking notched pieces that can be assembled flat or into a cube; they were marketed in the United States most recently as “HAPPY CUBE.”
- Laureyssens-related entities manufactured, distributed, and licensed the puzzles; Idea Group, Inc. developed and marketed competing “SNAFOOZ” puzzles.
- Idea Group initially marketed puzzles identical or virtually identical to the plaintiff’s puzzles and admitted its initial version had been copied from a sample obtained through the plaintiff’s distribution chain.
- After receiving cease-and-desist letters, Idea Group redesigned its puzzles using a computer-based process; the redesigned Snafooz puzzles used six notch-widths per edge, while Happy Cube used five.
- Both products were offered in the same six colors and sold assembled flat in clear shrink-wrap with a cardboard insert; the defendant’s insert differed in design and did not copy the plaintiff’s insert.
- Plaintiffs held U.S. copyright registrations for six puzzle designs and claimed trade dress rights in the flat shrink-wrapped presentation and related packaging features.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction on copyright as to the redesigned puzzles but granted a preliminary injunction on trade dress, relying in part on a “secondary meaning in the making” theory.
- The defendant appealed the trade dress injunction; plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of copyright-based preliminary relief.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success that the redesigned Snafooz puzzles were substantially similar to protectable expression in the copyrighted Happy Cube designs.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on trade dress claims under Lanham Act § 43(a) and New York unfair competition by proving protectable trade dress (including secondary meaning) and likely consumer confusion.
3. Whether “secondary meaning in the making” can substitute for proof of actual secondary meaning to support trade dress protection at the preliminary injunction stage.

## Decision

- Affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction on the copyright claim as to the redesigned six-notch Snafooz puzzles.
- Reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction on trade dress under Lanham Act § 43(a) and New York unfair competition law.
- Rejected “secondary meaning in the making” as a basis for trade dress protection and found the record insufficient to show actual secondary meaning or likely confusion.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects expression, not the underlying idea or functional concept; in a constrained, functional design space, protection is narrow and infringement requires close similarity in protectable details.
- Even where prior copying is shown, a redesigned product that alters the protectable expressive elements may avoid infringement absent substantial similarity of protectable expression.
- Trade dress under Lanham Act § 43(a) requires proof that the dress is distinctive (including, where applicable, secondary meaning) and that the defendant’s use is likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship, or approval.
- The Lanham Act does not recognize “secondary meaning in the making”; a plaintiff must prove actual secondary meaning rather than an expectation that it will develop.
- New York unfair competition claims based on trade dress generally fail where the plaintiff cannot show protectable trade dress and confusion, and lack of proof of deliberate copying of the asserted dress weighs against relief.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the redesigned flat-to-cube puzzle did not likely infringe because plaintiffs failed to show substantial similarity of protectable expression, and it vacated trade dress injunctive relief because the asserted packaging had not acquired actual secondary meaning and “secondary meaning in the making” is not actionable under § 43(a) or parallel state law.


Laureyssens v. Idea Grp., Inc., 964 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1992)