## Facts

- Publications International, Ltd. (PIL) and Landoll, Inc. both published low-priced, mass-market cookbooks and children’s books sold through similar retail channels.
- PIL claimed Landoll copied the “overall look” of PIL’s books and asserted protectable trade dress under Lanham Act § 43(a) and parallel state unfair-competition law.
- PIL identified features such as uniform dimensions, gilded page edges, and oilcloth or similar covers as elements of its asserted trade dress.
- The competing books shared design elements typical of inexpensive, visually driven products, with many features influenced by cost, consumer appeal, and common industry practice.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Landoll; PIL appealed, and the court of appeals reviewed de novo.

## Issues

1. Whether PIL’s claimed “overall appearance” of its books constituted distinctive, nonfunctional trade dress protectable under Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether the record contained sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to find a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source.
3. Whether summary judgment for Landoll was proper on the Lanham Act and related state-law claims.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Landoll.
- PIL failed to show the asserted trade dress was distinctive, either inherently or through secondary meaning.
- The design elements PIL relied on were largely common or functionally/aesthetically driven features in the mass-market book field.
- PIL’s evidence of likely consumer confusion was inadequate to reach a jury.

## Legal Principles

- Unregistered trade dress under § 43(a) requires proof of (1) distinctiveness (inherent or acquired/secondary meaning), (2) nonfunctionality, and (3) likelihood of confusion.
- Product appearance is protectable only when it functions as a source identifier, not when it merely makes the product attractive or reflects common design conventions.
- Functionality limits trade-dress protection where exclusive rights would hinder competition by removing commonly needed or cost-justified product features from the market.
- Conclusory assertions of copying or similarity do not substitute for evidence of secondary meaning (e.g., consumer association) or likely confusion; weak showings can be resolved on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that PIL’s claimed “overall look” for inexpensive cookbooks and children’s books was not shown to identify PIL as the source and consisted largely of common, functionally or aesthetically motivated features; without concrete evidence of distinctiveness and likely confusion, PIL’s trade-dress and unfair-competition claims could not survive summary judgment.


Publications Int’l, Ltd. v. Landoll, Inc., 164 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 1998)