Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, Inc.
702 F.3d 1312
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Miller’s operates about fifty Florida restaurants using distinct names with an ale house prefix; the term 'ale house' is central to claims.
- Boynton Carolina opened a Carolina Ale House in Boynton Beach under LM Restaurants’ license, near Miller’s Boynton Ale House.
- Boynton Carolina renovated interior adopting many Miller’s design features, including red branding and staff uniforms, but exterior/interior appearances remain differentiated in key aspects.
- Miller’s sued in Florida federal court asserting Lanham Act and copyright claims; district court granted summary judgment for Boynton Carolina on all claims.
- Miller’s appeals arguing issue preclusion, lack of inherent distinctiveness for trade dress, and substantial similarity of floor plans.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews de novo and affirms summary judgments; generic nature of 'ale house' under prior Fourth Circuit ruling is central.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'ale house' is protectable and whether issue preclusion bars Miller’s claim. | Miller’s seeks protection for unregistered mark; argues non-generic status and updated public perception. | Term remains generic per Ale House Mgmt.; preclusion applies to the same issue. | Affirmed: term is generic; issue preclusion applies. |
| Whether Miller’s trade dress is inherently distinctive under Lanham Act § 1125(a). | Composite interior/layout elements are distinctive and protectable as trade dress. | Common, non-unique features are mere refinements of standard design; not inherently distinctive. | Affirmed: no inherent distinctiveness; trade dress not protectable. |
| Whether Boynton Carolina’s floor plan infringes Miller’s copyright in Floor Plan Five. | Floor plan similarities show copying of protectable arrangement. | Differences in layout are dramatic; similarities exist only at a broad conceptual level. | Affirmed: no substantial similarity at the level of protectable expression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ale House Mgmt., Inc. v. Raleigh Ale House, 205 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2000) (generic status of 'ale house' bars protectable interest)
- Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2011) (unregistered trademark can violate § 1125(a))
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (U.S. 2008) (issue preclusion standards and related principles)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Empls., 327 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (rules for applying collateral estoppel)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2000) (trade dress distinctiveness and non-functionality principles)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (U.S. 1992) (distinctiveness framework for trade dress (contextual))
- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) (spectrum of distinctiveness for marks)
- Brooks Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 716 F.2d 854 (11th Cir. 1983) (Seabrook test for inherent distinctiveness of trade dress)
- Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2008) (thin protection for architectural works; protectable expression)
- Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2008) (copyright protectable architecture elements; substantial similarity standard)