Schutte Bagclosures Inc. v. Kwik Lok Corp.
699 F. App'x 93
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Kwik Lok, a U.S. manufacturer of plastic bag closures, sued Schutte Bagclosures Inc. and its Dutch parent after Schutte sought to enter the U.S. bag-closure market; the dispute concerned trade dress and a U.S. trademark registration ('043 Registration).
- Schutte sought declarations that its products do not infringe or dilute Kwik Lok’s trade dress, that the ’043 Registration is invalid, and cancellation of that registration.
- Kwik Lok counterclaimed for trade dress infringement, unfair competition, trade dress dilution under the Lanham Act, common-law unfair competition, and injury to business reputation under NY law.
- The district court held a bench trial and concluded Kwik Lok’s claimed trade dress is functional (thus not protectable) and that there was no likelihood of confusion between the products; the court entered judgment for Schutte.
- Kwik Lok appealed, challenging the functionality finding, the no-likelihood-of-confusion ruling, the district court’s evidentiary exclusions (PTO submissions), and the district court’s treatment of the PTO registration.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, applying clear-error review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions, and rejecting Kwik Lok’s arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schutte) | Defendant's Argument (Kwik Lok) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kwik Lok’s bag-closure trade dress is functional (thus unprotectable) | Schutte: trade dress is functional; thus cannot be protected or enforced | Kwik Lok: trade dress nonfunctional; PTO registration supports protectability | Held: trade dress is functional; not protectable; district court’s finding affirmed |
| Whether Schutte’s products likely cause confusion with Kwik Lok’s trade dress | Schutte: no likelihood of confusion between designs | Kwik Lok: consumers will be confused; Polaroid factors favor confusion | Held: no likelihood of confusion under Polaroid factors; affirmed |
| Whether PTO’s registration and submissions establish protectability | Schutte: PTO registration is not determinative of non-functionality | Kwik Lok: PTO registration and submissions warrant weight for protectability | Held: district court permissibly gave limited weight to PTO registration and excluded certain PTO submissions; no error |
| Whether district court abused evidentiary discretion by excluding PTO materials | Schutte: exclusion appropriate; materials irrelevant or cumulative | Kwik Lok: exclusion prevented consideration of important evidence supporting non-functionality | Held: no abuse of discretion; evidentiary rulings within permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- Process Am., Inc. v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC, 839 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2016) (standards for reviewing bench-trial factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (multifactor likelihood-of-confusion test)
- Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 426 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2005) (review approach for weighing Polaroid factors)
- Crawford v. Tribeca Lending Corp., 815 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)