Yeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC, 1:15-cv-00597

Background

YETI sued RTIC over trade dress; secondary meaning dispute. RTIC designated marketing professor Peter Golder as an expert to opine that YETI’s trade dress lacks secondary meaning and to rebut YETI experts.
YETI moved under Daubert to exclude Golder’s report and testimony, arguing he ignored required Fifth Circuit factors, used an unrecognized methodology, and failed to consider YETI’s sales and advertising data.
RTIC defended Golder, asserting he considered relevant materials (including YETI experts’ reports), applied reliable marketing methodology appropriate for a marketing expert, and that omission of every Smack Apparel factor goes to weight not admissibility.
The magistrate applied Daubert/Kumho principles, focusing on whether Golder’s methodology had a reliable analytical connection to his conclusions rather than whether he addressed every enumerated factor.
The court concluded Golder’s methodology and reasons for discounting sales/advertising were sufficiently explained and admissible; any gaps go to cross-examination and weight. The Daubert motion was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Golder failed to apply required Fifth Circuit secondary-meaning factors	Golder ignored consumer surveys and defendant’s intent to copy—factors in Smack Apparel—so his opinion is legally deficient	An expert need not address every Smack Apparel factor; omissions affect weight, not admissibility; he considered relevant evidence	Court: Excluding for failure to address every factor is unsupported; omissions go to weight and cross-examination; testimony admissible
Whether Golder’s analytical framework is unreliable because it is novel and rarely used	Golder’s framework was used only once before and he could not identify courts using it, undermining reliability	Novel methodology is acceptable for marketing expertise; Daubert factors may be inapplicable; focus is on analytical fit between method and conclusion	Court: Daubert/Kumho do not require prior judicial use; sufficient analytical connection exists; admit testimony
Whether Golder ignored YETI’s sales and advertising expenditure data	Golder failed to consider or disclose YETI’s sales/advertising figures, suggesting cherry-picking and unreliability	Golder considered and discounted those figures (found advertising undermined secondary meaning; sales tied to brand name not trade dress); he articulated reasons	Court: Expert explained why he discounted the data; lack of detailed recitation in report does not render methodology unreliable; admit testimony
Whether any methodological shortcomings warrant exclusion under Daubert	Plaintiff argues methodological gaps and omissions render opinion speculative and inadmissible	Defendant says perceived gaps go to credibility and weight; rigorous cross-examination suffices	Court: Daubert exclusion not warranted; speculative/contradicted assumptions go to weight, not admissibility; motion denied

Key Cases Cited

Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage, 608 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2010) (defines trade dress and purpose of protection)
Smack Apparel, 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008) (lists seven-factor test for secondary meaning)
Wal–Mart Stores v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205 (2000) (discusses source-identifying function and secondary meaning principles)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (sets admissibility reliability framework for expert testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (applies Daubert to non-scientific expert testimony)
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (requires analytical gap be examined; focus on fit between methodology and conclusion)
Sunbeam Prods. v. West Bend Co., 123 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 1997) (survey evidence relevant but not dispositive for secondary meaning)
Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983) (factors considered in combination; none alone necessarily determinative)
Sugar Busters LLC v. Brennan, 177 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999) (discusses association of mark with single source)
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 65 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1995) (addresses limited value of raw advertising dollars in secondary-meaning analysis)
Clinchfield R. Co. v. Lynch, 784 F.2d 545 (4th Cir. 1986) (courts may admit non-quantitative expert methodologies)
Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000) (court’s gatekeeping focuses on pertinence and soundness of methodology, not correctness)