INGRID & ISABEL Ruling: Website designs are protected by the Federal Trademark Law, the Northern District Court of California decides
公司网站网页设计受商标保护——至少有一个联邦法庭如此决定
美国北加州地方法院十月在Ingrid & Isabel, Inc. v. Baby Be Mine的案子中决定，原告I&I 与被告BBM 经营相似的服装零售业，I&I指责BBM故意复制它的网页，侵犯了它的商业装饰——在美国属于商标保护的范畴。美国北加州地方法院认为I&I的网页确实应该属于商业装饰范畴，因为网页的设计对吸引顾客很重要。因此，I&I的网页应该受商标法保护。美国北加州地方法院的决定，很可能开启商标保护网页设计的新篇张
A website’s distinctive appearance, layout, and design qualities—its “look and feel”—are often the most important tools through which a company can make a first impression on consumers and effectively market its brand. Now, according to one federal court, companies can use trademark law to protect the unique look and feel of their websites from imitators. As a result of this ruling, companies should consider registering their websites as trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”).
THE INGRID & ISABEL RULING
In Ingrid & Isabel, Inc. v. Baby Be Mine, LLC, No. 13-01806 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently ruled that the look and feel of a website used to market and sell products and services can constitute protectable trade dress under Section 43 of the Lanham Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (2012). Trade dress, a derivative of trademark law, protects the total image of a business or product, including the arrangement of identifying features such as graphics, packaging, designs, shapes, colors, textures, and décor.
Here, the plaintiff, Ingrid & Isabel, Inc. (“I&I”), and the defendant, Baby Be Mine, LLC (“BBM”), operated competing retail websites specializing in maternity clothing. I&I alleged that BBM had intentionally copied, in an attempt to imitate I&I, many specific characteristics of I&I’s website, including:
- the use of a logo in a “feminine script in pastel pink-orange hue”;
- photographs of models posed in similar positions, “featured from head to mid-thigh, wearing white tanks with jeans, with long naturally wavy hair”; and
- the colors, patterns, fonts, and wallpaper used throughout I&I’s website.
The court first determined that I&I adequately stated a claim for trade dress infringement by identifying elements of its website that, taken together, could comprise protectable trade dress. Instead of presenting a general description, I&I cited specific components of its website’s design. In the court’s view, I&I’s allegations of similarity were more specific than those raised by plaintiffs in previous cases in which courts have rejected website “look-and-feel” claims.
