Katherine Kromberg on Unsplash

Protectable Subject Matter (p. 26-29)

Overview: The "Anything" Standard

In U.S. law, the scope of what can be protected as a trademark is remarkably broad. The U.S. Supreme Court has famously stated that a trademark includes "almost anything at all that is capable of carrying meaning"

1. Statutory Basis: Lanham Act § 45 (15 U.S.C. § 1127)

The statutory definition of a "trademark" includes:

• Word (文字)
• Name (名稱)
• Symbol (記號)
• Device (裝置/設計)
• Any combination thereof (上述之組合)

2. Core Functions of a Mark

• Source-Indicating Function (指示來源)
• • The primary goal is to tell the consumer where the product comes from
  • even if the specific manufacturer is anonymous
• Distinguishing Function (識別功能)
• • To distinguish the goods of one person from those of others.

Categories of Protectable Subject Matter

1. Trademarks and Service Marks (標章與服務標章)

Under the Lanham Act, the legal standards for both are essentially identical.

• Trademarks: Used for tangible goods (有形商品)
• Service Marks: Used to identify services (e.g., Google for search services, McDonald's for restaurant services).

2. Certification and Collective Marks (證明標章與團體標章)

• Certification Marks: Used by someone other than the owner to certify quality, materials, or origin (e.g., "Grown in Idaho" for potatoes).
• Collective Marks: Used by members of a cooperative, association, or other collective group (e.g., "CPA" for accountants).

3. Trade Dress and Product Configurations (營業表徵與產品構型)

• Trade Dress: The overall image and appearance of a product or business. It can include the design of a restaurant interior or the specific shape of a bottle (e.g., Coca-Cola bottle).
• Requirement: Must be Non-functional (非功能性).

4. Unorthodox Marks (非傳統標章)

The U.S. protects marks that appeal to senses other than sight:

• Color: Protected if it develops Secondary Meaning (後天識別性).
• Fragrance/Scent: e.g., plumeria-scented sewing thread (雞蛋花香味的縫紉線????)
• Sound: e.g., the NBC chimes or the MGM lion roar.
• Taste/Texture: Theoretically possible, though extremely rare and difficult to prove non-functionality.

Key Principles

• Broad Interpretation
• • The "Device" category in § 45 is the "catch-all"
  • that allows the U.S. to protect non-traditional marks like scent and color.
• The "Meaning" Requirement
• • It doesn't need to be "beautiful" or "original" (unlike Copyright)
  • it just needs to mean something to the consumer in terms of source.

什麼是商標？（By Gemini）

本段重點在於打破「商標只能是 Logo」的刻板印象。在研讀後續 Case 時，請隨時回想這幾頁的基礎：「只要消費者能把它當作來源指標，它就是商標。」

Taiwan Law Comparison (台灣法補充)

• 定義範圍: 台灣商標法第 18 條的定義與美法 § 45 非常相似，皆採「開放式列舉」。台灣法目前亦接受文字、圖形、記號、顏色、聲音、立體形狀等。
• 概念對照:
• • Trade Dress: 台灣法將其歸類為「立體商標」或「顏色商標」，或是透過《公平交易法》第 22 條保護著名之「表徵」。
  • Service Marks: 台灣法早年區分商標與服務標章，但現行法已統一稱為「商標」，僅在分類上區分商品與服務類別。
• 差異提醒: 美國法非常強調 "Common Law Use"。即便你沒有向 USPTO 申請註冊，只要你在商業上開始使用該標識，你就擁有一定的商標權利。台灣則是嚴格的「註冊主義」，沒註冊就沒有商標權（僅能透過公平法救濟）。

V. THE TRADEMARK HIERARCHY – DISTINCTIVENESS SCALE

A. Descriptive and Suggestive Marks

1. Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. (p. 37-41)

Overview

• Facts:
• • Plaintiff (Zatarain's) owned the registered mark "FISH-FRI" for fried-fish batter (炸魚的麵糊，Mix Batter).
  • Defendants used "Fish Fry" on their competing products.
• Issue:
• • Whether "FISH-FRI" is suggestive (inherently distinctive)
  • or descriptive (requires secondary meaning).
• Holding:
• • The court found "FISH-FRI" to be Descriptive.
  • It established Four Tests for classification:

Step-by-Step Conclusion: FISH-FRI Analysis

Step 1: Dictionary Test

• • Finding: The dictionary defines "fish fry" as a "social gathering where fried fish is served" or the act of frying fish.
  • Result: The term directly identifies the function and purpose of the batter. It leans heavily toward being Descriptive.
• Step 2: Imagination Test
• • Finding: A consumer seeing "FISH-FRI" on a package of batter requires zero "mental leap" to understand that the product is used to fry fish.
  • Result: Because the relationship between the term and the good is immediate and direct, the mark lacks the "imagination" required for Suggestive status.
• Step 3: Competitor's Need Test
• • Finding: "Fish fry" is a common term in the culinary industry. Stripping competitors of the right to use this term would unfairly hinder (阻礙) their ability to describe their own fish-batter products.
  • Result: There is a high "competitive need" for the term, which confirms its status as Descriptive.
• Step 4: Third-party Use Test
• • Finding: Evidence showed that numerous other companies in the food industry used the term "fish fry" to describe similar batter mixes and breading.
  • Result: Extensive use by others reinforces (強化) that the term is a standard industry description rather than a unique brand identifier.

台灣法

• 與《商標法》§29I一款相同 (識別性)
• 不具先天識別性，需有後天識別性（§29II）

B. Colors

1. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (p. 141-147)

• Facts:
• • Qualitex used a unique "green-gold" color for its dry cleaning press pads
  • Jacobson started using a similar color.
• Holding:
• • Color alone can be protected as a trademark.
  • However, color is never inherently distinctive.
  • Protection is only available upon a showing of Secondary Meaning.
• Taiwan Law:
• • Article 18 explicitly allows "color" as a trademark.
  • TIPO guidelines generally treat single colors as lacking inherent distinctiveness, requiring proof of secondary meaning through extensive use.
  • 顏色可為商標，但永遠不具先天識別性 (避免壟斷)，須證明第二意義。

C. GENERICISM (商標通用化)

1. Filipino Yellow Pages v. Asian Journal Publications Inc.

• Holding:
• • The court ruled that "Filipino Yellow Pages" was generic
  • because it merely combined a referent to an ethnic group (指某個族群，Filipino) with the generic name of the product (Yellow Pages).
  • The combination did not create a new, source-identifying meaning.
  • 中文摘要：菲律賓人 + 黃色頁面 = 通用 + 通用

2. Murphy Door Bed Co., Inc. v. Interior Sleep Systems Inc.

• The Concept of Genericide (商標通用化):
• • A process where a once-valid trademark loses its distinctiveness
  • because the public uses the term as the common name for the product itself.
• The Evidentiary Burden (舉證責任):
• • The court looked at dictionary definitions (字典定義), newspaper/magazine usage (媒體用法), and even the plaintiff's own patent applications (專利申請書) to show that "Murphy Bed" had become the standard term for a wall-bed.
• Holding:
• • When a term enters the dictionary as a common noun
  • it is extremely difficult for the owner to claim it still functions as a trademark
  • The mark is "dead" in the eyes of the law.
• 補充：
• • 墨菲床（Murphy Bed），又稱隱形床、壁床，是一種可以折疊隱藏進牆面、櫥櫃或書櫃中的多功能床

3. In re Cordua Restaurants Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

• The Primary Significance Test: What is the primary significance of the term to the relevant public?
• Holding: Even if a term is not the only name for a product, if it primarily refers to a class of goods/services (如："Churrasco" 指涉某一種燒烤), it is generic.

4. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. (p. 74-88)

Overview

• Rejection of the "Per Se" Rule (硬性公式):
• • The USPTO argued that "Generic Word + .com" should automatically be generic.
  • The Supreme Court (Ginsburg, J.) rejected this, stating that the law must reflect Consumer Perception (消費者認知).
• The Distinctiveness of Domain Names:
• • Unlike a generic word alone, a Domain Name (網域名稱) is unique, only one entity can own "Booking.com" at a time.
  • Consumers are more likely to perceive ".com" as indicating a business entity (商業實體).
• Holding:
• • If consumers do not perceive "Booking.com" as a name for the entire class of online hotel reservation services, it is not generic.
  • It was classified as Descriptive and protectable due to Secondary Meaning.
  • 本案屬之，多數消費者認為這是指示特定廠牌

Step-by-Step Conclusion: Booking.com Analysis

1. Determine the Relevant Public
2. • Analysis: Who are the consumers of online travel services?
   • Answer: General internet users
2. Primary Significance Test
3. • Question: Does the public refer to any travel site as "a booking.com"? (大眾會認為此名稱組合，是隨意一家訂房網站的網域嗎？)
   • Result: No. Consumers use the term to refer to one specific platform.
3. Evaluate "Generic + TLD" Structure (TLD = 頂級網域名稱)
4. • Analysis: Does adding ".com" to a generic word create a source-identifier?
   • Result: Yes, because a domain name is functionally exclusive (唯一性). It is not like "Beer, Inc." or "Wine, Co." which anyone could theoretically use as a trade name.

• Final Holding:
• • Booking.com is Descriptive (with secondary meaning), NOT Generic.

Dissenting Opinion by Justice Breyer (Summary)

The "Anti-Monopoly" Concern

• Breyer argues that adding ".com" to a generic word does not change its generic nature.
• Giving one company a trademark over "Booking.com" is equivalent to giving them a monopoly over the common English word "booking" in the digital marketplace.

Competitive Advantag

• He fears this will hinder competitors who also provide "booking" services from using similar domain names or descriptions, leading to unfair litigation risks.

The "1-800-GENERIC" Analogy (類比電話號碼)

• Breyer believes domain names are like 1-800-GENERIC telephone numbers
• they are functional routing devices (addresses，指路) that identify a location, not necessarily a source of goods.

筆記日期：2026/03/11
資料來源：Barton Beebe TRADEMARK LAW (V12, An Open-Access Casebook)
揭露聲明：此筆記，係由筆者與Gemini共同彙編完成，有誤歡迎指正交流 ～