Master The Supreme Court held that a single color can function as a trademark if it has acquired distinctiveness and is nonfunctional. with this comprehensive case brief.
Qualitex v. Jacobson Products is a foundational Supreme Court decision that opened the door for protecting single colors as trademarks under the Lanham Act. The Court rejected a categorical bar against color marks and clarified that color, like words, logos, and shapes, can serve as a source identifier so long as it has acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) and is not functional. This ruling harmonized trademark doctrine with modern marketing practices, where color can be a potent and efficient cue for brand identity.
The case also situates color marks firmly within the broader framework of trademark law by emphasizing two guardrails: distinctiveness and nonfunctionality. By doing so, the Court addressed policy objections (such as color depletion and shade confusion) and ensured that protection for color would not impair competition. Qualitex thus became a touchstone for litigants and courts assessing nontraditional trademarks and set the stage for later cases refining distinctiveness (Wal-Mart v. Samara) and functionality (TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays).
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995)
Qualitex Co. manufactured and sold dry cleaning press pads. Since the 1950s, it applied a distinctive green-gold color to the pads, and over time dry cleaning customers came to associate that specific color with Qualitex as the source. In 1989, Jacobson Products began selling similar press pads using a virtually identical green-gold hue. Qualitex observed confusion in the market and sued Jacobson in federal court for unfair competition and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, as well as related state-law claims. Around this time, Qualitex also sought and obtained federal registration of the green-gold color as a trademark for press pads and amended its complaint to include a claim for infringement of the registered mark. After a bench trial, the district court found that Qualitex's green-gold color had acquired secondary meaning—customers associated the color with Qualitex—and that Jacobson's use was likely to cause confusion. The court also found the color not to be functional in any legally relevant sense and enjoined Jacobson. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that color alone could not be registered or protected as a trademark, invoking concerns about color depletion and shade confusion, although it left room for certain unfair competition relief. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the Lanham Act permits protection of color per se as a trademark.
Does the Lanham Act permit a single color, standing alone, to serve as a trademark, and under what conditions may such a color be protected?
Under the Lanham Act, a trademark is any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, used to identify and distinguish the source of goods. A single color can qualify as a trademark if it has acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) and is not functional. The functionality doctrine bars trademark protection for product features that are essential to the use or purpose of the article or that affect its cost or quality (the Inwood Laboratories functionality test). Concerns about color depletion or shade confusion do not justify a per se ban on color marks; instead, ordinary trademark principles—distinctiveness, functionality, and likelihood of confusion—govern.
Yes. A single color can serve as a trademark under the Lanham Act when it has acquired secondary meaning and is nonfunctional. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's per se rule against color marks and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Text and breadth of the Lanham Act: The statute defines protectable marks broadly as any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, used to identify and distinguish the source of goods. The Court reasoned that a color may function as a symbol because consumers can come to identify a particular hue with a single source. Nothing in the Act's text excludes color, and administrative practice and modern trademark doctrine support treating color as potentially source-identifying. Distinctiveness through secondary meaning: The Court explained that colors typically do not start as inherently distinctive but can acquire distinctiveness over time as consumers learn to associate a color with a single producer. Evidence of secondary meaning can include consumer surveys, length and exclusivity of use, advertising that emphasizes the color, and instances of actual confusion. The district court's findings showed Qualitex's green-gold color had acquired such meaning. Functionality as a limiting principle: To protect competitive freedom, trademark law bars protection for functional features—those essential to a product's use or purpose or that affect cost or quality. Colors may be functional in some contexts (e.g., visibility for safety, heat absorption, standardization), and the Court gave examples where color conveys a utilitarian advantage or aesthetic compatibility that competitors need to use. But the district court found no such functional need for Qualitex's green-gold hue on press pads; any incidental advantages (like masking stains) were not shown to be uniquely served by that specific shade, and competitors had ample color alternatives. Policy objections rejected: The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's color depletion and shade confusion rationales as speculative and manageable within standard trademark doctrines. There are many shades available, and trademark law already copes with scarcity and closeness in meaning for words and symbols. Likelihood-of-confusion analysis, along with the presumptions favoring fair competition, can address shade proximity without a blanket prohibition. Because the Lanham Act's core purposes—reducing consumer confusion and protecting source-identifying symbols—are furthered by permitting color marks subject to distinctiveness and nonfunctionality, a per se ban was unwarranted.
Qualitex is the leading case establishing that single colors are eligible for trademark protection if they are nonfunctional and have acquired distinctiveness. It underscores two exam-critical pillars of trademark law: (1) nontraditional marks can be protected when they serve as source identifiers, and (2) the functionality doctrine prevents trademark from encroaching on features competitors legitimately need to use. The case also provides a framework for evaluating evidence of secondary meaning for colors and other nontraditional marks. For law students, Qualitex clarifies how statutory text, doctrinal guardrails, and policy concerns interact in trademark law. It also anticipates later Supreme Court refinements: Wal-Mart v. Samara (product design trade dress cannot be inherently distinctive and requires secondary meaning) and TrafFix Devices (reaffirming and strengthening functionality limits). Together, these cases form the backbone for analyzing nontraditional marks, trade dress, and the boundary between brand identity and competition on product features.
Not categorically. A company can claim trademark rights in a specific color for specific goods or services only if the color has acquired distinctiveness (consumers associate that color with a single source for those goods/services) and the color is nonfunctional. If competitors need the color for utilitarian or competitive reasons—such as visibility, standardization, or cost—functionality will bar protection.
Qualitex emphasizes that color, standing alone, typically requires proof of acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning). Unlike certain packaging trade dress or fanciful words that can be inherently distinctive, a single color rarely, if ever, inherently signals source. Evidence such as consumer surveys, advertising emphasizing the color, length and exclusivity of use, and actual confusion is commonly used to establish secondary meaning.
Functionality prevents trademark protection when a feature is essential to the use or purpose of a product or affects its cost or quality. For example, if a specific color provides a safety advantage, indicates heat resistance, standardizes a part, or confers a performance or significant aesthetic advantage that competitors need, the color is functional and cannot be monopolized through trademark. This ensures trademark does not impede competition.
The Court found these concerns speculative and manageable under existing doctrine. The color spectrum offers many shades, and trademark law already addresses closeness of marks through the likelihood-of-confusion analysis. Courts can calibrate the scope of protection to the distinctiveness and marketplace recognition of the claimed color, preventing overbroad monopolies while protecting genuine source-identifying uses.
Common evidence includes consumer survey results linking the color to a single source; long, exclusive, and consistent use of the color on the relevant goods; advertising and promotional materials that feature and 'call out' the color; sales success and market share; intent of copying by competitors; and instances of actual confusion tied to the color. Together, these can demonstrate that consumers rely on the color as a brand indicator.
Qualitex v. Jacobson Products is the Supreme Court's definitive statement that color alone can function as a trademark when it operates as a source identifier and does not impede competition. By rooting its analysis in the Lanham Act's capacious text and existing doctrines of distinctiveness and functionality, the Court harmonized trademark law with real-world branding practices.
For practitioners and students, the case offers a clear roadmap: ask whether the claimed color actually distinguishes source in the minds of consumers and whether protecting it would unduly hinder competitors by conferring a functional advantage. Those two inquiries—secondary meaning and nonfunctionality—remain the touchstones for evaluating color and other nontraditional trademarks.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →