Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995)
Qualitex v. Jacobson Products is a foundational Supreme Court decision that opened the door for protecting single colors as trademarks under the Lanham Act.
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.
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.