The U.S. Supreme Court recently opted not to hear an appeal concerning the use of the color pink in hip joint implants, leaving in place a Federal Circuit ruling that the color is not protectable as trade dress because of its functional purpose. The appeal was brought forward by a German medical supplier, which argued that the pink hue of its implant parts should have intellectual property protection as a distinctive element of the product’s design. However, the courts determined that the color served a functional purpose, specifically in aiding surgeons to differentiate parts during procedures.
This decision aligns with the legal precedent that trade dress law does not protect colors essential to the use or purpose of a product. Color has often been a contentious issue in trademark disputes. While the Lanham Act allows colors to be protected if they achieve secondary meaning and are non-functional, the functionality doctrine acts as a barrier in cases where the aesthetic feature affects the cost or quality of the product.
In this case, the Federal Circuit found that the utility of the color in surgical settings outweighed its potential to indicate the source of the product. This ruling echoes other high-profile cases that have grappled with the complexities of color trademarking within the medical sector and beyond.
Such judicial reasoning can impact how companies in the medical device industry approach product design and branding strategies. Legal experts suggest that companies may begin to focus less on color branding in functional parts and instead lean more towards innovation and technical advancements to maintain competitive advantages.
This case highlights broader implications in intellectual property law, shedding light on the intersection of functionality and brand identity. As the medical technology sector continues to grow, these legal battles may prompt firms to re-evaluate how they seek protection over product features that blend utility with market differentiation.
For further reading on this issue, you can view the details of the case on Law360.