Qualitex Company v. Jacobson Products Company

Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 · Property

514 U.S. 159 (1995)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTrademarkLanham ActColor MarksFunctionalitycolor trademarksecondary meaningfunctionality doctrine

Facts

Qualitex had used a special green-gold color on the press pads it sold to dry cleaning firms since the 1950’s. In 1989, Jacobson, a competitor, began selling similar press pads colored a similar green-gold shade. In 1991, Qualitex registered that special green-gold color on press pads as a trademark and added a trademark infringement claim to an unfair competition suit. The District Court found that the color had developed secondary meaning identifying Qualitex as the source and that there was no competitive need for that particular color because other colors were equally usable.

Issue

Whether the Lanham Act permits registration and protection of a trademark consisting purely and simply of a color. More specifically, the question is whether color alone is absolutely barred from trademark protection even when it identifies source and is nonfunctional.

Rule

The Lanham Act does not impose an absolute bar on color alone as a trademark. A color may be registered and protected when it acts as a symbol identifying and distinguishing a seller’s goods, has acquired secondary meaning, and is not functional, meaning its exclusive use would not put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage because the feature is essential to the use or purpose of the article or affects its cost or quality.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Alder Crest Tools has sold replacement heads for industrial mallets in a distinctive lavender coating for 18 years. Warehouse buyers now regularly order the products by asking for the 'lavender-head' version, and rival sellers have many other coating colors available that work just as well.

If a competitor begins selling nearly identical mallet heads in the same lavender shade, which is the strongest argument that Alder Crest may obtain trademark protection for the color alone?

Explanation. The governing rule is that color alone is not categorically barred from trademark protection. It may function as a trademark when it identifies and distinguishes the seller's goods through secondary meaning and is not functional. Here, buyers associate the lavender coating with a single source, and alternative colors are equally usable, so the best argument is that the color has secondary meaning and is nonfunctional.