# TMEP § 1202.02(a)(iii)(A): Functionality

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1202.02(a)(iii)(A)

## Section

- **Citation:** TMEP § 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)
- **Heading:** Functionality
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** USPTO TMEP / Chapter 1200 - Substantive Examination of Applications / TMEP § 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)

## Text

Functional matter cannot be protected as a
trademark.
15
U.S.C. §§1052(e)(5)
,
(f)
,
1064(3)
,
1091(c)
,
1115(b)
. A feature is functional as a matter of
law if it is "essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it
affects the cost or quality of the article."
TrafFix Devices,
Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.
, 532 U.S. 23, 32, 58 USPQ2d
1001, 1006 (2001) (citing
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods.
Co.,
514 U.S. 159, 165, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163-64 (1995));
Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc.
, 456 U.S.
844, 850 n.10, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10 (1982).
While some courts had developed a
definition of functionality that focused solely on "competitive need" –
thus finding a particular product feature functional only if competitors
needed to copy that design to compete effectively – the Supreme Court
held that this "was incorrect as a comprehensive definition" of
functionality.
TrafFix
, 532 U.S. at 33, 58 USPQ2d at
1006. The Court emphasized that where a product feature meets the
traditional functionality definition – that is, it is essential to the
use or purpose of the product or affects its cost or quality – then the
feature is functional, regardless of the availability to competitors of
other alternatives.
Id.
;
see also
Valu Eng'g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.
, 278 F.3d 1268,
1276, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Rather, we conclude that
the [
TrafFix
] Court merely noted that once a product
feature is found functional based on other considerations there is no
need to consider the availability of alternative designs, because the
feature cannot be given trade dress protection merely because there are
alternative designs available" (footnote omitted).)
However, since the preservation of
competition is an important policy underlying the functionality
doctrine, competitive need, although not determinative, remains a
significant consideration in functionality determinations.
Valu
Eng’g, Inc.
, 278 F.3d at 1278, 61 USPQ2d at 1428
ature cannot be given trade dress protection merely because there are
alternative designs available" (footnote omitted).)
However, since the preservation of
competition is an important policy underlying the functionality
doctrine, competitive need, although not determinative, remains a
significant consideration in functionality determinations.
Valu
Eng’g, Inc.
, 278 F.3d at 1278, 61 USPQ2d at 1428.
The determination that a proposed mark is
functional constitutes, for public policy reasons, an absolute bar to
registration on either the Principal or the Supplemental Register,
regardless of evidence showing that the proposed mark has acquired
distinctiveness.
See
TrafFix
, 532 U.S. at 29-33, 58 USPQ2d at 1005-07;
In re MK Diamond Prods., Inc.
, 2020 USPQ2d 10882,
at *18-19 (TTAB 2020) (quoting
In re Honeywell, Inc.
,
187 USPQ 576, 578 (TTAB 1975));
see also In re Controls
Corp. of Am.
, 46 USPQ2d 1308,
1312 (TTAB 1998)
(rejecting applicant’s claim that "registration on the
Supplemental Register of a de jure functional configuration is
permissible if the design is ‘capable’ of distinguishing applicant’s
goods"). Thus, if an applicant responds to a functionality refusal under
§2(e)(5) of the Trademark Act,
15
U.S.C. §1052(e)(5)
, by submitting an amendment
seeking registration on the Supplemental Register that is not made in
the alternative, such an amendment does not introduce a new issue
warranting a nonfinal Office action.
See
TMEP §714.05(a)(i)
. Instead, the
functionality refusal must be maintained and made final, if appropriate,
under §23(c) and §45 of the Act,
15
U.S.C. §§1091(c)
,
1127
, as that is the statutory authority
governing a functionality refusal on the Supplemental Register.
Additionally, for functionality refusals, the associated
nondistinctiveness refusal must be withdrawn.
See In re Heatcon,
Inc.
, 116 USPQ2d 1366,
1370 (TTAB 2015)
.
See
TMEP
§§1202.02(a)(v)–(a)(v)(D)
regarding
evidentiary considerations pertaining to functionality refusals.

## Nearby sections

- [TMEP § 1201 Ownership of Mark](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.md)
- [TMEP § 1201.01 Claim of Ownership May Be Based on Use By Related Companies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.01.md)
- [TMEP § 1201.02(a) Identifying the Applicant Properly](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.02(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.02(c) Correcting Errors in How the Applicant Is Identified](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.02(c).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.02(d) Operating Divisions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.02(d).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.02(e) Changes in Ownership After Application Is Filed](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.02(e).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.03(a) No Explanation of Use of Mark by Related Companies or Applicant’s Control Over Use of Mark by Related Companies Required](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.03(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.03(b) Wholly Owned Related Companies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.03(b).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.03(c) Common Stockholders, Directors, or Officers](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.03(c).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.03(e) License and Franchise Situations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.03(e).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.04 Inquiry Regarding Parties Named on Specimens or Elsewhere in Record](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.04.md)
- [TMEP § 1201.05 Acceptable Claim of Ownership Based on Applicant’s Own Use](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.05.md)
- [TMEP § 1201.06(a) Applicant Is Merely Distributor or Importer](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.06(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.06(b) Goods Manufactured in a Country Other than Where Applicant Is Located](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.06(b).md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1202.02(a)(iii)(A). Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.