<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>A listserv member asks to post anonymously ...</p>
<p>---</p>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span>Looking for any
case(s) (TTAB, District Court or Appellate Court) that held,
in a trade dress case either that:<br>
1) an element that replicates a conventional
functional element of an item is<span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>per se</i><span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span>deemed
functional and/or cannot be source-identifying;<span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
OR<br>
2) an element that only merely replicates a<span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif">conventional functional element of an item is</font>therefore
not functional and/or can<span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font
style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"
face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">be
source-identifying.<br>
<br>
For example, consider a computer PC keyboard that is
itself functional EXCEPT that what would be the F1 through
F12 keys at the top are actually permanent, molded,
non-working, non-moveable replicas. Can those fake F1
through F12 keys serve as the non-functional
source-identifying trade dress aspect or is that precluded
because they are a mere replica of functional items that
look like, and are placed, where one would expect the
functional items to be (and, hence, can't be source
identifying)?</font></font><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>