<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    I would look into the Honeywell thermostat cases. IIRC, Honeywell
    was originally denied registration for its round thermostats because
    they were fuctional, but later obtained registration because as the
    result of a change in technology the shape was no longer dictated by
    the function.<br>
    <br>
    Pam<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
      Chestek Legal<br>
      300 Fayetteville Street<br>
      Unit 2492<br>
      Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
      (919) 800-8033<br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
      <br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/2/2024 12:05 PM, Carl Oppedahl via
      E-trademarks wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:5b0ab3cb-057b-41e9-a19b-889fc00d7833@oppedahl.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <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>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>