Protecting Product Packaging as Trade Dress under Florida and Federal Trademark Law

Shoppers often recognize a product before they read its name: the shape of a bottle, the color of a box, the pattern on a wrapper, the way a label is laid out. When those visual features identify the source of a product, the law calls them trade dress, and they can be protected much like a word mark.

Of all the forms trade dress can take, product packaging is the one the law protects most readily. The Supreme Court has held that a package can be inherently distinctive—protectable from the first day of sale—while the design of the product itself can never be, and must first earn recognition in the marketplace. For Florida companies selling food, beverages, cosmetics, spirits, supplements and consumer goods, that makes packaging one of the most valuable and most enforceable brand assets they own.

Florida brand owners can draw on two overlapping systems: federal law under the Lanham Act, and Florida law under Chapter 495 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the common law. This article compares the two, offers ten recommendations for Florida trade dress owners, and explains how design patents can protect the ornamental features of a package while trade dress rights develop.

The Federal Framework

Protection without registration: Lanham Act § 43(a)

Federal law protects trade dress whether or not it is registered. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), gives a civil claim against any use of a word, term, name, symbol or device that is likely to cause confusion about the source of goods, and courts have long applied it to packaging and product appearance. In the Eleventh Circuit, which hears appeals from the federal courts in Florida, a plaintiff must prove three things: that its trade dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning, that it is primarily non-functional, and that the defendant’s trade dress is confusingly similar. The court applied that test to the familiar Klondike ice cream bar wrapper in AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1986).

Unregistered owners carry one extra burden. Under § 43(a)(3), a plaintiff asserting unregistered trade dress must prove that the trade dress is not functional. A registered owner, by contrast, starts with a presumption of validity.

Distinctiveness: why packaging is different

Two Supreme Court decisions define the line:

• Inherently distinctive trade dress is protectable without secondary meaning. In Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992), the Court held that trade dress can be protected from first use if it is inherently distinctive.
• Product design is never inherently distinctive; packaging can be. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000), the Court held that a product’s design always requires proof of secondary meaning, while packaging may qualify as inherently distinctive. In close cases, courts are told to classify the trade dress as product design.

For packaging, the USPTO and many courts ask: (1) whether the design is a common or basic shape, (2) whether it is unique or unusual in its field, (3) whether it is a mere refinement of a well-known form of ornamentation for the goods, and (4) whether it creates a commercial impression separate from any accompanying words (Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). Color alone is never inherently distinctive. It is protectable only when it acquires secondary meaning overtime (Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995)).

Functionality: The Hard Limit

No amount of consumer recognition can protect a functional feature. Under TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), a feature is functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or affects its cost or quality, and an expired utility patent claiming the feature is strong evidence of functionality. Aesthetic features can also be functional when protecting them would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage. For packaging, this rules out shapes chosen because they stack, pour, seal or ship better, and colors that signal a product type (green for mint, for example).

Federal Registration

Packaging trade dress can be registered on the Principal Register, either as inherently distinctive or on proof of acquired distinctiveness under § 2(f). Functional matter is barred outright by § 2(e)(5). Registration adds:

• Nationwide constructive notice and priority from the filing date
• A presumption of validity and ownership that shifts the functionality burden to the defendant
• Incontestability after five years of continuous use, though functionality remains a defense even then
• The ability to record with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop infringing imports
• Access to counterfeiting remedies, including statutory damages.

Federal Remedies and Dilution

A successful plaintiff may obtain an injunction, with a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm since the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020. The defendant’s profits, damages up to three times actual damages, and costs, and attorneys’ fees in exceptional cases (15 U.S.C. §§ 1116–1117). Willfulness is not a precondition to an award of profits (Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. 212 (2020)).

Federal dilution protection under § 43(c) reaches only marks that are widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States, also known as “famous marks”. For unregistered trade dress, the owner must also prove that the trade dress as a whole is not functional and is famous apart from any registered marks it includes—a bar few packaging owners can clear.

The Florida Framework

Florida protects trade dress through three overlapping sources: state registration under Chapter 495, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the common law of unfair competition.

Chapter 495: the Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act

Chapter 495 is modeled on the Lanham Act and says so. Section 495.181 states that the chapter is meant to be substantially consistent with the federal system and that federal case law is persuasive authority in construing it. The chapter does not use the words “trade dress,” but its definition of a trademark—any word, name, symbol or device, or combination, used to identify and distinguish goods (§ 495.011(13))—tracks the federal definition that courts read to include packaging. Several provisions matter specifically for packaging owners:

• Use in Florida comes first. Only a person who uses the mark in Florida may apply, and the application must state the date of first use anywhere and first use in Florida (§ 495.031). A mark is in use on goods when it is placed on the goods, their containers or associated displays, or on tags or labels, and the goods are sold or transported in Florida (§ 495.011(14)). There is no intent-to-use filing.
• Functionality is an absolute bar. A mark comprising any matter that, as a whole, is functional cannot be registered, and acquired distinctiveness cannot overcome that bar (§495.021(1)(e)(5).
• Acquired distinctiveness can be presumed. The Department of State may accept five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use, in Florida or elsewhere, as prima facie evidence that a descriptive mark has become distinctive (§ 495.021).
• Registration is fast, cheap and short. The fee is $87.50 per class (§ 495.191). A registration lasts five years and is renewable for successive five-year terms, each renewal requiring a verified statement and specimen showing current use in Florida (§ 495.071). There is no opposition period; competing applications are prioritized by order of receipt (§ 495.035(7)).
• Online filing is coming. A 2026 amendment requires the Department to launch an online application system, including electronic specimens and drawings, by December 31, 2027 (§ 495.0315).

Infringement and Remedies under Chapter 495

Section 495.131 speaks directly to packaging. It makes liable anyone who, without consent, uses a copy or colorable imitation of a Florida-registered mark in a way likely to cause confusion, or who applies such an imitation to “labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, or advertisements.” For the second category, profits and damages require proof that the defendant acted knowingly.

The remedies in § 495.141 are notably strong:

• Injunctions and destruction of infringing goods
• The defendant’s profits, with the plaintiff required to prove only the defendant’s sales and the defendant bearing the burden of proving every cost or deduction
• Damages, which the court may increase up to three times actual damages
• Reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, in the court’s discretion, without the federal “exceptional case” requirement

Dilution: Famous in Florida

Florida’s dilution statute (§ 495.151) is the most significant practical difference from federal law. It protects marks that are famous in this state, considering factors such as recognition in Florida trading areas and channels of trade, Florida advertising, and whether the mark is registered in Florida or federally. A packaging design well known to Florida consumers but not nationally famous may still qualify here while failing federal § 43(c). Relief is limited to an injunction unless the defendant willfully intended to trade on the owner’s reputation or cause dilution. Full Chapter 495 remedies then follow, but only if the mark is registered in Florida.

FDUTPA and the Common Law

Chapter 495 expressly preserves common-law rights acquired in good faith (§ 495.161), so an owner of unregistered Florida trade dress can still sue for common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (§ 501.201 et seq.) adds a statutory claim for unfair or deceptive acts in trade, with actual damages and a discretionary award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party (§§ 501.211, 501.2105). Courts in Florida generally analyze these state claims under the same likelihood-of-confusion framework as the Lanham Act, so they are usually pleaded together with a federal § 43(a) claim.

Federal vs. Florida: Side-by-Side

Issue	Federal (Lanham Act)	Florida (Chapter 495, FDUTPA, common law)
Geographic reach	Nationwide; registration gives nationwide constructive priority	Florida only
Protection without registration	Yes, § 43(a)	Yes, common law (§ 495.161) and FDUTPA
Who may register	Users or applicants with bona fide intent to use in U.S. commerce	Only persons already using the mark in Florida
Functionality	Bar to registration (§ 2(e)(5)); unregistered owner must prove non-functionality (§ 43(a)(3))	Absolute bar to registration (§ 495.021(1)(e)5)
Acquired distinctiveness	Five years’ substantially exclusive use may be prima facie evidence (§ 2(f))	Same five-year rule, using use in Florida or elsewhere (§ 495.021)
Examination and challenge	Full examination, publication and 30-day opposition	Examination by Department of State; no opposition; cancellation only by court order
Government fee	US$350 per class (base)	US$87.50 per class
Term	10 years, renewable; declaration of use between years 5 and 6	5 years, renewable; proof of Florida use at each renewal
Abandonment	Presumed after 3 years’ non-use	Presumed after 3 years’ non-use (§ 495.011(1))
Infringement standard	Likelihood of confusion	Likelihood of confusion, construed consistently with federal law (§ 495.181)
Monetary remedies	Profits, damages up to 3x, costs	Profits (plaintiff proves sales only), damages up to 3x, costs
Attorney’s fees	Exceptional cases only	Discretionary to prevailing party (§ 495.141); also available under FDUTPA
Counterfeiting	Statutory damages and seizure for registered marks	Destruction of counterfeits; criminal law preserved
Dilution	Fame among the general consuming public of the U.S.; injunction, plus money if willful	Fame in Florida; injunction, plus money only if willful and Florida-registered
Border enforcement	CBP recordation for registered marks	None
Forum	Federal or state court	State or federal court (with supplemental jurisdiction)

The practical conclusion is that the two systems complement each other. Federal registration is the foundation for any brand sold beyond Florida or imported through Florida ports. A Florida registration is an inexpensive addition that unlocks state-law dilution remedies based on in-state fame and a more generous attorney’s fee provision.

Key Florida Cases on Packaging and Trade Dress

Most Florida trade dress disputes are litigated in federal court, where Lanham Act claims are paired with Chapter 495, FDUTPA and common-law claims. The decisions below, from the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit appeals arising from them, show how Florida courts actually decide packaging and related trade dress cases.

Case	Court	Trade dress	Result	Lesson
Carillon Importers, Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Group, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D. Fla. 1996), aff’d (11th Cir. May 15, 1997) (per curiam)	S.D. Fla.; 11th Cir.	Stolichnaya Cristall vodka: bottle shape and color, label design and graphics, overall color scheme	Preliminary injunction against a competing “Cristall” vodka; affirmed	A complete packaging image can support fast injunctive relief
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Monster Energy Co., No. 19-60809-CIV (S.D. Fla.) (summary judgment denied, 472 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (2020); final judgment after bench trial, Aug. 3, 2021	S.D. Fla.	BANG energy drink can: black can, bright flavor colors, large logo, ingredient call-outs	Judgment for Monster: not inherently distinctive, no secondary meaning, several features functional, no likelihood of confusion	Packaging that follows category conventions fails; define the dress precisely and keep it stable
Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC, 702 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2012)	11th Cir. (from S.D. Fla.)	Restaurant décor and presentation	Summary judgment for defendant affirmed; décor not inherently distinctive	Elements common to the category are not protectable
HI Ltd. Partnership v. Winghouse of Florida, Inc., 451 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2006)	11th Cir. (from M.D. Fla., Orlando)	Hooters restaurant trade dress, including server uniforms	Judgment as a matter of law for defendant affirmed	A “moving target” definition and functional features defeat the claim
Callaway Golf Co. v. Golf Clean, Inc., 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1737 (M.D. Fla. 1995)	M.D. Fla.	Appearance of Big Bertha golf clubs	Preliminary injunction granted on inherent distinctiveness	Pre-Wal-Mart; product design now needs secondary meaning
Mobile Shelter Systems USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC, No. 12-10829 (11th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013) (unpublished)	11th Cir. (from M.D. Fla., Jacksonville)	Product features	Summary judgment for defendant affirmed; features functional	Functional features never qualify, however recognizable

Southern District of Florida

Carillon Importers Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Group**, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D. Fla. 1996).** The exclusive U.S. importer of Stolichnaya Cristall vodka sued when a competitor began importing a vodka called Cristall Moscow Signature Series. The trade dress was the complete image of the product: bottle shape and color, label design, label graphics and overall color scheme. Judge Hurley granted a preliminary injunction and set a $50,000 bond, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. The case shows that a distinctive spirits bottle and label, taken as a whole, can support immediate relief in a Florida federal court.

Vital Pharms., Inc. (Bang) v. Monster Energy Co., 553 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (S.D. Fla. 2021). This Broward County dispute is the most detailed packaging trade dress decision from a Florida court in recent years, and the most cautionary. Bang’s maker claimed that Monster’s Reign energy drink copied the Bang can. Judge Altman denied summary judgment in 2020, but after a nine-day bench trial entered final judgment for Monster in August 2021. The court found that:

• The can was a mere refinement of category conventions. Black 16-ounce cans with bright, flavor-coded graphics, a large logo at the top and ingredients around the rim were common across energy drinks and closely resembled the original Monster Energy can.
• There was no secondary meaning. Bang offered no survey showing recognition of its dress; most of its advertising featured differently colored cans; it had changed its label several times; competitors used similar designs; and it had never enforced the dress before suing.
• Several elements were functional. Coding flavors by color, placing the logo high on the can so it shows in convenience-store glide racks, and listing key ingredients around the rim all served practical purposes.
• Confusion was unlikely. The different names and logos distinguished the products, the two claimed instances of actual confusion came from misplaced cans rather than the packaging, and Bang’s survey was found unreliable.
• The definition could not be changed after trial. The court refused Bang’s attempt to redefine its trade dress after the evidence closed, holding it to the elements it had stipulated to before trial.

Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC, 745 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Although it involved restaurant décor rather than a literal package, this Palm Beach County case applies the same inherent-distinctiveness analysis courts use for packaging. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment because the claimed features were common to sports bars generally.

Middle District of Florida

HI Ltd. P’ship (Hooters) v. Winghouse of Fla., Inc., 347 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (M.D. Fla. 2004). In Orlando, Judge Conway granted judgment as a matter of law against Hooters, finding that its trade dress had been a moving target throughout the case, that the décor elements were typical of Florida casual restaurants, and that the most prominent claimed element was primarily functional. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed for the reasons the district court gave.

Callaway Golf Co. v. Golf Clean, Inc., 915 F. Supp. 1206 (M.D. Fla. 1995). The court preliminarily enjoined look-alike golf clubs, finding the Big Bertha design inherently distinctive. That reasoning predates Wal-Mart and would not hold for product design today, which illustrates why classifying the trade dress as packaging rather than product design matters so much.

Mobile Shelter Sys. USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC, 505 Fed. Appx. 928 (11th Cir. 2013). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment from Jacksonville because the claimed product features were functional, citing its earlier holding in Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC, 369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004).

Florida State Courts

Florida’s state appellate courts have issued few reported decisions addressing packaging trade dress directly. In practice, the state-law framework comes from three places: Chapter 495 itself, which directs courts to treat federal Lanham Act decisions as persuasive authority (§ 495.181); the Florida Supreme Court’s definition of an “unfair” practice under FDUTPA as one that offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers (PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc., 842 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2003)); and the federal decisions above, which Florida state courts may consult when construing state trademark and unfair competition claims.

What Florida owners should take from these cases

• Win or lose on the definition. Bang and Hooters were both lost in part because the claimed trade dress kept changing. Fix the list of elements before filing suit, and do not leave out the most distinctive ones.
• Stand out from the category. Bang and Miller’s Ale House show that packaging which follows industry conventions, however successful the product, will not be inherently distinctive.
• Prove recognition of the dress itself. Sales and advertising help only if the advertising features the claimed packaging. A well-designed survey is often decisive.
• Expect a functionality fight over “practical” design choices. Color-coding, logo placement and ingredient call-outs can all be found functional.
• Strong cases still win fast relief. Carillon shows that Florida federal courts will grant preliminary injunctions to protect distinctive packaging as a whole.

Design Patents for Ornamental Packaging Features

Trade dress protects what consumers recognize. A design patent protects what a designer created, whether or not anyone recognizes it yet. For packaging, the two fit together closely.

What a design patent covers

Under 35 U.S.C. § 171, a design patent may be granted for a new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Bottles, jars, caps, tubs, boxes, blister packs and dispensers are all articles of manufacture, and so is the surface ornamentation applied to them. The patent protects how the article looks, as shown in its drawings, not how it works.

Why it matters for packaging owners

• No secondary meaning needed. A design patent is enforceable from the day it issues. That fills the gap for packaging that is not inherently distinctive and for product shapes, which under Wal-Mart always need secondary meaning before trade dress protection attaches.
• No likelihood of confusion needed. Infringement turns on whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the accused design substantially the same (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)). A copyist cannot escape by putting its own brand name on the package.
• Total-profit remedy. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, an infringer is liable for its total profit on the article of manufacture to which the design was applied. In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53 (2016), the Court held that the relevant article may be a component rather than the whole product—so for packaging, the question of whether the article is the container or the entire packaged product can drive the size of the award.
• Fifteen years, no maintenance fees. Design patents filed since May 13, 2015 last 15 years from grant, with no maintenance fees.

How Design Patents and Trade Dress Interact

The two rights can protect the same package at the same time, and they reinforce each other. A design patent is evidence that a design is ornamental rather than functional, which helps the trade dress functionality analysis—the opposite of a utility patent, which TrafFix treats as strong evidence of functionality. When the design patent expires, the design does not automatically fall into the public domain as a trademark matter: the predecessor to the Federal Circuit held that a design’s patent history does not prevent later trademark protection if the design has acquired distinctiveness (In re Mogen David Wine Corp., 328 F.2d 925 (C.C.P.A. 1964)). The design patent years are the window in which to build that distinctiveness.

Current USPTO costs and timing

	Large entity	Small entity	Micro entity
Filing, search and examination fees	$1,300	$520	$260
Issue fee	$1,300	$520	$260
Total government fees	$2,600	$1,040	$520
Maintenance fees	None	None	None

Timing has become the main constraint. The USPTO suspended its expedited design examination program (the “rocket docket”) on April 17, 2025, citing a surge in requests and erroneous micro-entity certifications, and eliminated it by final rule effective August 14, 2025. One practitioner analysis of recent grants found that clean design applications without the rocket docket took about 21 months on average from filing to grant, and longer when rejections or restriction requirements arose. Packaging owners should plan for roughly two years of pendency and file well before launch.

Limits to Keep In Mind

• Novelty deadlines. In the U.S., an inventor’s own public disclosure starts a one-year grace period; after that, the design is unpatentable. Many other countries are less forgiving, so file before showing the package at trade shows or online.
• Obviousness is now easier to argue. In LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (en banc), the Federal Circuit replaced its old, patentee-friendly obviousness test for designs with the general Graham framework used for utility patents. Designs that are close variations of existing packaging face a harder path.
• Functional features are excluded. A design dictated by function is not ornamental and cannot be patented, the same principle that limits trade dress.

Ten Key Recommendations for Florida Trade Dress Owners

1. Define your trade dress precisely, in writing. Courts routinely dismiss trade dress claims that describe the look of a product only in general terms. List the specific elements—shape, colors and their placement, typeface, pattern, finish—and how they combine. That description becomes the basis for every filing and lawsuit.
2. Design for distinctiveness, not just appeal. Avoid common shapes, industry-standard colors and layouts that copy category conventions. An unusual package can be inherently distinctive under Two Pesos and Seabrook, which means protection from launch rather than after years of sales.
3. Keep function out of the claimed elements. Do not claim features chosen because they pour, stack, seal, ship or cost less. Document the aesthetic reasons behind design choices, and keep internal and marketing materials from praising the utility of the features you plan to claim.
4. Register federally, with the right description. File on the Principal Register for any packaging used beyond Florida or imported through Florida ports. Registration shifts the functionality burden to the defendant, provides nationwide priority and unlocks Customs recordation and counterfeiting remedies.
5. Add a Florida registration. At $87.50 per class, a Chapter 495 registration is a low-cost supplement. It is the gateway to full monetary relief for dilution of a mark famous in Florida, and to the statute’s prevailing-party attorney’s fee provision.
6. Build and preserve evidence of secondary meaning. Use “look-for” advertising that points consumers to the package itself, track sales and advertising spend by year, collect unsolicited media coverage and keep examples of copying. Consider a consumer survey before litigation or a § 2(f) filing.
7. Use the trade dress consistently. Frequent redesigns reset the clock on recognition. When you refresh a package, keep the core claimed elements constant and phase changes in gradually.
8. Calendar both maintenance cycles. Florida registrations expire after five years unless renewed with proof of current Florida use; federal registrations need a declaration of use between years 5 and 6 and renewal every 10 years. Missing either deadline cancels the registration.
9. Police the market, especially private label. Store brands and online sellers are the most frequent imitators of successful packaging. Monitor retail shelves, marketplaces and USPTO filings, and send demand letters promptly; delay invites laches and weakens distinctiveness.
10. Plead every available claim when you enforce. A typical Florida complaint combines Lanham Act § 43(a) and, if registered, § 32 claims with Chapter 495 infringement and dilution, FDUTPA and common-law unfair competition. The state claims add Florida-specific fame, fee-shifting and remedies the federal claims may not reach.

Design Patent Recommendations for Packaging

• File before you show. Submit the design application before any trade show, crowdfunding page, social media teaser or retailer pitch. The U.S. one-year grace period is a safety net, not a strategy, and it will not protect you abroad.
• Budget for two years of pendency. With the expedited track gone, a design patent filed at launch may not issue until the package has been copied. Filing six to twelve months before launch narrows that gap.
• Claim at more than one level. File separate applications, or use continuations, for the overall container, for distinctive individual elements such as a cap, closure or embossing, and for the surface ornamentation. Use broken lines to disclaim ordinary features so the claim focuses on what is new.
• Think about the “article of manufacture” early. Because total-profit damages are measured on the patented article, describe and title the design so the article is defined as broadly as the design honestly supports.
• Coordinate with the trade dress strategy. Use the design patent years to build secondary meaning and keep the patented look consistent so it can carry over into trade dress when the patent expires.
• Mark the product. Marking the packaging with “Pat.” and the patent number, or with a virtual-marking web address, preserves the right to recover damages from the date of notice.
• Protect label artwork separately. Original graphics, illustrations and text on a label can also be registered for copyright, which adds statutory damages and requires no showing of consumer recognition.
• Consider international filings. The U.S. joined the Hague Agreement in 2015, allowing one international design application to cover many countries.

Questions about how to protect your consumer product via trade dress? Contact our Miami Trademark attorneys via email at [email protected] or call 305-374-8303.