Abstract

     As our society develops, it produces new and different kinds of intangible goods. However, many of the mechanisms available to protect such goods date back hundreds of years and are inadequate and in desperate need of an overhaul in order to adapt to the new realities of our world. Overly rapid doctrinal expansion can result in negative collateral effects, such as lack of precisely defined standards and blurring of boundaries between doctrines. Such side-effects risk disturbing the delicate balance between free competition and protection that underlies the structure of our intellectual property laws. The growth of intellectual property protection must therefore involve a constant rebalancing between the interests of creators and those of the public at large.
     One of the areas that has undergone rapid change in recent years is protection of product design. Pressured by systemic demands for stronger protection mechanisms, judicial decisions have dramatically broadened the scope of protection, in particular in the area of trade dress law. Many of these decisions, however, are rendered in an immature doctrinal environment, characterized by the use of imprecisely defined concepts and doctrines that are incongruous with the needs of the intellectual property to be protected. This incongruity between problem and solution can create precedents that threaten the balance between free competition and protection. That balance can be restored, however, by limiting trade dress protection and implementing specialized design protection mechanisms. Legislative models for more closely tailored protection mechanisms exist, and should be considered.