When companies think about intellectual property protection, they often focus on the product itself while overlooking the packaging that consumers often notice first.  Yet for many consumer brands, distinctive packaging drives purchasing decisions, reinforces brand identity, and can be as recognizable as the product contained inside (just look at the recent example of Heinz-labeled products being partially covered during the FIFA World Cup – the products were still fully-recognizable as Heinz products based on their packaging designs even with the Heinz trademarks covered, a fact that the Heinz company cleverly benefitted from in its marketing materials).  From beverage containers to cosmetics, electronics, and household goods, packaging is increasingly becoming a valuable competitive asset that deserves its own protection strategy.

Many businesses assume that trademark protection focused on names, logos, and slogans alone is sufficient.  The challenge is that trade dress rights in packaging often require proof that consumers associate the packaging design with a single source, a standard that can take years and substantial marketing investment to establish. By contrast, a design patent can provide immediate protection for a new and ornamental package design without requiring proof of secondary meaning, making it an attractive early-stage tool for brand owners.

Thus, the strongest protection strategies for packaging designs often combine multiple forms of intellectual property.  A company may begin with a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a package, develop trademark rights in logos and other branding elements, and ultimately establish trade dress rights in the packaging itself as consumers come to recognize its distinctive appearance.  Rather than viewing these rights as alternatives, companies should consider how they can work together to create overlapping layers of protection that are more difficult for competitors to circumvent.

As product categories become increasingly crowded and knockoff goods proliferate through online marketplaces, packaging may offer one of the most effective opportunities to create and protect brand differentiation.  The companies that treat packaging as a protectable business asset—rather than merely a container in which their goods are sold—may be best positioned to build durable competitive advantages and stronger enforcement options against imitators.

The Quarles design rights legal team is nationally recognized for its extensive knowledge and practice experience in this complex and important field. For questions about this article or how to incorporate design-related legal rights into your intellectual property portfolio, please contact the author(s) of this post directly or send a message to the team via our Contact page. To subscribe to our mailing list and receive updates that highlight issues currently affect the design rights legal field, click here

On March 13, 2026, and effective immediately, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of “Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons” in the Federal Register (“Supplemental Guidance”), with application to all design patent applications filed before, on, or after March 13, 2026. In short, the Supplemental Guidance establishes that when the title and claim identify a computer, computer system, or computer display panel as the article of manufacture, there is no longer a requirement to depict that article of manufacture in the drawing or drawings to ensure that a claimed design of a computer-generated interface or icon for that article of manufacture is patent-eligible subject matter. The Supplemental Guidance also opens the door for standalone design protection of projected, holographic, and virtual and augmented designs that appear on or are generated by an electronic device.

Continue Reading Leave the Article, Take the Design: USPTO Updates Guidance for Digital Designs to Drop the Depiction Requirement for Computer Screens

Each year on March 5, the U.S. design community celebrates National Industrial Design Day, a moment to recognize the professionals behind the products we use every day. First entered into the U.S. Congressional Record in 2015, the day acknowledges that industrial designers improve our lives in countless ways by shaping products that are not only functional, but also visually distinctive and commercially valuable. For businesses, great design is more than aesthetics; it is a strategic asset. Thoughtfully-designed products drive consumer recognition, brand loyalty, and significant revenue across industries.

Continue Reading Happy National Industrial Design Day

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announced on February 10, 2026 that it has added a new category to its Trademark Design Search Code Manual for sound and motion marks. The Manual now includes new Category 30, which adds seven codes to enable trademark applicants and practitioners to more readily identify relevant sound and motion marks in clearance searches.

Continue Reading USPTO Adds New Design Search Codes for Sound and Motion Trademarks

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Range of Motion Products v. Armaid is another reminder that, if care is not taken, design patent scope can be narrowed significantly in the U.S. through functionality analysis—often at the claim construction stage—and even result in summary judgment of non-infringement. 

Continue Reading When “Functionality” Swallows Design Rights: A Caution for Design Patent Applicants

For many product-focused companies, design often is the product.  Differentiation lives in surface ornamentation, overall look-and-feel, and visual details that drive purchasing decisions often long before utility is evaluated.  Against that backdrop, many brands are reexamining copyright law as a faster, more flexible tool for protecting product aesthetics.

Continue Reading The Growing Role of Copyright in Product Design Protection

As we wrote about recently here, Examiners continue to rely on the USPTO’s current guidance on the definiteness standard set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018), that ignores the Federal Circuit’s broader instruction—reasonable certainty is all that is required to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, not the specific type or quantities of views that the Applicant has chosen to use. 

Continue Reading Another Step Forward: Further Updates on In re Maatita and Design Definiteness