In the previous installment of the Cooler Wars, we explored how patents protect the functional aspects of a product and where those protections fall short. YETI, a well-established brand known for its premium outdoor products, initiated legal action against RTIC, a newer competitor, alleging in part that RTIC’s products too closely resembled YETI’s distinctive designs. One aspect of their dispute stemmed from YETI’s efforts to protect the unique visual identity it had cultivated in the highly competitive cooler market: their trade dress, which is our focus today.
While patents cover what a product does and how it works, trade dress protects how a product looks and feels. In competitive consumer markets, that distinction matters. Recent cases like Benefit and e.l.f. Cosmetics’ mascara showdown reinforced how courts evaluate these claims, including whether consumers are in fact confused, how products are packaged and sold, and if the alleged infringer actually intended to deceive. The court found no infringement on e.l.f.’s end, in part because its packaging prominently displayed its own branding, the products were sold in clearly separate channels, and beauty consumers were deemed savvy enough to tell the difference, despite some visual similarities.
The litigation between YETI and RTIC offers another useful lens: it shows how trade dress can be a strategic tool to protect brand identity and market share when applied consistently, backed by evidence, and pursued with precision.
Defining Trade Dress
Trade dress refers to the visual appearance of a product or its packaging – shape, color, texture, and overall look – that signals the product’s origin to consumers. It’s a subset of trademark law and serves the same core function: preventing consumer confusion in the marketplace.
Unlike utility patents and design patents, trade dress is broader and more flexible. It protects the whole aesthetic vibe, provided that the look is both distinctive and non-functional. That’s key: anything dictated by utility can’t be protected as trade dress.
The YETI drinkware design became recognizable over time. This recognition became the basis for asserting its trade dress rights, even without formal registration.
How Trade Dress Works (and Why it’s Tricky)
Trade dress rights can exist without registration, but registration strengthens a company’s position by providing legal presumptions in its favor. Still, many brands assert these rights without ever filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
That flexibility is both a strength and a weakness. On one hand, it allows for protection based on how the market perceives your product. On the other hand, it opens the door to disputes over exactly what’s being claimed. A vague or shifting description of trade dress can undermine a case. Courts and competitors will scrutinize whether a company is genuinely protecting a distinctive look or just trying to box out competition with undefined claims.
YETI appeared to navigate this challenge by consistently pointing to certain visual elements: curves, tapers, and visual relationships between design aspects. These weren’t random stylistic choices, they were repeated and promoted in advertising, giving them potential weight as identifiers of source.
Show and Tell: Proving Your Trade Dress
A successful trade dress claim often depends on the evidence: what has the company said about its product? What do consumers believe?
Advertising plays a big role. If a brand makes a big deal about having, let’s say, a certain color of sole for their shoes, and they consistently tell customers to “look for the red bottom,” and that red bottom becomes associated with the brand in the marketplace, it can form the basis of a trade dress claim. Survey evidence, sales data, unsolicited media attention, and consumer testimonials can all help establish that a product’s appearance signals its source.
In litigation, these facts matter as much as the design itself. They show the market impact of the design and how consumers interpret and respond to it. Without that, a trade dress claim may fall flat.
Intent Matters
Trade dress law centers on whether a product’s design is likely to confuse consumers and not necessarily whether a competitor intended to confuse them. Still, intent matters.
Discovery in these cases often uncovers communications that raise eyebrows. A request to “make it look just like theirs” could suggest intentional copying, which courts can consider when assessing consumer confusion. Even if the product isn’t a dead ringer, that kind of evidence can damage the defense and sway the case toward the plaintiff.
This is why brands need to be thoughtful when referencing competitors, even for legitimate reasons like matching dimensions for compatibility with third-party accessories. If there’s a reasonable explanation, it should be documented and clearly tied to function, not aesthetics.
Crafting a Cohesive Trade Dress Strategy
One of the biggest lessons from the YETI-RTIC fight is the importance of consistency. When asserting trade dress, a brand should be able to articulate exactly what it’s trying to protect and do so consistently across cease-and-desist letters, registration applications, and court filings.
Conflicting claims can erode credibility and suggest the company doesn’t really know what it’s protecting. This can be risky, especially if the case goes to court and prior claims are scrutinized in discovery.
Ideally, brands should not only file a formal trade dress registration (if possible) but also document their internal definitions. This helps ensure that marketing, legal, and product teams are aligned, and that future enforcement efforts don’t contradict each other.
Choose Your Battles
Even with strong trade dress claims, enforcement is as much a strategic decision as a legal one. Brands must consider the optics of enforcement, especially in a time where aggressive IP tactics can draw public backlash.
Not every case is worth pursuing. Sometimes it’s smarter to go after the “worst offender” with the cleanest facts, then use that win to discourage and intimidate lesser copycats. Picking the right target can make the difference between reinforcing your brand identity and being labeled a bully.
The End of the Cooler Wars
The battle between YETI and RTIC shows that when your product’s design becomes shorthand for your brand, defending it isn’t optional, it’s a strategic imperative for the long-term success of the business.
