Nevermind... it says under conclusion
"Plaintiffs do point to testimony that people within
the mask industry, including defendant, were aware that Don Post Studios made
DPTM. This evidence says nothing, however, about why consumers buy DPTM to wear
on Halloween night. Lacking any evidence demonstrating that DPTM’s features are
source-indicative rather than aesthetic, see id., the court finds that DPTM has
not acquired secondary meaning within § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ trade dress claim fails
because plaintiffs have not shown that DPTM has acquired secondary meaning. For the reasons stated above, the court finds that
plaintiff’s copyright in DPTM is invalid because DPTM lacks the requisite
originality. The court also finds that defendant created its mask independent
of plaintiffs’ DPTM. Finally, plaintiffs’ trade dress infringement claim fails
because DPTM has not acquired secondary meaning"
"Plaintiffs do point to testimony that people within
the mask industry, including defendant, were aware that Don Post Studios made
DPTM. This evidence says nothing, however, about why consumers buy DPTM to wear
on Halloween night. Lacking any evidence demonstrating that DPTM’s features are
source-indicative rather than aesthetic, see id., the court finds that DPTM has
not acquired secondary meaning within § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ trade dress claim fails
because plaintiffs have not shown that DPTM has acquired secondary meaning. For the reasons stated above, the court finds that
plaintiff’s copyright in DPTM is invalid because DPTM lacks the requisite
originality. The court also finds that defendant created its mask independent
of plaintiffs’ DPTM. Finally, plaintiffs’ trade dress infringement claim fails
because DPTM has not acquired secondary meaning"