In 2007, Shutter Shades, Inc. released a modern slatted-sunglasses design and secured both a patent for the design and a U.S. trademark for the phrase “Shutter Shades.” The branding effort came after the style had already circulated through 1980s pop culture, including appearances in Simple Minds’ 1982 music video for “Glittering Prize,” Animotion’s 1984 video for “Obsession,” and the public persona of professional wrestler Macho Man Randy Savage. The term later became even more widely associated with Alain Mikli’s custom eyewear for Kanye West and West’s appearance in the 2007 music video for “Stronger.” In 2015, however, a New York court ruled that “shutter shades” had become a generic term at least by 2009, limiting the company’s ability to treat the phrase as an exclusive brand identifier. The dispute illustrates a recurring fashion-industry problem: a company may attempt to convert a widely circulating style name into proprietary intellectual property, only to lose trademark distinctiveness when consumers use the term to describe an entire category of products rather than one source.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
The Shutter Shades Trademark Battle and the 2015 Generic-Term Ruling
Shutter Shades, Inc. / 2010s
In 2007, Shutter Shades, Inc. released a modern slatted-sunglasses design and secured both a patent for the design and a U.S. trademark for the phrase “Shutter Shades.” The branding effort came after the style had already circulated through 1980s pop culture, including appearances in Simple Minds’ 1982 music video for “Glittering Prize,” Animotion’s 1984 video for “Obsession,” and the public persona of professional wrestler Macho Man Randy Savage. The term later became even more widely associated with Alain Mikli’s custom eyewear for Kanye West and West’s appearance in the 2007 music video for “Stronger.” In 2015, however, a New York court ruled that “shutter shades” had become a generic term at least by 2009, limiting the company’s ability to treat the phrase as an exclusive brand identifier. The dispute illustrates a recurring fashion-industry problem: a company may attempt to convert a widely circulating style name into proprietary intellectual property, only to lose trademark distinctiveness when consumers use the term to describe an entire category of products rather than one source.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.
