IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D.N.J.: Loudspeaker components may or may not qualify as trade dress, but more detail will be needed, (Mar 5, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The company will have to explain why its design choices were made for aesthetic as opposed to functional reasons.

The Italian maker of a series of allegedly distinctive electrical components for loudspeakers did not explain in sufficient detail why its design choices were “aesthetic or ornamental, rather than useful,” the federal court for the District of New Jersey has found. The court, in denying with leave to amend the company’s trade dress complaint against a Florida competitor, emphasized that it would have to do a better job of explaining what aspects or features of the design were “a choice, as opposed to necessary for or integral to any similar speaker” (B&C Speakers S.P.A. v. PRV Audio Group, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-03017-KSH-JSA (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2026)).

The lawsuit was brought by B&C Speakers, the Italian maker of loudspeaker components known as “transducers.” (Used in this context, the transducer is the component of the speaker that translates electric signal into sound waves. Think: woofers, tweeters, and subwoofers.) The company sells multiple speaker products with designs that it refers to as the “B&C Speaker Basket Design.” It highlights as an example a 12- inch woofer identified by product number 12NDL76, which interested readers can view here.

B&C came to believe that a company called PRV Audio Group, a Brazilian-born but now Florida-based loudspeaker maker, was marketing a series of products that infringed upon its protected trade dress. The Italian company (and its New Jersey subsidiary) filed a four-count complaint against PRV, alleging trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and under New Jersey law, along with statutory and common law variants of trademark infringement and unfair competition.

PRV moved to dismiss the complaint, leading to this opinion.

Trade dress. The court dismissed the complaint, albeit with leave for B&C to amend. A plaintiff asserting a trade dress claim, the court noted, must plead that “(1) the allegedly infringing design is non-functional; (2) the design is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning; and (3) consumers are likely to confuse the source of the plaintiff’s product with that of the defendant’s product.” Critically, the court noted, Third Circuit caselaw requires a plaintiff to also describe the trade dress with specificity; “that is, “to articulate the specific elements which comprise its distinct dress.” This description, the court emphasized, “should show that the plaintiff is seeking protection of visual elements of its business rather than protection of an unprotectable style, theme or idea.”

B&C failed to meet this threshold, the court found. B&C described its “unique design” as including “pairs of tapering and arching support arms” that “terminate at the magnetic motor mount” and “extend to the circular front mounting flange” along with “a pattern of ribs” and “evenly spaced obround holes” that “extend around the mounting flange.” Assuming that this description was sufficiently detailed to meet the Third Circuit’s criteria for specificity, the court noted, “plaintiffs have a fundamental problem: the complaint fails to plead facts showing that their trade dress is non-functional.” As a consequence, the court noted, “dismissal is warranted.”

The problem with the complaint, the court emphasized, was that it did not give enough information to enable it to infer that the highlighted features were “aesthetic or ornamental, rather than useful.” Rather, the court noted, the complaint merely “conclusorily assert[ed]” that the design at issue did not “provide any functionality to the speaker.” For example, the court noted, the complaint asserted that “support arms and holes may offer functionality in general,” but that “tapering and arched arms and evenly-spaced oblong holes do not.” But “the purpose of support arms as part of a speaker is not apparent,” the court observed, “so whether ‘tapering and arched’ arms are a design choice or a function choice is similarly unclear.” Nor was it apparent from the complaint, the court noted, “what aspects or features of the [d]esign were a choice, as opposed to necessary for or integral to any similar speaker.”

B&C’s other arguments were similarly unavailing, the court found. For example, B&C pointed to the fact that PRV sells other speakers without the same design as evidence that the design features “are not required.” But this “does not move the needle,” the court noted, “because the features included or excluded in those other speakers is left unspecified.” Moreover, the court found, the fact that B&C received a European Union Community Design Registration was “unhelpful as presented” because the parties disputed what the existence of that registration indicates and the standards for its issuance, “and in any event, the exhibit is entirely in Italian.” B&C would have to add additional detail in an amended complaint if it wanted to continue with the case.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-03017-KSH-JSA.

Judge: Hayden, K.

Attorneys: Alan Frederick Kaufman (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP) for B&C Speakers, NA, LLC. Kelly Magnus Purcaro (Greenspoon Marder, LLP) for PRV Audio Group, Inc.

Companies: B&C Speakers, NA, LLC; PRV Audio Group, Inc.

Cases: Trademark NewJerseyNews