Scott S. Christie (argued), McCarter & English, Newark, NewJersey, for the plaintiffs-appellants.James C. Martin, Charles H. Dougherty, Jr., Donna M. Dobl-ick (argued), Clay P. Hughes, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania; Carina M. Tan, Reed Smith LLP, Palo Alto,California; Ivy Y. Mei, The Law Offices of Ivy Y. Mei,Mountain View, California, for the defendant-appellee.
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:Although “[p]rotection of trade dress, no less than of trade-marks, serves the [Lanham] Act’s purpose,”
Two Pesos, Inc.v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
, 505 U.S. 763, 774 (1992), that protec-tion does not extend to designs that are functional. We con-sider here whether a traction hoist manufactured by Secalt,S.A., and Tractel, Inc. (collectively “Tractel”) qualifies fortrade dress protection. We agree with the district court thatTractel did not meet its burden to establish nonfunctionalityand affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of JiangsuShenxi Construction Machinery Co. (“Jiangsu”). We affirmthe district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Jiangsu uponfinding that this is an “exceptional” case meriting fees. Whilethe line delineating “exceptional” cases under the Lanham Actmay be murky, this action falls squarely within the realm of exceptional cases contemplated by the Act.
S.A. v. W