Full opinion text
OPINION BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This case pits an old hand at trademark law against the new kid on the block: Abercrombie & Fitch sued American Eagle Outfitters to stop American Eagle from infringing what A & F describes as its unregistered “trade dress,” made protecta-ble by Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. A & F claimed that AE impermissibly copied the designs of certain articles of clothing, in-store advertising displays, and a catalog. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American Eagle, reasoning that Abercrombie & Fitch had sought protection for something that did not constitute trade dress at all. Abercrombie timely appealed. Today “we relieve A & F of some of its unhappiness but not of all.” Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir.1976). We affirm the judgment of the district court, albeit for different reasons: the clothing designs A & F seeks a monopoly on are functional as a matter of law, and therefore not protectable as trade dress; the A & F Quarterly constitutes non-functional distinctive trade dress, but the American Eagle catalog is not confusingly similar to it, as a matter of law. I Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (“Abercrombie” or “A & F”) describes itself as a “retailer of men’s and women’s casual clothing, such as t-shirts, outerwear, sweatshirts, woven shirts, sweaters, jeans, khakis, shorts, baseball caps, belts, socks, and other accessories ... designed primarily to appeal to young men and women of college age.” It sells its products nationwide through 157 retail stores and a mail-order catalog under the registered trademarks and service marks ABER-CROMBIE & FITCH, A & F CO, A & F, and variations thereof. Founded in 1892, Abercrombie was acquired by The Limited, Inc., in 1988. Since then, it has enjoyed a remarkable rejuvenation of its brand, selling in excess of $1.4 billion in merchandise (through June 1998) and expending more than $26 million on marketing its brand, including advertisements in national and fashion magazines. A & F identifies an “Abercrombie brand” as having “unique and inherently distinctive features” and refers to such as its trade dress. This trade dress, Aber-crombie claims, comprises nine features: 1) Use of the Abercrombie marks, in particular the A & F trademark in Universe Bold Condensed typeface. 2) Use of the word performance on labels and advertising and promotional material to convey the image of an active line of casual clothing. 3) Use of such words and phrases as authentic, genuine brand, trademark, and since 1892 on labels and advertising and promotional material to convey the reliability of the Abercrombie brand. 4) Use of the word outdoor on labels and advertising and promotional materials to convey the image of a rugged outdoor line of casual clothing. 5) Use of design logos, such as the ski patrol cross and lacrosse sticks, and product names for the types of clothing, such as “field jersey,” to convey the image of an athletic line of casual clothing. 6) Use of primary color combinations, such as red, blue, grey, tan, and green in connection with solid, plaid, and stripe designs, to create a consistent design and color palette. 7) Use of all natural cotton, wool, and twill fabrics to create a consistent texture palette. 8) The creation of a cutting edge “cool” image through photographs and advertising and promotional material, such as the A & F Quarterly (the “catalog” or “Quarterly”). The Quarterly presents the Aber-crombie brand and trade dress in a unique manner: namely, it features the Aber-crombie brand and trade dress in a “cutout” or “clothesline” style and uses color bars to illustrate the available colors of the item, while combining a consistent conceptual theme with a lifestyle editorial content of music, electronics, books, and magazine features. The catalog is printed on cougar vellum paper, which is unique for a catalog. 9)The creation of a consistent merchandise look in A & F stores through the use of in-store signage and display setups and through the use of the “Abercrombie sales associate team,” which is comprised primarily of college students. See Compl. ¶7. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (“American Eagle” or “American”), sells essentially the same variety of clothing and products in its 300 stores nationwide, under the trademarks and service marks AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS and AE, and generates approximately $300 million in annual sales. American has been a retailer since at least 1994, although many of its products describe the company’s vintage as 1977. Abercrombie accuses American of capitalizing on the former’s success in the market by selling confusingly similar products and marketing them in a way confusingly similar to Abercrombie’s image. A & F asserts that its premiere issue of the Quarterly, the Fall 1997 issue, was copied by American Eagle, whose own catalog featured the same products (such as shirts, jeans, sweatshirts, boxer shorts, sweater vests, jackets, and pajamas), containing the same colors, having the same designs, being made from the same fabrics, and bearing the same product names (e.g., “vintage” sweatshirts and “field jerseys”). A & F also claims that the paper, page layouts, lifestyle editorial content, manner of displaying merchandise, and typeface in American’s catalog are identical or confusingly similar to the Quarterly. Abercrombie introduced a memorandum from American marketing executives directing American store managers to inspect the windows, lead table, and lease-line signs of Abercrombie stores every week and report on A & F’s presentation. (“Attention store manager-We need you to tell us what Abercrombie & Fitch is marketing!!!”). During litigation in the district court, American declined to contest the allegation that it intentionally copied the various aspects of Abercrombie’s claimed trade dress enumerated in the complaint. On June 2, 1998, Abercrombie filed suit in the district court claiming that American infringed upon its unregistered trade dress, in violation of § 43(a) of the Lan-ham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the Ohio common law of trade dress protection and unfair competition, and the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.R.C. § 4165.01 et seq. American served its Answer on August 3, 1998, and simultaneously filed its motion for summary judgment. On November 30, 1998, the district court granted in part American’s motion to stay discovery: the court ruled that discovery on the issue of American’s intentional copying was inappropriate during the pendency of American’s summary judgment motion because American had admitted intentional copying for purposes of the motion, but the court permitted discovery on the question of use of similar designs and marketing approaches by third-party retailers, which issue American raised in its motion. On July 12, 1999, the district court granted American’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The court recognized that unregistered trade dress protection can extend to “the image and overall appearance of the product.” The court described trade dress as 1) either a singular feature or combination of features that takes on a distinct arrangement, 2) intended by the maker to permit the public to identify it as coming from a particular source, and 3) having a tendency to do so. The court noted that trade dress is pro-tectable under either of two circumstances: the dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning. The district court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Abercrombie’s arrangement of words, colors, and format had acquired secondary meaning, but reasoned that the motion turned on the question of whether the elements described in Abercrombie’s complaint constituted trade dress at all. According to the district court, trade dress protection is not available when a) the means of dressing the product is functional or descriptive, or b) the claimed trade dress amounts to an abstract image or marketing approach. The court concluded that, regardless of any public identification of the claimed trade dress with Abercrombie, “it is simply too descriptive and generic to qualify for Lanham Act protection.” The court remarked, “retailers must be free to use common verbal or pictorial descriptions of their goods ... [including] such matters as showing the clothing in ‘cutout’ fashion ... using combinations of standard colors ... universally-recognized patterns ... and common fabrics ... in clothing design and manufacture.... All of these factors are both generic and descriptive.... ” The Court recognize[d] that a combination of generic or descriptive elements can sometimes create a unique look that is protectable, but there is nothing arbitrary or fanciful, or in any way distinctive, about the combination of these elements in a clothing catalog that would make the whole of the “Abercrombie Brand,” at least as it relates to the descriptive language, color combinations, and cutout style, something more than the sum of its non-protectable parts. That observation applies equally to the use of words claiming that the clothing is “authentic” and the use of A & F’s own trademark.... The court lastly considered the “element of the Abercrombie Brand” comprising its method of appealing to the “cool” or “cutting edge” consumer by adding lifestyle content to its catalog, and held that “the concept of marketing products to ‘cool’ or ‘cutting edge’ consumers by appealing to other aspects of their lifestyle [is not] pro-tectable.” The court entered judgment for American. A & F moved for reconsideration, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), introducing certain email messages as evidence of consumer confusion. The court doubted whether the evidence was newly discovered, but examined and rejected it as irrelevant to the district court’s judgment, which turned not on secondary meaning or confusion but on the unprotectable nature of Abercrombie’s claimed trade dress. Aber-crombie timely appealed. II We turn first to a threshold issue: the timing of summary judgment. “[S]ummary judgment is improper if the non-movant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery.” Vance v. United States, 90 F.3d 1145, 1148 (6th Cir.1996) (citing White’s Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Buchholzer, 29 F.3d 229, 231-32 (6th Cir.1994)); accord Plott v. General Motors Corp., 71 F.3d 1190, 1195 (6th Cir.1995) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n. 5, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). The non-movant bears the obligation to inform the district court of its need for discovery, however. This court reviews for abuse of discretion a claim that summary judgment was prematurely entered because additional discovery was needed, and the argument is not preserved for appeal unless it is first advanced in the district court. See Vance, 90 F.3d at 1149 (citing Plott, 71 F.3d at 1196). Thus, before a summary judgment motion is decided, the non-movant must file an affidavit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) that details the discovery needed, or file a motion for additional discovery. If he does neither, “this court will not normally address whether there was adequate time for discovery.” Plott, 71 F.3d at 1196. If the non-movant makes a proper and timely showing of a need for discovery, the district court’s entry of summary judgment without permitting him to conduct any discovery at all will constitute an abuse of discretion. See White’s Landing Fisheries, 29 F.3d at 231-32. Although American filed its answer, its summary judgment motion, and its motion to stay discovery simultaneously, the district court resolved the two motions separately. In responding to the motion to stay discovery, which the court addressed first, Abercrombie filed neither a Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) affidavit nor requests for additional discovery. However, its memorandum in opposition to the motion explained its need for discovery and cited White’s Landing Fisheries, 29 F.3d at 231-32, in support of its position that staying discovery would prejudice its ability to respond to American’s summary judgment motion. Abercrombie has preserved the issue of adequate discovery for our review because requiring, as a part of its response to the summary judgment motion, a Rule 56(f) affidavit, a fresh motion for new discovery, or recitation of arguments rejected by the district court in the order staying discovery simply to preserve the matter would ignore Abercrombie’s arguments in opposition to the simultaneously filed motion for stay and unduly exalt form over substance. Making the arguments once is enough. The district court’s November 30, 1998, order granting American’s motion to stay discovery recited the Court’s view that additional evidence of intentional copying at this stage [beyond American’s limited admission] would not add materially to the Court’s analysis of the protectability of A & F’s trade dress as placed in issue by American Eagle’s summary judgment motion. Under all of these circumstances, the Court believes that the best course of action is to defer discovery of highly sensitive and competitive information until after this threshold question [of the existence of protectable trade dress] has been addressed. Abercrombie argues that, beyond evidence of intentional copying, it sought “discovery concerning the uniqueness of the Abercrombie Trade Dress, which had acquired secondary meaning among consumers, and concerning the likelihood of confusion with the American Trade Dress.” Appellant’s Br. at 39 (emphasis added). Abercrombie believes further discovery would have substantiated its claims that a) American intentionally copied the Abercrombie trade dress to capitalize on its goodwill, b) consumers perceive the Abercrombie trade dress as being unique to Abercrombie, and c) American’s consumers are actually confused as to whether there is an association between the two companies. See Appellant’s Br. at 41. Abercrombie correctly argues that such evidence would have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Abercrombie had protectable trade dress, but it fails to realize that such evidence would have done so by demonstrating the existence of distinctiveness acquired through attachment of secondary meaning. Since the record already contained extensive uncontested evidence of secondary meaning, such discovery prior to the district court’s resolution of American’s motion would have been unnecessarily duplicative. Abercrombie needed no further discovery to oppose American’s motion, and the motion was ripe for resolution at the time the district court considered it. Because this opinion resolves the case in certain ways not expressly addressed by the district court, we note that none of the facts A & F wished to discover goes to the question of functionality, and, as discussed infra pages 37-44, the fact of actual consumer confusion here would not create a genuine issue of material fact on the question of confusing similarity of the parties’ catalogs because we presently resolve a legal question and hold them not confusingly similar as a matter of law. Ill A This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275, 279-80 (6th Cir.1997). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The court will view the facts, and all inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Carp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The non-moving party, in answering a properly supported motion for summary judgment, must show a genuine issue necessitating trial. See Fox v. Van Oosterum, 176 F.3d 342, 347 (6th Cir.1999). Such an issue exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Because this court’s de novo review involves only application of legal propositions to the undisputed facts in the record, we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the reasons of the district court. See Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767, 772 (6th Cir.2000) (en banc) (citing Andrews v. Ohio, 104 F.3d 803, 808 (6th Cir.1997)); City Management Corp. v. United States Chem. Co., 43 F.3d 244, 251 (6th Cir.1994); Russ’ Kwik Car Wash, Inc. v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 772 F.2d 214, 216 (6th Cir.1985). See also WSM, Inc. v. Tennessee Sales Co., 709 F.2d 1084, 1086 (6th Cir.1983) (holding that the likelihood of trademark confusion can be a question of law appropriate for determination on a motion for summary judgment). B Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), protects from infringement the unregistered “trade dress” of a product. As explained more fully below, to recover for trade dress infringement under § 43(a), a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: 1) that the trade dress in question is distinctive in the marketplace, thereby indicating the source of the good it dresses, 2) that the trade dress is primarily nonfunctional, and 3) that the trade dress of the competing good is confusingly similar. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 210, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 146 L.Ed.2d 182 (2000); see also Ferrari S.P.A. Esercizio Fabriche Automobili E Corse v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235, 1239 (6th Cir.1991). The first two elements are the requirements for protectability, and the third element is the standard for evaluating infringement. As an initial matter, this case calls upon us to resolve a conceptually precedent question: What type of “thing” can, if it satisfies the two protecta-bility criteria, qualify as trade dress? In the words of the district court, is what A & F described in its complaint “ ‘trade dress’ at all”? “ ‘Trade dress’ refers to ‘the image and overall appearance of a product.’ It embodies ‘that arrangement of identifying characteristics or decorations connected with a product, whether by packaging or otherwise, [that] make[s] the source of the product distinguishable from another and ... promotefs] its sale.’ ” Ferrari, 944 F.2d at 1238-39 (quoting Allied Mktg. Group, Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 812 (5th Cir.1989), and Mr. Gasket Co. v. Travis, 35 Ohio App.2d 65, 299 N.E.2d 906, 912 n. 13 (Ohio Ct.App.1978)). Trade dress “ ‘involves the total image of a product and may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, or even particular sales techniques.’ ” Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 764 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) (quoting John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 980 (11th Cir.1983) (citing Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 831 (11th Cir.1982) (“adoption procedures used by [plaintiff] in the sale of its dolls qualify as protectable trade dress”), and SK & F Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc., 481 F.Supp. 1184, 1187 (D.N.J.1979) (stating that “[t]rade dress is a complex composite of features” including, inter alia, size, col- or, texture, and graphics, which must “be considered together, not separately”), aff'd, 625 F.2d 1055 (3d Cir.1980))). As the Second Circuit observed, recently “ ‘trade dress’ has taken on a more expansive meaning and includes the design and appearance of the product as well as that of the container and all elements making up the total visual image by which the product is presented to customers.” Jeffrey Milstein, Inc. v. Greger, Lawlor, Roth, Inc., 58 F.3d 27, 31 (2d Cir.1995). Ferrari similarly endorsed a very broad concept of trade dress, one that went beyond the products’ packages and designs. See Ferrari, 944 F.2d at 1238-39. According to McCarthy On Trademarks § 8:4, trade dress has been held to include such things as: the cover of a book, a magazine cover design, the use of a lighthouse as part of the design of a golf hole, the “G” shape of a Gucci watch, a combination of features of a folding table, a fish-shaped cracker, the “Marlboro Man” western cowboy motif, and, most notably for our purposes, the layout and appearance of a mail-order catalog, see Tools USA & Equip. Co. v. Champ Frame Straightening Equip., 87 F.3d 654 (4th Cir.1996). Because we can conceive of no “thing” inherently incapable of carrying meaning, any “thing” can come to distinguish goods in commerce and thus constitute a mark within the meaning of the Lanham Act. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995). In short: any “thing” that dresses a good can constitute trade dress. Protectability is another matter entirely. Still, the notion that any “thing” that dresses a good can constitute trade dress cannot be divorced from the underlying concept of trade dress law: protection of effable markers used to identify the source of a good in commerce. Although producers and marketers of goods can adopt and seek to protect a seemingly infinite variety of product packages and product configurations, the recognition that trade dress can comprise “any thing,” “ ‘even particular sales techniques,’ ” Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 764 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2753 (quoting John H. Harland Co., 711 F.2d at 980), should not be taken to mean that a company can protect a product’s marketing theme or any other incorporeal aspects of the good incapable of being perceived by the senses. The aura about a product, the cachet that ownership or display of it creates, and the kind of appeal it has to certain consumers do not dress a good in trade. Rather, those intangible “things” emanate from the good, its dress, and the marketing campaign that promotes the dressed good. Trade dress is tangible or otherwise objectively observable by the senses; its constitution is a matter of subjective interpretation. Lest we lose sight of the body of law here in question, that of trade dress, we are reminded that certain “things” held out as “dress” are not dress at all. Hans Christian Andersen, The Emperor’s New Clothes (Naomi Lewis, trams., Candlewick Press, 1997) (1837). With this in mind, we turn to American’s argument and the district court’s holding that Abercrombie seeks to protect its marketing theme. American, like the district court, draws a contrast between trade dress and a “marketing approach.” See generally Haagen-Dazs v. Frusen Gladje, Ltd., 493 F.Supp. 73, 75 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Haagen-Dazs and the Eighth Circuit’s Prufrock are the leading cases distinguishing between protectable trade dress and a “mere method or style of doing business.” Prufrock Ltd. v. Lasater, 781 F.2d 129, 131-32 (8th Cir.1986), abrogated in part by Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 765, 112 S.Ct. 2753. In Prufrock, the district court had defined the plaintiffs trade dress as “a full service restaurant, serving down home country cooking, in a relaxed and informal atmosphere, with a full-service bar, and which employs all or any of [eight specifically described] items.” Id. at 131. The Eighth Circuit held that inclusion of the “‘core concept’ of Prufrock’s restaurant” in an injunction defined its trade dress too broadly because “[t]he concept of informal country dining is merely the method Pru-frock has chosen to market its restaurant services.” Id. at 131-32. Regardless of whether the specifically described elements were entitled to trade dress protection through inherent or acquired distinctiveness, the restaurant’s overall theme, informal country dining, could not acquire such protection. Similarly, the Haagerir-Dazs court concluded that, despite the plaintiffs’ identification of five common features on two ice cream packages, “the containers in issue, as well as their dress, [were] clearly distinguishable and would appear so to all but the most obtuse consumer.” Haagerir-Dazs, Inc., 493 F.Supp. at 75. With no likelihood of actual confusion, the plaintiff could not prevail on an elemental or “overall appearance” trade dress claim, so it tried to convert evidence that Frusen Gladje had copied certain unprotectable trade dress into a much broader claim that Haagen Dazs had a right to exclusive use of its Scandinavian concept. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed “to appreciate the difference between an attempt to trade off the goodwill of another and the legitimate imitation of an admittedly effective marketing technique. In fact, plaintiff attempted] to significantly broaden its protected ‘trademark’ to include its so-called ‘unique Scandinavian marketing theme.’ ” Ibid. Because a marketing theme cannot constitute trade dress, the court refused to enjoin Frusen Gladje from trading on Nordic imagery. Abercrombie describes its trade dress as creating a variety of different images: “an active line of casual clothing,” “a rugged line of casual clothing,” “an athletic line of casual clothing,” and “a cutting edge ‘cool’ Abercrombie image.” But Abercrombie does not claim a monopoly on a cutting edge “cool” image. Instead, Abercrombie seeks protection of the design features that it claims have combined to become distinctive of its goods in commerce. For example, in describing one element included as part of its overall trade dress, Aber-crombie lists “use of the word outdoor on labels and advertising and promotional material to convey the image of a rugged outdoor line of casual clothing.” Compl. ¶ 7(d). Fairly understood, Abercrombie does not seek to forbid American from marketing clothes that convey the image of a rugged outdoor line of casual clothing, but instead seeks to prevent American from doing so by using the word outdoor in combination with other aspects of Aber-crombie’s trade dress that have supposedly come to signify Abercrombie as the source of the goods. Abercrombie’s complaint is a bit perplexing: it describes its “trade dress” as comprising all nine of the features identified supra pages 625-626. If its trade dress really comprises all nine elements acting in concert to create its overall look, an injunction to prohibit marketing a line of clothing bearing a confusingly similar overall look would probably do the company little good, as American could easily drop a few items from its line, e.g., stop using the word performance, and thereby begin marketing a dissimilar line of products. Conversely, under such a broad theory of the case, Abercrombie’s introduction of a new design, e.g., using fencing foils on t-shirts, would alter the form of its trade dress and potentially permit infringement of the newly conceived trade dress in the absence of an expanded injunction. Also, Abercrombie’s description of its trade dress seems at times internally inconsistent: query whether clothing can at once convey an “active,” a “rugged,” an “athletic,” and a “cool” image. Moreover, some of Abercrombie’s descriptions are rather broad: consider “use of all natural cotton, wool, and twill fabrics to create a consistent texture palette.” Compl. ¶ 7(g). And its inclusion of the catalog and the sales associate teams as trade dress of its clothing stretches the boundaries of trade dress law. Reading the complaint in its most reasonable form, this case involves garments made of certain fabrics containing certain design motifs drawn from certain color palettes and displaying certain registered trademarks and other design elements in a certain way. In addition, the Quarterly is an item containing a specific method of presenting products in conjunction with an identifiable photographic motif and editorial content addressing a lifestyle consistent with — perhaps spawning a lifestyle emulative of — the image Abercrombie intentionally associates with its clothing. We regard the configuration of the catalog as trade dress because the Quarterly is a freestanding product that has its own trade dress, an objectively observable “particular sales technique” used to sell clothing, or packaging of the products it depicts. Abercrombie’s use of certain in-store displays and a sales associate team comprised mainly of college students also constitute a “particular sales technique.” Thus, in remarking that Abercrombie sought protection only of its marketing theme, the district court misconstrued the nature of this suit. Abercrombie sought protection of its trade dress, which in-eludes features of — and, in the case of the Quarterly, also comprises a major part of — Abercrombie’s marketing campaign. Yet A & F’s claimed trade dress transcends those aspects of its trade dress directly associated with its campaign to attract young, fit, active consumers. As we read the complaint, the trade dress A & F seeks to protect is: 1) the designs of the goods themselves, 2) the design of the catalog created to sell its products by, among other things, cultivating an image it wants consumers to associate with its products, and 3) features of its in-store presentation associated with the sale of its products. This court’s willingness to read a complaint fairly should not be taken as an invitation to shotgun litigation, especially when a producer claims that a combination of elements comprises its trade dress. As McCarthy commented, “[w]hatever may be claimed as the combination of elements making up the product or its packaging and presentation, ... it will not do to solely identify in litigation a combination as 'the trade dress.’ Rather, the discrete elements which make up that combination should be separated out and identified in a list.” MCCARTHY On TRADEMARKS § 8:3. As the Second Circuit observed, focus on the overall look of a product does not permit a plaintiff to dispense with an articulation of the specific elements which comprise its distinct dress. Without such a precise expression of the character and scope of the claimed trade dress, litigation will be difficult, as courts will be unable to evaluate how unique and unexpected the design elements are in the relevant market. Courts will also be unable to shape narrowly-tailored relief if they do not know what distinctive combination of ingredients deserves protection. Moreover, a plaintiffs inability to explain to a court exactly which aspects of its product design(s) merit protection may indicate that its claim is pitched at an improper level of generality, i.e., the claimant seeks protection for an unprotectable style, theme or idea. Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 113 F.3d 373, 381 (2d Cir.1997). The Landscape Forms court reversed issuance of a preliminary injunction because “Landscape ha[d] not articulated and supported its claimed [inherently distinctive] trade dress with sufficient particularity.” Landscape Forms, 113 F.3d at 381. While the language of Abercrombie’s complaint rides the cusp of sufficient particularity, with its occasional overbreadth leaving some claims devoid of meaning, A & F attached to its complaint photographic depictions of designs it claimed constituted its trade dress and the record now contains volumes of photographic exhibits depicting its garment designs and the design of its Quarterly. A complaint is neither an injunction nor a judgment; it merely puts the defendant on notice of the plaintiffs claims. At the time of American’s summary judgment motion, Abercrombie had not yet sought to enjoin American from using any designs. Had the case proceeded further, Abercrombie would have been expected to list the elements of the designs and the unique combinations it sought to protect, which enumeration would have enabled the district court to craft a sufficiently specific injunction had such proved warranted. See Samara Bros., 165 F.3d at 126 & n. 2 (distinguishing Landscape Forms by recognizing the complaint’s insufficient description of the distinctive aspects of the garment designs but refusing to “look at the complaint in a vacuum,” and finding “that the evidence adduced at trial sufficiently depict[ed] the ‘distinctive combination of ingredients’ in Samara’s trade dress”), rev’d on other grounds, 529 U.S. 205, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 146 L.Ed.2d 182 (2000). The district court erred in treating Abercrombie’s suit as an attempt to protect a “marketing theme.” A & F seeks protection of its designs, and it can do so even if the designs 'are consistent with, contain aspects of, form a part of, or convey to consumers the same message as, its marketing campaign. In sum, the three “things” Abercrombie seeks to protect constitute trade dress. C The first step in qualifying trade dress for protection under § 43(a) is proving distinctiveness. “[C]ourts have universally imposed th[is] requirement, since without distinctiveness the trade dress would not ‘cause confusion ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of [the] goods,’ as [section 43(a)] requires.” Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 210, 120 S.Ct. 1339. For purposes of the Lanham Act, distinctiveness comes in two forms, either one of which satisfies the distinctiveness condition of protectability. See Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 769, 112 S.Ct. 2753. A mark or dress can be inherently distinctive if its “intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source.” A non-inherently distinctive mark or dress can have acquired distinctiveness through attachment of secondary meaning, which occurs when, “in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a [mark or dress] is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.” Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n. 11, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982). Judge Friendly formulated a “now-classic test,” Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 210, 120 S.Ct. 1339, to conceptualize distinctiveness. The so-called Abercrombie & Fitch taxonomy deems word marks inherently distinctive when they are arbitrary (“Lucky Strike” cigarettes), fanciful (“Kodak” film), or suggestive (“Tide” laundry detergent). See Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 537 F.2d at 10-11. By contrast, descriptive (“Soft Soap”) or generic (“soap”) terras do not inherently distinguish a good as coming from a particular source. See ibid. Context is important in distinguishing among categories: whereas an air conditioning company placing a penguin on its products has selected a suggestive mark, a publishing company with the same logo has an arbitrary mark. See Ashley Furniture Indus., 187 F.3d at 369. While not inherently distinctive, descriptive marks can identify a source and acquire distinctiveness if secondary meaning has attached to the term, such that consumers recognize “Soft Soap” as a product of a certain manufacturer. See Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 774, 112 S.Ct. 2753 (explaining 15 U.S.C. § 1052). “Generic marks — those that ‘refe[r] to the genus of which the particular product is a species’ — are not registrable as trademarks.” Id. at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753. The Supreme Court remarked that “the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under § 43(a).” Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753. Two Pesos resolved a circuit split by bringing § 43(a) trade dress jurisprudence into accord with the law of word marks because § 43(a) contained no statutory language directing that trade dress be treated differently. The Court specifically approved of using the Abercrombie classifications for distinguishing inherently distinctive marks from descriptive and generic marks. See id. at 773, 112 S.Ct. 2753 (holding that a restaurant configuration can be inherently distinctive). Three years later, the Court drew much the same parallel: it treated color as not fanciful, arbitrary, or suggestive of a product but still something akin to being descriptive of it, in the sense that color can come to identify and distinguish goods just as descriptive words can acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning. See Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 162-63, 115 S.Ct. 1300 (also noting that an infinite variety of things qualify as a “symbol” or “device,” 15 U.S.C. § 1127, including the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle, the sound of NBC’s three chimes, and the scent of plumeria blossoms on sewing thread). In the ensuing years, the circuit courts split over whether and to what extent the Abercrombie taxonomy applied to product configuration trade dress cases, although most agreed that product packaging trade dress cases should be analyzed under that framework. See Rohit A. Sabnis, Product Configuration Trade Dress and Abercrombie: Analysis of Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Sangiacomo N.A. Ltd., 1 MINN. Intell. PROP. Rev. 183, 193 (2000). The Second and Third Circuits submitted that the Abercrombie taxonomy “make[s] little sense when applied to product features,” Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1007 (2d Cir.1995), and “does not quite fit the ... considerations applicable to product configurations,” Duraco Prods., Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enters., 40 F.3d 1431, 1441 (3d Cir.1994). Those courts regarded the design of a product as inextricably tied to the product’s nature or its appeal to consumers, meaning that the design of a product cannot form one of the dialectical relationships to the product identified in Abercrombie. See, e.g., id. at 1440-41 (“the product’s configuration cannot be said to be ‘suggestive’ or ‘descriptive’ of the product, or ‘arbitrary’ or ‘fanciful’ in relation to it”). The Duraco Products court plumbed the rationales underlying the Abercrombie classifications and Two Pesos’s recognition that at least some trade dress can be inherently distinctive in order to craft a three-part test for identifying inherently distinctive product configurations. See id. at 1448-49 (requiring the product configuration to be i) unusual and memorable, ii) conceptually separable from the product, and iii) likely to serve primarily as a designator of the product’s origin); see also Knitwaves, 71 F.3d at 1008 (adopting the “likely to serve primarily as a designator of origin of the product” requirement). The Eighth Circuit disagreed with the Duraco Products court’s focus on the consumer’s perception of the product (in terms of the configuration’s memorableness and capacity for source-identification) and stood by the Abercrombie classifications as a workable device for determining “whether and to what degree that feature is dictated by the nature of the product.” Stuart Hall Co. v. Ampad Corp., 51 F.3d 780, 785-88 (8th Cir.1995) (reasoning from Fifth Circuit cases cited with approval by Two Pesos and the test developed in Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar Well Foods, Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1344 (C.C.P.A.1977)). The Stuart Hall court expressed concern that a source-identification or memorableness requirement too closely resembled the standard for secondary meaning, and emphasized that courts should not treat product packaging and product configuration cases differently, in part because determining which category certain trade dress falls into can be difficult. See 51 F.3d at 787-88 (exploring why the Duraco Products court treated restaurant decor as akin to product packaging and arguing that product configuration is a better parallel; under a unified approach, of course, the distinction would not make a difference). The Supreme Court appears to have settled the dispute by agreeing in large part with the Third Circuit. The Court regarded Qualitex as following the rationale behind the Abercrombie test but not adopting it outright, because color, like a descriptive word mark, does not “almost automatically tell a customer that [it] refers to a brand,” and does not “immediately signal a brand or a product source,” although it may come to have such powers upon acquisition of secondary meaning. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 212-13, 120 S.Ct. 1339 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Court held that a product’s design cannot be inherently distinctive because, “as in the case of color, ... consumer predisposition to equate the feature with the source does not exist.” Ibid. The Court specifically condemned any attempt to craft a “reasonably clear test” for inherent distinctiveness of a product’s design. Id. at 213-14, 120 S.Ct. 1339 (refusing to adopt the Seabrook Foods test and implicitly rejecting the Duraco Products test). The Court explained that Two Pesos stands for the proposition that trade dress can be inherently distinctive, “but it does not establish that product-design trade dress can be.” Again relying on the rationale underlying the Abercrombie cías-' sifications, the Court determined that the trade dress at issue in Two Pesos was either product packaging, which “normally is taken by the consumer to indicate origin,” or some “tertium quid ... akin to product packing.” Id. at 215, 120 S.Ct. 1339. The Court’s reasoning thus relies on the notion that a product’s configuration — unlike its packaging — is inextricably tied to the product itself, such that even the most unusual features of a product’s design cannot automatically identify which producer crafted the product because consumers are not predisposed to treat design features as an indication of source. After Samara Brothers, no product configuration can meet the distinctiveness requirement of the Lanham Act by a showing of inherent distinctiveness but must rely instead on acquired distinctiveness, i.e., a showing of secondary meaning. See id. at 216, 120 S.Ct. 1339. Still, Samara Brothers did not completely eschew the Abercrombie taxonomy for analyzing distinctiveness. Indeed Samara Brothers, like Qualitex, reasoned by analogy to Judge Friendly’s classifications of word marks, particularly relying on the rationales underlying the classifications. In adapting those rationales to product configuration trade dress, the Court determined that the more distinctive categories of word marks had no parallel in the field of design and required all purportedly distinctive designs to have acquired secondary meaning before becoming eligible for protection. The Court did not address the ability of generic designs to distinguish goods as the product of a particular supplier, leaving open the conceptual possibility that generic designs bearing secondary meaning are protectable. For purposes of classifying word marks, “[a] generic term is one that refers, or has come to be understood as referring, to the genus of which the particular product is a species.” Abercrombie & Fitch, 537 F.2d at 9. On the unprotectability of generic marks, Judge Friendly explained: “No matter how much money and effort the user of a generic term has poured into promoting the sale of its merchandise and what success it has achieved in securing public identification, it cannot deprive competing manufacturers of the product of the right to call an article by its name.” Ibid. This reasoning applies equally well to generic product configurations, for no designer should have a monopoly on designs regarded by the public as the basic form of a particular item. Two Pesos commented that the “general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining” protecta-bility under § 43(a), and it made specific reference to the Abercrombie test and the unregistrability of generic marks. Thus Samara Brothers leaves in place the rule that generic product configurations are not protectable as trade dress under § 43(a). To summarize, then, only non-generic product configurations that have acquired distinctiveness through attachment of secondary meaning satisfy the distinctiveness requirement of the Lanham Act. The district court examined the features of Abercrombie’s catalog listed in the complaint and declared them, oddly, “both generic and descriptive.” The court then viewed the catalog as a whole to determine if its overall appearance created a “unique look that is protectable,” and held that “there is nothing arbitrary or fanciful, or in any way distinctive, about the combination of these elements in a clothing catalog that would make the whole of the ‘Aber-crombie Brand,’ at least as it relates to the descriptive language, color combinations, and cutout style, something more than the sum of its non-protectable parts. That observation applies equally to the use of words claiming that the clothing is ‘authentic’ and the use of A & F’s own trademark....” Ibid, (emphasis added). This appears to be a holding that Abercrombie’s clothing designs and its catalog design fall short of the distinctiveness requirement because they are generic. The court erred. None of the three items of A & F’s trade dress at issue in this case is generic. The label of “generic” is a severe condemnation and, we suspect, one that stings a clothing designer rather harshly. Here, the label is not justified. In language repeatedly quoted by the Supreme Court, Judge Friendly described generic terms as the genus of which a product is a species, e.g., “soap” or “shirts” or “baseball caps.” The equivalent in designs, bearing in mind the word-mark policy that a manufacturer has the right to call a product by its name, would be the most basic incarnation of a given genus of products, i.e., the image that appears in a person’s head when he hears the word “shirt” or “baseball cap.” Clothing bearing images of athletic paraphernalia are not a basic incarnation of certain types of apparel. The genus is athletic (or suggestively athletic) apparel; the species is shirts bearing lacrosse sticks. With respect to the Quarterly, the genus is “mail-order clothing catalogs”; the species is mail order clothing catalogs containing lifestyle editorial content and depicting the goods in the “clothesline” style with color bars to present color options. Just as a manufacturer has a right to call a product by its name, it can sell its clothes by mail by placing images of them in a catalog, but it need not do so in the manner of another producer. While producers have little choice but to call a shirt a shirt, they can place upon a shirt an infinite variety of images and depict that shirt on paper in an infinite variety of ways. That certain of these ways are particularly effective at generating sales does not make them generic. Since none of the trade dress at issue here is generic, Abercrombie can meet the distinctiveness requirement by showing attachment of secondary meaning to its designs. See Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 211, 120 S.Ct. 1339 (describing caselaw on secondary meaning and citing the parallel principle of Lanham Act section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), that, with limited exceptions, “ ‘nothing in this chapter shall prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce’ — that is, which is not inherently distinctive but has become so only through secondary meaning”). This court has long held that “evidence of intentional copying shows the strong secondary meaning of [a product] because ‘[t]here is no logical reason for the precise copying save an attempt to realize upon a secondary meaning that is in existence.’ ” Ferrari, 944 F.2d at 1239 (quoting Audio Fidelity, Inc. v. High Fidelity Recordings, Inc., 283 F.2d 551, 558 (9th Cir.1960)). American’s limited admission of intentional copying constitutes evidence that Abercrombie’s dress has acquired strong secondary meaning. A & F introduced other evidence confirming the existence of secondary meaning in its trade dress, including an affidavit from Abercrombie’s CFO accompanied by exhibits in the form of emails purportedly from consumers remarking on the similarity of designs and advertising methods and inquiring about the relationship between Abercrombie and American. Abercrombie considers this as evidence of actual confusion by consumers and as further support for its claim of secondary meaning. Normally, this evidence would create a genuine issue of material fact as to secondary meaning. In this case, the district court assumed that Abercrombie’s trade dress had acquired secondary meaning. Given American’s limited admission of copying and failure to introduce evidence contesting Abercrombie’s claim of secondary meaning, the existence of secondary meaning associated with Abercrombie’s trade dress is, for purposes of this opinion, an established fact. Thus, A & F successfully cleared the distinctiveness hurdle. The district court erred in granting summary judgment to American on the grounds that Abercrombie’s trade dress lacked distinctiveness. Much of the district court’s opinion reveals a concern for the anti-competitive effect of a judgment for Abercrombie insofar as competitors like American could be left unable to market their goods efficiently and effectively or to design clothes that would compete with A & F’s. Concern for realistic competition in a given industry has a place in trade dress law: the functionality doctrine. Because the record now before this court documents the functionality of certain designs that Abercrom-bie claims as its trade dress, our de novo review leads us to the conclusion that the district court’s judgment for American is supported by a legal determination not expressly reached below. D The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the policy that functional product designs cannot be protected as trade dress. See TrafFix, 121 S.Ct. at 1259-60. The functionality doctrine “prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm’s reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature.” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 164, 115 S.Ct. 1300. Protection of functional product features is the province of patent law, which confers a monopoly over new product designs for a limited time only, after which competitors are free to copy at will. See id. As the Supreme Court advised, “[tirade dress protection must subsist with the recognition that in many instances there is no prohibition against copying goods and products. In general, unless an intellectual property right such as a patent or copyright protects an item, it will be subject to copying.” TrafFix, 121 S.Ct. at 1260. After all, copying preserves competition, which keeps downward pressure on prices and encourages innovation. Congress resolved a circuit split regarding the “defense of functionality” by declaring that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to prove non-functionality. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3). Given the evidence in the record, we see no possibility that Abercrombie can carry its burden of proof with respect to the nonfunctionality of its clothing designs. Courts have recognized that “the functionality doctrine may apply even to features of a product that are purely ornamental.” Knitwaves, 71 F.3d at 1006 (citing Wallace Int’l Silversmiths, Inc. v. Godinger Silver Art Co., 916 F.2d 76, 79-81 (2d Cir.1990)). And the Supreme Court, while “cautionfing] against misuse or over-extension of trade dress ... noted that ‘product design almost invariably serves purposes other than source identification.’ ” TrafFix, 121 S.Ct. at 1260 (explaining and quoting Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 213, 120 S.Ct. 1339). In TrafFix, the Court identified two forms of functionality. The first, traditional functionality, deems a feature functional when “ ‘it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device.’ ” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165, 115 S.Ct. 1300 (quoting Inwood Labs., 456 U.S. at 850 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 2182). Qualitex “[e]xpand[ed] upon the meaning of this phrase [by] observing] that a functional feature is one the ‘exclusive use of which would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.’ ” TrafFix, 121 S.Ct. at 1261 (quoting Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165, 115 S.Ct. 1300). But the competitive disadvantage comment did not displace the traditional functionality standard from Inwood Laboratories. Instead it explained the policy underlying the functionality doctrine in a way readily adaptable to the problem of aesthetic functionality, the issue presented in Qualitex. See TrafFix, 121 S.Ct. at 1261-62, 532 U.S. 23. Thus, the “significant non-reputation-related disadvantage” to competitors approach is the second form of trade dress functionality. None of the design features that Aber-crombie claims as its trade dress is essential to the use or purpose of the garments, catalog, and stores they adorn. The design features surely affect the cost and quality of the garments and the design of the catalog affects its cost and aesthetics (which determines, in part, its quality as a device for selling clothing), so a jury question exists as to whether the designs are functional in the traditional sense. However, no reasonable jury could deny the existence of a “significant non-reputation-related disadvantage” that would be imposed on competitors by protecting Aber-crombie’s claimed trade dress. That form of functionality governs the analysis of this case. The two most common “tests” of aesthetic functionality under the competition theory prove useful in this case. “The test for ‘comparable alternatives’ asks whether trade-dress protection of certain features would nevertheless leave a variety of comparable alternative features that competitors may use to compete in the market. If such alternatives do not exist, the feature is functional; but if such alternatives do exist, then the feature is not functional.” Wong, 83 Cornell L.Rev. at 1144-45 (noting that “[t]he comparable alternatives requirement may necessitate more than the mere existence of one alternative, and may instead require a number of alternatives from which competitors may choose”) (footnotes omitted). “The ‘effective competition’ test asks ... whether trade dress protection for a product’s feature would hinder the ability of another manufacturer to compete effectively in the market for the product. If such hinderance is probable, then the feature is functional and unsuitable for protection. If the feature is not a likely impediment to market competition, then the feature is nonfunctional and may receive trademark protection.” Id. at 1149 (footnotes omitted). The same principle applies to trade dress law. See Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753. We turn first to Abercrombie’s clothing designs. Abercrombie’s complaint itself identifies the functions of the design elements it selected: use of the word 'performance “convey[s] the image of an active line of ... clothing”; use of the words authentic, genuine brand, trademark, and since 1892 “convey the reliability of the ... brand;” and so on. Use of these elements in combination with one another and with Abercrombie’s trademarks on clothing bearing “primary color combinations ... in connection with solid, plaid and stripe designs” and made from “all natural cotton, wool and twill fabrics” creates reliable rugged and/or athletic casual clothing drawn from a consistent texture, design, and color palette. Were the law to grant Abercrombie protection of these features, the paucity of comparable alternative features that competitors could use to compete in the market for casual clothing would leave competitors at a significant non-reputational competitive disadvantage and would, therefore, prevent effective competition in the market. Giving Abercrombie a monopoly on the words it claims form part of its trade dress would hamstring any competitor’s ability to convey the reliability of its own brand. The English language currently contains a limited list of synonyms for reliable and other words that convey a product’s integrity. While Abercrombie designers deserve credit for using the company’s age as a creative indicator of their products’ reliability, few other verbal formulations adequately or efficiently convey this concept. The same is true of using suggestive symbols like lacrosse sticks and the ski patrol cross on clothing to convey the product’s athletic nature or capacity to invoke images of athleticism. Producers have a limited range of sports and sporting equipment to choose from in attempting to convey this idea in this manner on clothing. Producers could go without such images or devise wholly new ways of conveying the athleticism concept in connection with casual clothing, but at present these features are ones that “competitors would have to spend money not to copy but to design around.” W.T. Rogers Co., 778 F.2d at 340. The lack of comparable alternatives to pleasing design features means that granting an injunction would deny consumers the benefits of a competitive market. In short, these design features are “something that other producers of the [casual clothing] have to have as part of the product in order to be able to compete effectively in the market ... [it is not] the kind of merely incidental feature which gives the brand some individual distinction but which producers of competing brands can readily do without.” Id. at 346. Finally, Abercrombie is not saved by its characterization of its trade dress as the combination of different design features on its clothing: denying American or other producers the right to combine these functional design features with their own trademarks on clothing bearing certain generic designs (unspecified “solid, plaid, and stripe designs,” without more, are indisputably generic) made from generic fabrics would undoubtedly force these competitors to spend money to design around Aber-crombie’s creations. There can be no dispute that preventing other producers from combining these design elements in the way Abercrombie does would prevent them from competing effectively in the market for casual clothing aimed at young people. No reasonable jury could find to the contrary. Remand for further proceedings in the district court on this question would be a waste of judicial resources, not to mention the parties’ time and money- We reach the same conclusion with respect to Abercrombie’s claim of trade dress in its in-store display setups and use of college students as sales associates. Forbidding clothiers to use college students to sell garments to or for college-age people indubitably prevents them from effectively competing in the market for casual clothing directed at young people. Abercrombie’s catalog is a different matter entirely. Of course, the Quarterly has certain functions, including “the creation of a cutting edge ‘cool’ Abercrombie image,” and, presumably, selling clothes. But that does not make the catalog’s overall design functional. Nor does the presence of many functional elements in the Quarterly’s design. Even if the elements Abercrombie identifies were all separately functional, as American argued and the district court held, A & F’s arrangement of these features can constitute more than the sum of its non-protectable parts. See Publications Int’l, Ltd. v. Landoll, Inc., 164 F.3d 337, 341-13 (7th Cir.1998) (holding various elements of a cookbook’s design functional but recognizing that their appearance in concert could garner legal protection “unless it was the only way the product could look, consistent with its performing each of the product’s functions optimally”); Tools USA & Equip., 87 F.3d at 658-59 (treating certain aspects of a catalog as functional but allowing trade dress protection of the catalog’s design as a whole); see also Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc’s B.R. Others, Inc., 826 F.2d 837, 842 (9th Cir.1987). A & F has chosen to print its catalog on an unusual kind of paper, leaving competitors a variety of other paper options. The clothes offered for sale appear in “clothesline” or “cutout” form (the garments appear on the page as if hanging from a clothesline, ie., not on a model), while many catalogs