president. (PL’s Opp’n at 7:4-8.) By order dated March 23, 2000 the Court struck the Cislo affidavit because Continental failed to timely disclose Cislo as an expert witness. See footnote 3, supra. This leaves only the affidavit of David A. White, Continental’s president, who merely claims that the Continental product represented a "complete departure” from other products available in the market. (Deck of David A. White ¶ 7.) The alleged uniqueness of Continental's product design, however, does not show inherent distinctiveness. See Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Ltd., 155 F.3d 526, 541 n. 7 (5th Cir.1998) (noting that inherent distinctiveness requires more than evidence of a design’s uniqueness); Turtle Wax, Inc. v. First Brands Corp., 781 F.Supp. 1314, 1321 (N.D.Ill.1991) (<HOLDING>). Without the expert affidavit, Continental has
holding that a contract for an exclusive agency to market a product contains an implied promise to use all reasonable efforts to market the product holding propane gas to be an inherently dangerous product holding that trade dress does not qualify as inherently distinctive merely because no previous product combines the same elements any other rule essentially would require a finding of inherent distinctiveness whenever a new product enters the market holding that the shape of a product was not an advertising idea because there was no allegation in the complaint that the design itself was a trademark or was intended to distinguish the product from others that might enter the market citation omitted holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need