designs are considered to be functional if they are important to the commercial success of the product. See 1 McCarthy on Trademarks § 7:79. However, the Third Circuit has narrowed the application of the aesthetic functionality theory by insisting that a feature must be “significantly related to the utilitarian function of the product” to be functional. Keene Corp. v. Paraflex Indus., Inc., 653 F.2d 822, 825 (3d Cir.1981). The Third Circuit’s limitation on aesthetic functionality was not before the Court in TrafFix, and there is no basis in that decision for considering Keene overruled. If a product feature or design is found to be functional, courts need not engage in speculation about other possible ways of configuring the feature or design. TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 32, 121 S.Ct. 1255 (<HOLDING>). In addition, one may have a pro-tectable
holding that trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrates finding that husband should have funds remaining from sale of home because the finding was based on speculation not evidence holding that the court of appeals should not have relied on   visible fiction it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape holding expert testimony remedies speculation by the court holding that speculation as to how the evidence might have been beneficial was not enough holding the court of appeals should not have engaged in speculation about other design possibilities for a dualspring mech anism that a competitor could have used because the dualspring mechanism was functional