Since the requirements of a trade dress infringement claim are conjunctive, the court did not analyze the remaining elements: (1) inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning, (2) non-functionality, and (3) likelihood of confusion. C. Analysis 1. The Proper Legal Standard for Identifying Recognizable Trade Dress The application of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act is not limited to trademarks. Section 43(a) also provides protection to “certain words, symbols, collocations of colors and designs, or other advertising materials or techniques” that the purchasing public has come to associate with goods from a single source. R.J.R. Foods, Inc. v. White Rock Corp., 608 F.2d 1058, 1059 (2d Cir.1979); see also Duraco Prods., Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enters., Ltd., 40 F.3d 1431, 1438 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Trade dress has been defined as the total
holding that the statute of limitations for all of plaintiffs eleven causes of action including those brought under lanham act  43a 15 usc  1125a and lanham act  43c 15 usc  1125c is four years holding that a laches defense is precluded under a section of the lanham act providing for cancellation at any time holding that defendants use of the phrase swiss army knife did not constitute false advertising under section 43a of the lanham act but remanding to consider whether among other things use of the same phrase constituted false designation of origin holding that section 43a of the lanham act protects trade dress holding that reasonable anticipation standard for the tort of passing off under section 43a of the lanham act remains the law in the third circuit