For almost 150 years, the design patent has served as the chief means of protecting industrial designs from piracy in the United States. Yet, as courts and commentators have recognized, design patents often do not afford commercially practicable protection. During the last seventy years, the patent bar has tried repeatedly to convince Congress to provide more practicable protection, usually through registration of industrial designs in a manner akin to copyright registration. Three bills for design registration were introduced in the 100th Congress, of which one was the subject of a hearing in 1987, and a bill has been introduced in the 101st Congress. So far all this legislative effort has accomplished nothing, and, as a result, the field of industrial design remains bereft of useful legal protection against piracy. Two trends, however, may change this sorry state of affairs. First, American business is focusing increasing attention on industrial design. Manufacturers are realizing that good industrial design is an important ingredient in their products' success and a vital factor in industrial competitiveness in both domestic and international markets. Second, steady expansion of the scope of trademark protection under the federal trademark statute has pushed into the realm of industrial design. Federal judicial decisions now provide substantial protection of product designs and packaging, and these decisions are part of the mainstream of American trademark law. As awareness of the importance of industrial design spreads, this trend is likely to continue. The stage is thus set for protecting industrial designs under trademark law. Ultimately, Congress may adopt a system of registration under copyright principles, as designers have been requesting for so long. However, the 100th Congress's response to the bills for this purpose can best be described as desultory. More important, theory and policy suggest that copyright principles may not provide the best legislative paradigm for protecting industrial designs, while trademark principles may be more appropriate for the task. If this view is correct, Congress may never adopt the legislation so long sought by American designers, and trademark law, by default, may continue to be their best refuge. This article attempts both to make the case for trademark protection of industrial designs and to analyze how that protection should work in practice. Part II reviews the well-known inadequacies of patent law and the way the current copyright statute generally excludes protection for industrial designs. It then outlines some necessary fundamentals of trademark law and suggests that protecting industrial designs under copyright principles might have serious deficiencies in theory and policy, while protection under trademark principles might be more appropriate. Part III reviews the Sears/Compco decisions, in which the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent law preempts state trademark protection as applied to industrial designs, and describes how the development of federal trademark law and its application to industrial designs has bypassed those decisions. Part III next suggests that the pro-competitive policy underlying Sears/Compco should apply also to federal trademark doctrine as a matter of statutory interpretation, even though the decisions themselves do not govern federal trademark law. After analyzing the tension between patent and trademark protection of industrial designs, however, Part III concludes that patent policy does not require denying protection to industrial designs in general. Instead, it shows how courts adjudicating trademark infringement disputes may reconcile trademark protection for unpatented industrial designs with patent policy by applying trademark doctrine with an eye to that policy and carefully calibrating trademark remedies. Assuming, then, that neither patent policy nor statutory interpretation precludes trademark protection for industrial designs, Part IV discusses how trademark protection should work in practice. Part IV(A) considers the doctrine of functionality and its problematic cousin, aesthetic functionality. It argues that the cousin should be disowned and that courts should limit the doctrine of functionality to its pristine role-dividing the realm of ornament from the realm of utilitarian function-as several courts have ruled. It then discusses how the doctrine of functionality applies to industrial designs, which invariably blend form and function. Part IV(B) recommends a way to fill the gap left in legal theory by abandoning the doctrine of aesthetic functionality. It proposes that a well-known feature of trademark law, the doctrine of distinctiveness, fill this gap, and it describes how courts may apply the distinctiveness spectrum to industrial designs. Next, Part IV(C) discusses the difficult question whether trademark law may protect aspects of industrial designs that make one product compatible with another. Finally, Part IV(D) explores two practical issues that may arise in trademark protection for industrial designs: the use of disclaimers and the question of buyer sophistication.