Submitted by: Submitted by Tanyac
Views: 311
Words: 1811
Pages: 8
Category: Other Topics
Date Submitted: 07/20/2011 06:44 PM
Brief Fact Summary
Samara Brothers is a manufacturer of children's clothes. Wal-Mart sent pictures of Samara's line of children's clothing to a manufacturer, had a line nearly identical to Samara's line produced, and sold the clothing through Wal-Mart stores.
Rule of Law and Holding
"In a [Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act] action for infringement of unregistered trade dress, a product's design is distinctive, and therefore protectible, only upon a showing of secondary meaning." Product packaging trade dress MAY BE inherently distinctive, and thus protectable without a showing of secondary meaning. Plaintiffs claiming rights in product feature trade dress under Sec. 43(a) must ALWAYS demonstrate secondary meaning as a prerequisite to relief. The court rejected arguments that product feature trade dress could be inherently distinctive, noting the lack of a workable standard for evaluating the distinctiveness of product features; doubts that consumers rely on product features (as opposed to labels and packaging) to indicate source; and concerns about the anticompetitive effects of making Lanham Act protection for product features readily available. "To the extent that there are close cases, courts should err on the side of caution and classify ambiguous trade dress as product design thereby requiring secondary meaning." A mark has acquired distinctiveness, even if it is not inherently distinctive, if it has developed secondary meaning, which occurs when, "in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a mark is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself." Inwood laboratories.
Topics
Trademark | Distinctiveness | Nonverbal Identifiers | Product Design Trade Dress
Click on the logo to read the full opinion for this case at:
Edited Opinion
Note: The following opinion was edited by CVN Law School staff. © 2008 Courtroom Connect, Inc.
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we decide under what...