Document: 529 U.S. 205120 S.Ct. 1339146 L.Ed.2d 182 WAL-MART STORES, INC., PETITIONERv.SAMARA BROTHERS, INC. No. 99-150. Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 19, 2000 Decided March 22, Syllabus Respondent Samara Brothers, Inc., designs and manufactures a line children's clothing. Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, contracted with supplier to manufacture outfits based on photographs garments. After discovering that other retailers were selling so-called knockoffs, brought this action for, inter alia , infringement unregistered trade dress under 43(a) Trademark Act 1946 (Lanham Act). The jury found for Samara. then renewed motion judgment as matter law, claiming there was insufficient evidence support conclusion Samara's clothing could be legally protected distinctive purposes 43(a). District denied awarded relief. Second Circuit affirmed denial motion. Held : In dress, product's design is distinctive, therefore protectible, only upon showing secondary meaning. Pp. 3-10. (a) addition protecting registered trademarks, Lanham Act, in 43(a), gives producer cause use by any person "any ... symbo[l] or device likely confusion origin his her goods." breadth confusion-producing elements actionable has been held embrace not just word marks symbol marks, but also "trade dress"--a category originally included packaging, "dressing," product, recent years expanded many courts appeals encompass design. These have correctly assumed constitutes "symbol" "device" purposes. Although does explicitly require show its universally imposed requirement, since without distinctiveness would "cause origin," requires. evaluating distinctiveness, differentiated between are inherently distinctive-- i.e. whose intrinsic nature serves identify their particular source--and acquired through meaning-- primary significance, minds public, source rather than product itself. This held, however, applications at least one mark--color--can never although they can Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U. S. 159 162-163. 3-6. (b) Design, like color, distinctive. attribution inherent certain categories packaging derives from fact very purpose attaching encasing it package, most often source. Where reasonable assume consumer predisposition take an affixed indication source, will found. With design, consumers aware reality that, almost invariably, feature intended render itself more useful appealing. 6-9. (c) Two Pesos, Inc. Taco Cabana, 505 763 foreclose Court's conclusion, issue restaurant deor, which constitute else some tertium quid akin no bearing present case. While distinguishing Pesos might force draw difficult lines product-design product-packaging frequency difficulty having distinguish two much less decide when To extent close cases, should err side caution classify ambiguous thereby requiring 9-10. 165 F. 3d 120, reversed remanded. On writ certiorari united states court second circuit Scalia, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Justice Scalia 1 case, we what circumstances Act), 60 Stat. 441, amended, 15 C. 1125(a). 2 * Its spring/summer one-piece seersucker decorated appliques hearts, flowers, fruits, like. A number chain stores, including JCPenney, sell contract 3 nation's best known retailers, among things 1995, suppliers, Judy-Philippine, sale 1996 season. sent Judy-Philippine garments line, Judy-Philippine's based; duly copied, minor modifications, 16 garments, contained copyrighted elements. 1996, briskly sold generating $1.15 million gross profits. 4 June buyer JCPenney called representative complain she had seen lower price allowed charge told did supply Wal-Mart. Their suspicions aroused, officials launched investigation, disclosed several major retailers--Kmart, Caldor, Hills, Goody's--were knockoffs produced Judy-Philippine. 5 sending cease-and-desist letters, Southern New York against Wal-Mart, Kmart, Goody's copyright federal fraud unfair competition and--most relevant our purposes--infringement All defendants except settled before trial. 6 weeklong trial, favor all claims. claiming, motion, 969 Supp. 895 (SDNY 1997), damages, interest, costs, fees totaling $1.6 million, together injunctive relief, see App. Pet. Cert. 56-58. 120 (1998), granted certiorari, 528 ___ (1999). II 7 provides registration defines 45 include word, name, symbol, device, combination thereof [used used] [a producer's] goods those manufactured others indicate ." 1127. Registration mark 1052, enables owner sue infringer 32, 1114; entitles presumption valid, 7(b), 1057(b), ordinarily renders incontestable after five continuous use, 15, 1065. term, . origin, sponsorship, approval ..." It latter provision 8 definition registrable 2, recited such "Nike," Nike's "swoosh" product. See, e.g. Ashley Furniture Industries, Sangiacomo N. A., Ltd. 187 363 (CA4 1999) (bedroom furniture); Knitwaves, Lollytogs, 71 996 (CA2 1995) (sweaters); Stuart Hall Ampad Corp. 51 780 (CA8 (notebooks). assumed, discussion, sections, conclude likewise. "Since human beings `symbol' `device' anything capable carrying meaning, language, read literally, restrictive." 159, 162 (1995). reading buttressed recently added subsection 43(a)(3), refers specifically "civil action[s] chapter principal register." A. 1125(a)(3) (Oct. 1999 Supp.). 9 text little guidance may protected. allegedly infringing "functional," protection sought, 43(a)(1)(A), C.. 1125(a)(1)(A). Nothing requires [the] goods," section Distinctiveness is, moreover, explicit prerequisite "the general principles qualifying part applicable determining whether entitled 43(a)." 763, 768 (1992) (citations omitted). 10 (and therefore, analogy, 43(a)), ways. First, if "[its] source." Ibid context applied now-classic test formulated Judge Friendly, "arbitrary" ("Camel" cigarettes), "fanciful" ("Kodak" film), "suggestive" ("Tide" laundry detergent) See Abercrombie & Fitch Hunting World, 537 2d 4, 10-11 1976). Second, even developed occurs when, "in significance [mark] itself." Inwood Laboratories, Ives 456 844, 851 n. 11 (1982).1 judicial differentiation meaning solid foundation statute Section trademark "by applicant distinguished others"--subject various limited exceptions. 1052. provides, again exceptions, "nothing shall prevent used become applicant's commerce"--that so 2(f), 1052(f). demands every necessarily includes others" meaning--that 12 Indeed, respect mark--colors--we ever -163. petitioner green-gold dry-cleaning press pads. respondent began pads similar suit claim 32 obtaining color We trademark, Reasoning analogy noted unlike "fanciful," "arbitrary," mark, "almost automatically tell customer [it] refer[s] brand," ibid ., "immediately signal brand `source,' " id 163. However, "over time, customers come treat signifying brand." Id Because "descriptive" eventually "come concluded 13 seems us words serve subsidiary functions--a suggestive (such "Tide" detergent), instance, invoke positive connotations consumer's mind, garish form Tide's squat, brightly plastic bottles liquid attract otherwise indifferent attention crowded store shelf--their predominant function remains identification. Consumers predisposed regard symbols producer, why refer 162-163, And where source--where, example, descriptive ("Tasty" bread) geographic ("Georgia" peaches)--inherent That generally excludes, "merely descriptive" goods, 2(e)(1), 1052(e)(1), "primarily geographically them," 2(e)(2), 1052(e)(2). case think equate exist. unusual designs--such cocktail shaker shaped penguin--is 14 invariably identification problematic; application inherent-distinctiveness principle harmful interests. deprived benefits utilitarian esthetic rule law facilitates plausible threats new entrants alleged distinctiveness. How easy mount depends, course, clarity concerned confidence reasonably clear devised. amicus curiae urge adopt portions Customs Patent Appeals Seabrook Foods, Bar-Well 568 1342 (1977). opinion, considered, things, "whether `common' basic shape unique field, [and] mere refinement commonly-adopted well-known ornamentation class viewed public 1344 (footnotes Such rarely provide basis summary disposition anticompetitive strike suit. oral argument, counsel quite understandably give definitive answer met saying "[t]his purpose." Tr. Oral Arg. 19. true, seeking exclude establish nonfunctionality feature, Supp.)--a involve consideration appeal, S., 170 Competition deterred, merely successful threat suit, given unlikelihood source-identifying game allowing worth candle. especially obtain identifying (if exists), yet securing patent design--as, indeed, availability these protections greatly reduces harm ensue cannot contends decision forecloses Mexican restaurants, plaintiff described "a festive eating atmosphere interior dining patio areas artifacts, bright colors, paintings murals," 765 (internal quotation citation omitted), 776. unquestionably establishes legal see, 773, be. inapposite holding here because issue, decor restaurant, either packaging--which, discussed, normally taken origin--or 17 replies manner dress. There indeed hard cases margin: classic glass Coca-Cola bottle, who drink Coke discard bottle collectors, buy can, stylish former. believe, believe closeness suggest existence relatively small utility adopting principle, great benefit demonstration 18 19 hold reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 20 ordered. NOTES phrase "secondary meaning" arose served ordinary, "primary," word. "Secondary acquired, non-word well. misnomer context, "pri- mary" Clarity well using term "acquired both word-mark non-word-mark contexts--but follow conventional terminology.

Category: 7