Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 281

529US1

Unit: $U38

[09-26-01 08:44:27] PAGES PGT: OPIN

206 WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. SAMARA BROTHERS, INC.

Syllabus

the product itself. This Court has held, however, that applications of
at least one category of mark—color—can never be inherently distinc-
tive, although they can be protected upon a showing of secondary mean-
ing. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U. S. 159, 162–163.
Pp. 209–212.

(b) Design, like color, is not inherently distinctive. The attribution
of inherent distinctiveness to certain categories of word marks and
product packaging derives from the fact that the very purpose of attach-
ing a particular word to a product, or encasing it in a distinctive pack-
age, is most often to identify the product’s source. Where it is not
reasonable to assume consumer predisposition to take an afﬁxed word
or packaging as indication of source, inherent distinctiveness will not be
found. With product design, as with color, consumers are aware of the
reality that, almost invariably, that feature is intended not to identify
the source, but to render the product itself more useful or more appeal-
ing. Pp. 212–214.

(c) Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U. S. 763, does not fore-
close the Court’s conclusion, since the trade dress there at issue was
restaurant de´ cor, which does not constitute product design, but rather
product packaging or else some tertium quid that is akin to product
packaging and has no bearing on the present case. While distinguish-
ing Two Pesos might force courts to draw difﬁcult lines between
product-design and product-packaging trade dress, the frequency and
difﬁculty of having to distinguish between the two will be much less
than the frequency and difﬁculty of having to decide when a prod-
uct design is inherently distinctive. To the extent there are close
cases, courts should err on the side of caution and classify ambiguous
trade dress as product design, thereby requiring secondary meaning.
Pp. 214–215.

165 F. 3d 120, reversed and remanded.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

William D. Coston argued the cause for petitioner. With
him on the briefs were Kenneth C. Bass III and Martin L.
Saad.

Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for
the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With
him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting
Assistant Attorney General Ogden, Edward C. DuMont,
Barbara C. Biddle, Alfred Mollin, Albin F. Drost, and
Nancy C. Slutter.