Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 289

529US1

Unit: $U38

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

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

Opinion of the Court

other things, “whether it was a ‘common’ basic shape or de-
sign, whether it was unique or unusual in a particular ﬁeld,
[and] whether it was a mere reﬁnement of a commonly-
adopted and well-known form of ornamentation for a par-
ticular class of goods viewed by the public as a dress or orna-
Id., at 1344 (footnotes omitted).
mentation for the goods.”
Such a test would rarely provide the basis for summary dis-
position of an anticompetitive strike suit.
Indeed, at oral
argument, counsel for the United States quite understand-
ably would not give a deﬁnitive answer as to whether the
test was met in this very case, saying only that “[t]his is
a very difﬁcult case for that purpose.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 19.
It is true, of course, that the person seeking to exclude
new entrants would have to establish the nonfunctionality of
the design feature, see § 43(a)(3), 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a)(3) (1994
ed., Supp. V)—a showing that may involve consideration of
its esthetic appeal, see Qualitex, supra, at 170. Competi-
tion is deterred, however, not merely by successful suit but
by the plausible threat of successful suit, and given the un-
likelihood of inherently source-identifying design, the game
of allowing suit based upon alleged inherent distinctiveness
seems to us not worth the candle. That is especially so since
the producer can ordinarily obtain protection for a design
that is inherently source identifying (if any such exists), but
that does not yet have secondary meaning, by securing a
design patent or a copyright for the design—as, indeed, re-
spondent did for certain elements of the designs in this case.
The availability of these other protections greatly reduces
any harm to the producer that might ensue from our conclu-
sion that a product design cannot be protected under § 43(a)
without a showing of secondary meaning.

Respondent contends that our decision in Two Pesos fore-
closes a conclusion that product-design trade dress can never
be inherently distinctive.
In that case, we held that the
trade dress of a chain of Mexican restaurants, which the
plaintiff described as “a festive eating atmosphere having