Supreme Court of the United States · 2000-03-22
15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)
Case and law context
Role: rule-announced; posture: Supreme Court review of trade-dress verdict; product-design distinctiveness rule announced, judgment reversed and remanded without resolving acquired secondary meaning.; result: remanded; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
Rule selection, not an instance deciding all routes to protectability. A single not-reached block cannot formally express inherent-distinctiveness unavailable while secondary-meaning sufficiency is reserved.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 17
| Case | Statutory person including state entities and officials | Judicial domestic infringing-use limit | Use in commerce connected with goods or services | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | Likely consumer confusion about source or sponsorship | Entitlement to sue and protected commercial interest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. — 529 U.S. 205 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 17
| Case | Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark | State sovereign immunity unless a valid route permits suit | Misleading affiliation approval or sponsorship | Claimant proves nonfunctionality | Commercial advertising or promotion | False or misleading factual representation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. — 529 U.S. 205 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–17 of 17
| Case | Judicial actual-deception or tendency-to-deceive requirement | Judicial materiality requirement for purchasing decisions | Judicial zone-of-interests limit to commercial injury | Judicial proximate-causation requirement | Remedy-specific proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. — 529 U.S. 205 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. — 529 U.S. 205 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not reached (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits theory: Children clothing design, not product packaging; subject: theory=Children clothing design, not product packaging The facts identify the claimed design and copying, not evidence that source significance was proved. The Court rejects inherent distinctiveness as a route for product design; it does not hold that Samara lacks secondary meaning. IR protective OCR is preserved verbatim. | product-design/secondary-meaning-required | Its primary product is a line of spring/summer one-piece seersucker outfits decorated with appliques of hearts, flowers, fruits, and the like.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl#/us/529/0205-01; Unicode character offsets [408:550] (end exclusive); SHA-256 04d0a14e0adf40434cbe489319e3ffe940079e3cdafd4be9acddf124f2b21c49.Wal-Mart sent Judy-Philippine photographs of a number of garments from Samara’s line, on which Judy-Philippine’s garments were to be based; Judy-Philippine duly copied, with only minor modifications, 16 of Samara’s garments, many of which contained copyrighted elements.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl#/us/529/0205-01; Unicode character offsets [945:1215] (end exclusive); SHA-256 04d0a14e0adf40434cbe489319e3ffe940079e3cdafd4be9acddf124f2b21c49.We hold that, in an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a product’s design is distinctive, and therefore protective, only upon a showing of secondary meaning.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl#/us/529/0205-01; Unicode character offsets [17416:17623] (end exclusive); SHA-256 04d0a14e0adf40434cbe489319e3ffe940079e3cdafd4be9acddf124f2b21c49.The judgment of the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl#/us/529/0205-01; Unicode character offsets [17624:17750] (end exclusive); SHA-256 04d0a14e0adf40434cbe489319e3ffe940079e3cdafd4be9acddf124f2b21c49. |