Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P operates a chain of fast-food restaurants in Texas. A D restaurant was opened in Houston. D adopted a motif very similar to P's trade dress. P sued D for trade dress infringement under § 43(a). The jury was instructed to return its verdict in the form of answers to five questions propounded by the trial judge. The jury's answers were: P has a trade dress; taken as a whole, the trade dress is nonfunctional; the trade dress is inherently distinctive; the trade dress has not acquired a secondary meaning in the Texas market; and the alleged infringement creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of ordinary customers as to the source or association of the restaurant's goods or services. The jury was told, P's trade dress was protected if it either was inherently distinctive or had acquired a secondary meaning, judgment was entered awarding damages to P. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected D's argument that a finding of no secondary meaning contradicted a finding of inherent distinctiveness. The court noted that trademark law requires a demonstration of secondary meaning only when the claimed trademark is not sufficiently distinctive of itself to identify the producer; the court held that the same principles should apply to protection of trade dresses. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co