Intellectual Property
Jun. 7, 2000
DESIGN FLAWS
Forum: By Alan P. Block The Supreme Court's decision in WalMart Stores v. Sumara Brothers provides some predictability to product design trade-dress cases that was lacking. At least now we know that a product's design cannot be inherently distinctive. When questioning whether a product's design is the product itself or whether the design is in the packaging, the court should err on the side of finding that the design is the product itself, thereby requiring that secondary meaning (that people have come to associate the designs as originating with a particular source) be shown.
By Alan P. Block
The Supreme Court's decision in WalMart Stores v. Sumara Brothers provides some predictability to product design trade-dress cases that was lacking. At least now we know that a product's design cannot be inherently distinctive. When questioning whether a product's design is the p...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In