Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1991)
- Docket
- 91-971
- Decided
- 1991-01-01
Summary
Question: Is proof of a secondary meaning required to show that trade dress is inherently distinctive and protected by the Lanham Act? Conclusion: No. Justice Byron R. White, writing for a unanimous court, affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that trade dress can be protected under the Lanham Act based on inherent distinctiveness even if there is no proof of a secondary meaning. Recovery is usually available for trademark infringement without a secondary meaning, and there is no persuasive reason for treating trade dress differently from other types of trademark. Requiring a secondary meaning would go against the purposes of the Lanham Act. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, stating that the Lanham Act and its common law counterpart were broad enough to cover trade dress. Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the judgment, expressing that the majority’s decision was supported by stare decisis. Justice Clarence Thomas also concurred in the judgment, arguing that the common law roots of the Lanham Act justify this decision better than the majority’s reasoning.