Supreme Court makes protection of product design trade dress more difficult

Supreme Court makes protection of product design trade dress more difficult

In March 2000, a unanimous US Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers Inc. that product design trade dress that is not registered as a trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office is not subject to protection under US law, unless it can be established that the design had...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2001, Vol.29 (1), p.108
Hauptverfasser: Samuels, Linda B, Samuels, Jeffrey M
Format: Review
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Consumers
Discount department stores
Federal court decisions
Lanham Act 1946-US
Product design
State court decisions
Supreme Court decisions
Trademarks
Trials
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 108
container_title Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
container_volume 29
creator Samuels, Linda B
Samuels, Jeffrey M
description In March 2000, a unanimous US Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers Inc. that product design trade dress that is not registered as a trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office is not subject to protection under US law, unless it can be established that the design had acquired distinctiveness. According to the Court, product design trade dress can never be inherently distinctive.
format Review
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_224881295</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>65465786</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p112t-d7681afd83ea9f58f00d47f7073f58d8322fc2960c867880e4fc7d232b64d3f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjktPwzAQhC1EJULLf7C4R9qsndg5ooiXqNQDvVfB3kUpzQPb-f8YwWnmm8PMXImiqmssjUV9LQqAFkswoG7EbYxnANCq0YV4e1-XQCPJbl5DkmP_RVEuYU7k0jBPcuZf8qtL0lMcPieZQu9J-kAxynEO2Q7Mg1svaSc23F8i3f3rVhyfHo_dS7k_PL92D_tyqSpMpTeNrXr2VlHfcm0ZwGvDBozKlGNEdtg24GxjrAXS7IxHhR-N9orVVtz_1eZj3yvFdDrn71NePCFqaytsa_UDNhlJ9g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>review</recordtype><pqid>224881295</pqid></control><display><type>review</type><title>Supreme Court makes protection of product design trade dress more difficult</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Samuels, Linda B ; Samuels, Jeffrey M</creator><creatorcontrib>Samuels, Linda B ; Samuels, Jeffrey M</creatorcontrib><description>In March 2000, a unanimous US Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers Inc. that product design trade dress that is not registered as a trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office is not subject to protection under US law, unless it can be established that the design had acquired distinctiveness. According to the Court, product design trade dress can never be inherently distinctive.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0092-0703</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-7824</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JAMSDE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Consumers ; Discount department stores ; Federal court decisions ; Lanham Act 1946-US ; Product design ; State court decisions ; Supreme Court decisions ; Trademarks ; Trials</subject><ispartof>Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2001, Vol.29 (1), p.108</ispartof><rights>Copyright Sage Publications, Inc. Winter 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Samuels, Linda B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samuels, Jeffrey M</creatorcontrib><title>Supreme Court makes protection of product design trade dress more difficult</title><title>Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science</title><description>In March 2000, a unanimous US Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers Inc. that product design trade dress that is not registered as a trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office is not subject to protection under US law, unless it can be established that the design had acquired distinctiveness. According to the Court, product design trade dress can never be inherently distinctive.</description><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Discount department stores</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Lanham Act 1946-US</subject><subject>Product design</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>Trademarks</subject><subject>Trials</subject><issn>0092-0703</issn><issn>1552-7824</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>review</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>review</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNotjktPwzAQhC1EJULLf7C4R9qsndg5ooiXqNQDvVfB3kUpzQPb-f8YwWnmm8PMXImiqmssjUV9LQqAFkswoG7EbYxnANCq0YV4e1-XQCPJbl5DkmP_RVEuYU7k0jBPcuZf8qtL0lMcPieZQu9J-kAxynEO2Q7Mg1svaSc23F8i3f3rVhyfHo_dS7k_PL92D_tyqSpMpTeNrXr2VlHfcm0ZwGvDBozKlGNEdtg24GxjrAXS7IxHhR-N9orVVtz_1eZj3yvFdDrn71NePCFqaytsa_UDNhlJ9g</recordid><startdate>20011201</startdate><enddate>20011201</enddate><creator>Samuels, Linda B</creator><creator>Samuels, Jeffrey M</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20011201</creationdate><title>Supreme Court makes protection of product design trade dress more difficult</title><author>Samuels, Linda B ; Samuels, Jeffrey M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p112t-d7681afd83ea9f58f00d47f7073f58d8322fc2960c867880e4fc7d232b64d3f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>reviews</rsrctype><prefilter>reviews</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Discount department stores</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Lanham Act 1946-US</topic><topic>Product design</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>Trademarks</topic><topic>Trials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Samuels, Linda B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samuels, Jeffrey M</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Samuels, Linda B</au><au>Samuels, Jeffrey M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>Supreme Court makes protection of product design trade dress more difficult</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science</jtitle><date>2001-12-01</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>108</spage><pages>108-</pages><issn>0092-0703</issn><eissn>1552-7824</eissn><coden>JAMSDE</coden><abstract>In March 2000, a unanimous US Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers Inc. that product design trade dress that is not registered as a trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office is not subject to protection under US law, unless it can be established that the design had acquired distinctiveness. According to the Court, product design trade dress can never be inherently distinctive.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0092-0703
ispartof Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2001, Vol.29 (1), p.108
issn 0092-0703
1552-7824
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_224881295
source EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Consumers
Discount department stores
Federal court decisions
Lanham Act 1946-US
Product design
State court decisions
Supreme Court decisions
Trademarks
Trials
title Supreme Court makes protection of product design trade dress more difficult
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T17%3A01%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Supreme%20Court%20makes%20protection%20of%20product%20design%20trade%20dress%20more%20difficult&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20Academy%20of%20Marketing%20Science&rft.au=Samuels,%20Linda%20B&rft.date=2001-12-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=108&rft.pages=108-&rft.issn=0092-0703&rft.eissn=1552-7824&rft.coden=JAMSDE&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E65465786%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=224881295&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true