Two Pesos, Inc v. Taco Cabana, Inc

• Decision Date: 26 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-971,91-971
• Citation: Two Pesos, Inc v. Taco Cabana, Inc, 505 U.S. 763, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615, 23 USPQ2d 1081 (1992)
• Parties: TWO PESOS, INC., Petitioner v. TACO CABANA, INC
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

505 U.S. 763

112 S.Ct. 2753

120 L.Ed.2d 615

TWO PESOS, INC., Petitioner

v TACO CABANA, INC.

No. 91-971.

Argued April 21, 1992.

Decided June 26, 1992.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1992.SeeU.S. , 113 S.Ct 20.

Syllabus^*

Respondent, the operator of a chain of Mexican restaurants, sued petitioner, a similar chain, for trade dress infringement under § 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946(Lanham Act), which provides that "[a]ny person who . . . use[s] in connection with any goods or services . . . any false description or representation . . . shall be liable to . . . any person . . . damaged by [such] use."The District Court instructed the jury, inter alia, that respondent's trade dress was protected if it either was inherently distinctive—i.e., was not merely descriptive or had acquired a secondary meaning—i.e., had come through use to be uniquely associated with a specific source.The court entered judgment for respondent after the jury found, among other things, that respondent's trade dress is inherently distinctive but has not acquired a secondary meaning.In affirming, the Court of Appeals ruled that the instructions adequately stated the applicable law, held that the evidence supported the jury's findings, and rejected petitioner's argument that a finding of no secondary meaning contradicted a finding of inherent distinctiveness.

Held: Trade dress which is inherently distinctive is protectable under § 43(a) without a showing that it has acquired secondary meaning, since such trade dress itself is capable of identifying products or services as coming from a specific source.This is the rule generally applicable to trademark, see, e.g., Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§ 13, pp. 37-38, and the protection of trademarks and of trade dress under § 43(a) serves the same statutory purpose of preventing deception and unfair competition.There is no textual basis for applying different analysis to the two.Section 43(a) mentions neither and does not contain the concept of secondary meaning, and that concept, where it does appear in the Lanham Act, is a requirement that applies only to merely descriptive marks and not to inherently distinctive ones.Engrafting a secondary meaning requirement onto § 43(a) also would make more difficult the identification of a producer with its product and thereby undermine the Lanham Act's purposes of securing to a mark's owner the goodwill of his business and protecting consumers' ability to distinguish among competing producers.Moreover, it could have anticompetitive effects by creating burdens on the start-up of small business.Petitioner's suggestion that such businesses be protected by briefly dispensing with the secondary meaning requirement at the outset of the trade dress' use is rejected, since there is no basis for such requirement in § 43(a).Pp. ____.

932 F.2d 1113, affirmed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY and SOUTER, JJ., joined.SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion.STEVENS, J., and THOMAS, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment.

Kimball J. Corson, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner.

Richard G. Taranto, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Justice WHITEdelivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue in this case is whether the trade dress ¹ of a restaurant may be protected under § 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946(Lanham Act), 60 Stat. 441,15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1982 ed.), based on a finding of inherent distinctiveness, without proof that the trade dress has secondary meaning.

I

RespondentTaco Cabana, Inc., operates a chain of fast-food restaurants in Texas.The restaurants serve Mexican food.The first Taco Cabana restaurant was opened in San Antonio in September 1978, and five more restaurants had been opened in San Antonio by 1985.Taco Cabana describes its Mexican trade dress as

"a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals.The patio includes interior and exterior areas with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors.The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes.Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme."932 F.2d 1113, 1117(CA51991).

In December 1985, a Two Pesos, Inc., restaurant was opened in Houston. Two Pesos adopted a motif very similar to the foregoing description of Taco Cabana's trade dress.Two Pesos restaurants expanded rapidly in Houston and other markets, but did not enter San Antonio.In 1986, Taco Cabana entered the Houston and Austin markets and expanded into other Texas cities, including Dallas and El Paso where Two Pesos was also doing business.

In 1987, Taco Cabana sued Two Pesos in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for trade dress infringement under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act,15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1982 ed.),² and for theft of trade secrets under Texas common law.The case was tried to a jury, which was instructed to return its verdict in the form of answers to five questions propounded by the trial judge.The jury's answers were: Taco Cabana has a trade dress; taken as a whole, the trade dress is nonfunctional; the trade dress is inherently distinctive; ³ the trade dress has not acquired a secondary meaning ⁴ 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.Because, as the jury was told, Taco Cabana's trade dress was protected if it either was inherently distinctive or had acquired a secondary meaning, judgment was entered awarding damages to Taco Cabana.In the course of calculating damages, the trial court held that Two Pesos had intentionally and deliberately infringed Taco Cabana's trade dress.⁵

The Court of Appeals ruled that the instructions adequately stated the applicable law and that the evidence supported the jury's findings.In particular, the Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's argument that a finding of no secondary meaning contradicted a finding of inherent distinctiveness.

In so holding, the court below followed precedent in the Fifth Circuit.In Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc.,659 F.2d 695, 702(CA51981), 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 Court of Appeals noted that this approach conflicts with decisions of other courts, particularly the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Vibrant Sales, Inc. v. New Body Boutique, Inc.,652 F.2d 299(1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1257, 71 L.Ed.2d 448(1982), that § 43(a) protects unregistered trademarks or designs only where secondary meaning is shown.Chevron, supra, at 702.We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether trade dress which is inherently distinctive is protectable under § 43(a) without a showing that it has acquired secondary meaning.⁶502 U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 964, 117 L.Ed.2d 130(1992).We find that it is, and we therefore affirm.

II

The Lanham Act ⁷ was intended to make "actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks" and "to protect persons engaged in . . . commerce against unfair competition."§ 45,15 U.S.C. § 1127.Section 43(a)"prohibits a broader range of practices than does § 32," which applies to registered marks, Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.,456 U.S. 844, 858, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 2190-2191, 72 L.Ed.2d 606(1982), but it is common ground that § 43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and that the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under § 43(a).SeeA.J. Canfield Co., v. Honickman,808 F.2d 291, 299, n. 9(CA31986);Thompson Medical Co. v. Pfizer Inc.,753 F.2d 208, 215-216(CA21985).

A trademark is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1127 as including "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof" used by any person "to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown."In order to be registered, a mark must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from those of others.§ 1052.Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; following the classic formulation set out by Judge Friendly, they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful.SeeAbercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.,537 F.2d 4, 9(CA21976).The Court of Appeals followed this classification and petitioner accepts it.Brief for Petitioner 11-15.The latter three categories of marks, because their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product, are deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection.In contrast, generic marks—those that "refe[r] to the genus of which the particular product is a species,"Park' N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc.,469 U.S. 189, 194, 105 S.Ct. 658, 661, 83 L.Ed.2d 582(1985), citingAbercrombie & Fitch, supra, at 9—are not registrable as trademarks.Park' N Fly, supra,469 U.S., at 194, 105 S.Ct., at 661-662.

Marks which are merely descriptive of a product are not inherently distinctive.When used to describe a product, they do not inherently identify a particular source, and hence cannot be protected.However, descriptive marks may acquire the distinctiveness which will allow them to be...