| Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 21, 1992 Decided June 26, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Two Pesos, Inc., Petitioner v. Taco Cabana, Inc. |
| Citations | 505 U.S. 763 (more) 112 S.Ct. 2753; 120 L. Ed. 2d 615; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4533 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Taco Cabana Int'l, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 932 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1991) |
| Holding | |
| Proof of secondary meaning is not required to prevail on a claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act where a trade dress at issue is inherently distinctive | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment) |
| Laws applied | |
| Lanham Act | |
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held that Two Pesos, Inc. infringed upon the trademark of Taco Cabana, Inc. by copying the design of their restaurants.[1] Writing for a majority of the court, Justice Byron White concluded that trade dress is inherently distinctive under the Lanham Act and that plaintiffs are not required to prove secondary meaning in suits to protect their trademark.[2] The Court upheld an award of $3.7 million in damages, and Taco Cabana ultimately acquired all of Two Pesos' assets in 1993 for $22 million.[3]
- ^ Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 767 (1992) ("We find that it is, and we therefore affirm.").
- ^ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 776; see also Paul A. Briganti, Renovating Taco Cabana: The Lanham Act's Protection of Product Design After Samara, 38 Cal. W.L. Rev. 481, 495 (2002).
- ^ Jamison Dean Newberg, The Same Old Enchilada? The Supreme Court Simplifies the Protection of Inherently Distinctive Trade Dress in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, 13 Rev. Litig. 299, 330 n. 27 (1994).
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search