Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

Last updated

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 21, 1992
Decided June 26, 1992
Full case name Two Pesos, Inc., Petitioner v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
Citations505 U.S. 763 ( more )
112 S.Ct. 2753; 120 L. Ed. 2d 615; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4533
Case history
PriorTaco 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
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter
ConcurrenceScalia
ConcurrenceStevens (in judgment)
ConcurrenceThomas (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]

Contents

Background

Lanham Act protections for trademarks

The Lanham Act prohibits "the deceptive and misleading use of marks" to protect business owners "against unfair competition." [4] The Act defines trademarks as "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." [4] A trademark is considered "distinctive and capable of being protected" if it "either (1) is inherently distinctive or (2) has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning." [5] However, a claim for trademark infringement requires "proof of the likelihood of confusion." [6]

Initial lawsuit

In 1978, Taco Cabana, Inc. began operating a chain of Mexican-style fast-food restaurants in San Antonio, Texas. [7] Taco Cabana described the decor of their restaurants as "a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals." [8] The interior of the restaurants featured a "patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors." [9] In December 1985, Two Pesos, Inc. opened a restaurant in Houston, Texas with a trade dress similar to the one used in Taco Cabana's restaurants. [7] Two Pesos' operations expanded rapidly, but the chain never opened a restaurant in San Antonio. [7] However, in 1986, Taco Cabana opened restaurants in Houston and other markets in Texas where Two Pesos operated restaurants. [7] One year later, Taco Cabana sued Two Pesos in federal district court for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act and for theft of trade secrets under Texas common law. [10] Both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed that Two Pesos deliberately infringed upon Taco Cabana's trade dress, and Two Pesos appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. [11]

Opinion of the Court

A Taco Cabana location in Dallas, Texas Taco Cabana Dallas.jpg
A Taco Cabana location in Dallas, Texas

Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Byron White held that a distinctive trade dress is generally entitled to protection under the Lanham Act because users of a trade dress "should be able to maintain what competitive position it has and continue to seek wider identification among potential customers." [12] Justice White noted that trade dresses, "even if not registered, remain inherently capable of distinguishing the goods of the users of these marks." [13] Additionally, a business owner that copies a trade dress "may be seen as falsely claiming that his products may for some reason be thought of as originating from the plaintiff." [13] Justice White also held that the Lanham Act did not include a secondary meaning requirement for trade dress, concluding that "a secondary meaning requirement for a nondescriptive trade dress would hinder improving or maintaining the producer's competitive position." [14] Furthermore, he concluded that a secondary meaning requirement would have anticompetitive effects because a competitor could "appropriate the originator's dress in other markets" prior to the establishment of the secondary meaning and "deter the originator from expanding into and competing in these areas." [15] Consequently, the Court ordered Two Pesos to pay $3.7 million in damages to Taco Cabana. [3] Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, [16] while Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote opinions concurring in the judgment. [17]

Subsequent developments

In November 1992, Taco Cabana filed another lawsuit against Two Pesos seeking $5 million in damages for not complying with the Supreme Court's ruling and for creating further confusion among customers. Two months later, Taco Cabana agreed to buy Two Pesos' assets for approximately $22 million. [3] Richard Cervera, president and chief executive officer of Taco Cabana, stated that converting Two Pesos' restaurants to Taco Cabana restaurants would be “aided by the very striking physical resemblance of the two chains.” [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trade dress</span> Characteristics of visual appearance of a product

Trade dress is the characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that signify the source of the product to consumers. Trade dress is an aspect of trademark law, which is a form of intellectual property protection law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States trademark law</span>

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lanham Act</span> United States trademark law

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. is the primary federal trademark statute in the United States. In other words, the Act is the primary statutory foundation of United States trademark law at the federal level. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taco Cabana</span> American fast casual restaurant chain

Taco Cabana is an American fast casual restaurant chain that serves Tex-Mex cuisine. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of YTC Enterprises LLC, and headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Taco Cabana is recognized for its "pink" color scheme and semi-enclosed patio dining areas. Many menu items are handmade daily on-site, in open-display cooking areas.

TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the field of trademark law. The case determined that a functional design could not be eligible for trademark protection, and it established a presumption that a patented design is inherently functional.

<i>Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc</i> Canadian Supreme Court case about trademark names

Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc[2006] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade-marked name "BARBIE" against a restaurant named "Barbie's".

Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act, provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market.

Two Pesos was a Tex-Mex restaurant chain in the U.S. state of Texas that opened in 1982 in Houston. It was similar to Taco Cabana but Two Pesos never opened in Taco Cabana's home market of San Antonio. The Two Pesos chain was sold to Taco Cabana in 1993 after losing a drawn-out trade dress suit that appeared before the United States Supreme Court.

In United States trademark law, the Principal Register is the primary register of trademarks maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It is governed by Subchapter I of the Lanham Act.

Trademark distinctiveness is an important concept in the law governing trademarks and service marks. A trademark may be eligible for registration, or registrable, if it performs the essential trademark function, and has distinctive character. Registrability can be understood as a continuum, with "inherently distinctive" marks at one end, "generic" and "descriptive" marks with no distinctive character at the other end, and "suggestive" and "arbitrary" marks lying between these two points. "Descriptive" marks must acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning—consumers have come to recognize the mark as a source indicator—to be protectable. "Generic" terms are used to refer to the product or service itself and cannot be used as trademarks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark</span> Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies a product or service from a particular source and distinguishes it from others. A trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark infringement</span> Violation of trademark rights

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

<i>Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.</i> U.S. court decision

Rosetta Stone v. Google, 676 F.3d 144 was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law.

<i>Rogers v. Grimaldi</i> American legal case

Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues.

The Trademark Reporter is a bimonthly peer-reviewed academic journal covering trademark law and related topics. It was first established in 1911 and is published by the International Trademark Association. Articles published by the journal have been cited by different courts.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

References

  1. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 767 (1992) ("We find that it is, and we therefore affirm.").
  2. ↑ 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).
  3. 1 2 3 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).
  4. 1 2 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
  5. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 769 (citing Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 13, pp. 37–38, and Comment a (Tent. Draft No. 2, Mar. 23, 1990)).
  6. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 769–70.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 765.
  8. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 765 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
  9. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 765 (stating that "[b]right awnings and umbrellas continue the theme") (internal quotations and citations omitted).
  10. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 765–66.
  11. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 502 U.S. 1071 (1992) (granting certiorari in part).
  12. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 771.
  13. 1 2 Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 772.
  14. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 774.
  15. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 775.
  16. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 776 (Scalia, J., concurring).
  17. ↑ Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 776, 785 (Stevens, J. and Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment).
  18. ↑ 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) (quoting Greg Hassell, A Tex-Mex Merger: Taco Cabana Gets Its Two Pesos' Worth, Hous. Chron., Jan. 13, 1993, at Business 1).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.