As you do, and I had to quote my favorite wacky Justice Breyer question ever (and there are a lot of choices out there): QUESTION: Well, why should [trade dress protection] always [require secondary meaning]? I mean, you could have a weird situation. Imagine you made a hair brush in the shape of a grape, you know, and they continuously–that was it. It's called the grape hairbrush, and that's it. I mean, that's so weird that I guess that people would pick it up. MR. COSTON: I submit, Justice Breyer, that–that unless it had bristles, it wouldn't be– QUESTION: It does. I mean, you know, that's not the point. As I said at the time: only a bald man could imagine a hairbrush shaped like a grape. Justice Scalia went with the more plausible (indeed, extant) cocktail shaker shaped like a penguin in the written opinion. ETA: They continued! MR. COSTON: The–the grape brush I submit says nothing to the consumer about source. QUESTION: Oh, yes, it does after a while. MR. COSTON: After a while. QUESTION: I mean, sure–no, no, no. All the products are grape. I mean, you know, you wonder what's it–going on here with this grape, et cetera. I mean– MR. COSTON: Well, I–I agree– QUESTION: It was like the– MR. COSTON: –that after a while the market would acknowledge that the grape hairbrush came from a certain company, but that's the point of secondary meaning, that it has to show to the consumer– QUESTION: It's a whole line. It's a grape hairbrush, a grape comb, a grape hair curler, and a grape–you know, et cetera. And so, almost instantly when you see it there, you get the idea.
Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –Legal notice about the Rereading the oral argument in Wal-Mart rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Rereading the oral argument in Wal-Mart?