Walmart Store, Inc. Case, assignment help

ReviewCase 8.1, A U.S. Supreme Court Case titled Walmart Stores, Inc. v. SamaraBrothers, Inc. Using the IRAC Method ofbriefing cases found in the Appendix below, prepare a document that outlinesthe legal aspects of this case.Writean eight to twelve (8-12) page paper in which you:Summarize thefacts associated with Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.Identity the legalquestion(s) that is under consideration.Prioritize therules of law that the court will consider in this case.Compile thecourts decision and opinions on the case.Prepare aconclusion for the outcome of the case.Yourassignment must follow these formatting requirements:Be typed, doublespaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on allsides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format.Check with your professor for any additional instructions.Include a coverpage containing the title of the assignment, the students name, theprofessors name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and thereference page are not included in the required assignment page length.Thespecific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:Given a businesssituation, evaluate the various options for resolving a business disputefrom a legal perspective and develop an optimal course of action toresolve the dispute.Use technology andinformation resources to research issues in commercial law.Write clearly andconcisely about commercial law using proper writing mechanics. Appendix: Case 8.1 U.S. Supreme CourtBusiness EthicsWalmart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers,Inc. 529 U.S. 205, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 149L.Ed..2d. 182, Web 2000 U.S. Lexis 2197 (2000)Supreme Court of the United States Their suspicions aroused, however,Samara officials launched an investigation, which disclosed that Walmart [was]selling the knockoffs of Samaras outfits. --- Justice Scalia FactsSamara Brothers, Inc. (Samara), is a designer andmanufacturer of childrens clothing. The core of Samaras business is itsannual new line of spring and summer garments for children. Samara sold itclothing to retailers, who in turn sold the clothes to consumers. WalmartStores, Inc. (Walmart), operates a large chain of budget warehouse stores thatsell thousands of items at very low prices. Walmart contacted one of itssuppliers, Judy-Philippine, Inc. (JPI), about the possibility of making a lineof childrens clothes just like Samaras successful line. Walmart sentphotographs of Samaras children clothes to JPI (the Samara was readilydiscernible on the labels of the garments) and directed JPI to producechildrens clothes exactly like those in the photographs. JPI produced a lineof childrens clothes for Walmart, which had copied the designs, colors, andpatterns of Samaras clothing. Walmart then sold this line of childrensclothing in its stores, making a gross profit of over $1.15 million on theseclothes sales during the 1996 selling season. Samara discovered the Walmart wasselling the knockoff clothes at a price that was lower than Samaras retailerswere paying Samara for its clothes. After sending unsuccessful cease-and-desistletters to Walmart, Samara sued Walmart, alleging that Walmart stole Samarastrade dress (i.e., look and feel) in violation of Section 43(a) of the LanhamAct. Although not finding that Samaras clothes had acquired a secondarymeaning in the minds of the public, the U.S. District Court held in favor ofSamara and awarded damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the award toSamara. Walmart appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.IssueMust a products design have acquired asecondary meaning before it is protected as trade dress?Languageof the U.S. Supreme CourtThe Lanham Act, theSection 43(a), gives a product a cause of action for the use by any person ofany word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof which islikely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his orher goods. The text of Section 43(a) provides little guidance as to thecircumstances under which unregistered trade dress may be protected. It doesrequire that a producer show that the allegedly infringing feature is likely tocause confusion with the product for which protection is sought. In an actionfor infringement of unregistered trade dress a products design is protectableonly upon a showing of secondary meaning. DecisionTheU.S. Supreme Court held that a products design should have acquired asecondary meaning in the publics eye before it is protected as trade dressunder Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The Supreme Court reversed the decisionof the U.S. Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedingsconsistent with its opinion.