Stuart Hall Company, Inc., a Missouri Corporation v. Ampad Corp., a Massachusetts Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the restaurant decor in Two Pesos arguably contained both “types” of trade dress
• reading Two Pesos as \resting on a presumption that `trade dress' is a single concept that encompasses both product configuration and packaging\
• reading Two Pesos as “resting on a presumption that ‘trade dress’ is a single concept that encompasses both product configuration and packaging”
• rejecting the Duraco Products test as inconsistent with Two Pesos by imposing additional, non-statutory requirements
• criticizing the distinction between product packaging and product configuration for purposes of trade dress law
• exploring why the Duraco Products court treated restaurant decor as akin to product packaging and arguing that product configuration is a better parallel; under a unified approach, of course, the distinction would not make a difference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).