D contracted one of its suppliers, Judy-Philippine, Inc., to manufacture a line of children's outfits. D simply sent photographs of a number of garments from P's line, on which Judy-Philippine's garments were to be based. P's line was copied with minor modifications. Sixteen of P's garments, many of which contained copyrighted elements were blatantly copied. D sold the so-called knockoffs, generating more than $ 1.15 million in gross profits. JCPenney complained to P about P products being sold at D at a lower price. P did not supply its clothing to D. D and several other major retailers -- Kmart, Caldor, Hills, and Goody's -- were selling the knockoffs of P's outfits produced by Judy-Philippine. P sued D, Judy-Philippine, Kmart, Caldor, Hills, and Goody's for copyright infringement under federal law, consumer fraud and unfair competition under New York law, and -- most relevant for our purposes -- infringement of unregistered trade dress under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Everybody settled but D. The jury found in favor of P. on all of its claims. D then renewed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Samara's clothing designs could be legally protected as distinctive trade dress for purposes of §43(a). The court denied the motion and awarded P damages. D appealed and the Appeals Court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.