The Supreme Court rejected a categorical rule that 'generic.com' terms are unregistrable, holding that consumer perception alone determines whether such a composite is generic—reshaping distinctiveness analysis for the domain-name economy.
The Supreme Court's unanimous 2000 decision held that a product's design can qualify as protectable trade dress only on proof of secondary meaning, and told courts to classify ambiguous cases as design — drawing the line that *Two Pesos* had left open.
The Supreme Court's 1992 decision held that inherently distinctive trade dress is protectable under Section 43(a) without proof of secondary meaning — extending to a restaurant's look the same first-day protection long given to coined word marks.
The 1976 Second Circuit decision that sorted every word mark into fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, or generic — and cost Abercrombie its 'Safari' trademark — still governs how courts measure distinctiveness today.
