In the 1984 case of Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Park 'N Fly. The dispute arose when Dollar Park and Fly used a similar name to that of established off-airport parking service provider, Park ‘N Fly – an act which was seen as trademark infringement by the latter company. The court held that if a descriptive term has acquired secondary meaning (i.e., it is recognized by consumers as identifying a particular source), then it can be registered under federal law for protection against any form of infringement or unfair competition - even if competitors are disadvantaged due to their inability to use this term descriptively in their own business operations.

In the dissenting opinion for Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to allow trademark protection for a descriptive term without proof of secondary meaning was inconsistent with precedent and Congressional intent. He contended that Congress had intended to maintain a balance between protecting established trademarks and encouraging competition by allowing others to use descriptive terms in their business names or advertising. By granting exclusive rights over such terms without requiring evidence that they have acquired distinctiveness through consumer recognition (secondary meaning), he believed the Court upset this balance, potentially stifering competition and innovation in trade practices. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 2(f) of Lanham Act as permitting registration based on five years' substantially exclusive use alone; instead asserting it should be read as merely creating a presumption which could be rebutted by showing lack of secondary meaning.