In the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart over a dispute regarding product design infringement under Section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act). Samara Brothers had accused Wal-Mart of copying its line of children's clothing and selling it as their own private label brand without permission or licensing agreements. The court held that in cases involving alleged infringement based on product design rather than product packaging or labeling, there must be proof that consumers associate a specific design with a particular manufacturer rather than simply recognizing it as an indicator for the type or category of goods to which it belongs - this is known as "secondary meaning". As such evidence was not provided by Samara Brothers, they failed to establish trade dress infringement against Walmart.

In the dissenting opinion for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to require secondary meaning for product-design trade dress protection was too restrictive and not supported by precedent or policy considerations. He contended that while it may be more difficult to prove inherent distinctiveness in product design than in other forms of trade dress, such as packaging or color schemes, this does not justify a blanket rule requiring proof of secondary meaning in all cases. Instead, he suggested a case-by-case approach where courts could consider factors like the uniqueness of the design and its prominence in advertising to determine if it is inherently distinctive without needing evidence of consumer association with a single source (secondary meaning). Furthermore, he expressed concern that this ruling would disadvantage small businesses who cannot afford extensive marketing campaigns necessary to establish secondary meaning.