I need some assistance

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. 529 U.S. 205, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 2000 U.S. Lexis 2197 (2000) Supreme Court of the United States "Their suspicions aroused, however, Samara offi- held in favor of Samara and awarded damages. The cials launched an investigation, which disclosed U.S. court of appeals affirmed the award to Samara. that Wal-Mart was selling the knockoffs of Samara's Wal-Mart appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. outfits." wil erdt to shige en and wet -Justice Scalia Issue Must a product's design have acquired a secondary Facts meaning before it is protected as trade dress? Samara Brothers, Inc. (Samara), is a designer Language of the U.S. Supreme Court and manufacturer of children's clothing. Samara sold its clothing to retailers, which in turn sold the clothes Their suspicions aroused, however, Samara to consumers. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates a large officials launched an investigation, which dis- chain of budget warehouse stores that sell thousands closed that Wal-Mart was selling the knock- of items at very low prices. Wal-Mart contacted one of offs of Samara's outfits. The Lanham Act, in its suppliers, Judy-Philippine, Inc. (JPI), about the pos- Section 43(a), requires that a producer show sibility of making a line of children's clothes just like that the allegedly infringing feature is likely to Samara's successful line. Wal-Mart sent photographs cause confusion with the product for which of Samara's children's clothes to JPI (with the name protection is sought. In an action for infringe- "Samara" readily discernible on the labels of the gar- ment of unregistered trade dress a product's ments) and directed JPI to produce children's clothes design is protectable only upon a showing of exactly like those in the photographs. JPI produced a secondary meaning. uogert one esvituobree line of children's clothes for Wal-Mart that copied the designs, colors, and patterns of Samara's clothing. Wal- Decision Mart then sold this line of children's clothing in its stores. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Samara discovered that Wal-Mart was selling court of appeals and remanded the case for further the knockoff clothes at a price that was lower proceedings consistent with its opinion. than Samara's retailers were paying Samara for its clothes. After sending unsuccessful cease-and-desist Critical Legal Thinking Questions letters to Wal-Mart, Samara sued, alleging that Wal- Even though Wal-Mart was found not to have vio- Mart stole Samara's trade dress in violation of Sec- lated the law, was its conduct ethical? Did Wal- tion 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The U.S. district court Mart's conduct cause economic harm to Samara