Protectability of Mark
Equibrand Corporation v. Reinsman Equestrian Products, Inc. and Dale R. Martin, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36229 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division). According to Equibrand, to determine whether a mark is protectable, a court must assign the mark into one of five categories, which, arranged in order of increasing distinctiveness, are: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbitrary, or (5) fanciful.” A surname is generally regarded as “descriptive” by the 5th Circuit, which is distinctive only if it has acquired a secondary meaning. Canon Props, 752 F 2d at 155.
In order for a party to prevail under the Lanham Act, a party must first show that the word or phrase in dispute is registerable or protectable. Zatarians, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786,790 (5th Cir. 1983). March Madness Athletic Ass’n v. Netfire, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d 786, 806, (N.D. Tex. 2003). After protectability is established, a Plaintiff must prove the likelihood of confusion. A mark is protectable if it is either (1) inherently distinctive or (2) has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. Two Pesos Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 769, 112 S. Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992).
Secondary Meaning
A trademark has successfully acquired a secondary meaning when “in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or item is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself. Secondary meaning is a term of art in trademark law. It refers to the situation which arises when a company has a mark which might ordinarily be ineligible for protection were it not for the fact that the name has come to be closely associated, (in a distinct market), with a particular manufacturer’s product or service.
In order to establish a secondary meaning for a term, a plaintiff must show that the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product by the producer. The burden of proof to establish secondary meaning rests at all times with the plaintiff; this burden of proof is necessary to establish secondary meaning for a descriptive term. The mark must denote to the consumer “a single thing coming from a single source,” to support a finding of secondary meaning. Both direct and circumstantial evidence may be relevant and persuasive on the issue. Factors such as amount and manner of advertising, volume of sales, and length and manner of use may serve as circumstantial evidence relevant to the issue of secondary meaning. While none of these factors alone will prove secondary meaning, in combination they may establish the necessary link in the minds of the consumers between a product and its source. It must be remembered, however, that the question is not the extent of the promotional efforts, but their effectiveness in altering the meaning of the term to the consuming public. Zatarians, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smoke-House, Inc., 698 F.2d 786; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30159 (Feb. 25, 1983).
Survey evidence is the most preferred and persuasive manner to establish secondary meaning. However, other factors, taken together, may also establish that a mark has achieved secondary meaning, these factors include: (1) length and manner of use of the mark by Plaintiff; (2) nature and extent of advertising and promotion of the mark; (3) efforts made to promote and conscious connection in consumers mind between mark and particular product or service; and (4) Defendant’s intent to copy the mark.
What Constitutes Registered Mark?
Federal registration of a mark “including a surname” creates a presumption that the mark is distinctive. Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 876 (9th Cir. 1999); Lois Sportswear, USA, Inc. v. Levi Straus & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 871 (2nd Cir. 1986). Union National Bank states “the ownership of a trademark is established by use, not by registration. The first one to use the mark is generally held to be the “Senior” user and is entitled to enjoin junior users from using the mark, or one that is deceptively similar to it, subject to limits imposed by senior user’s market and natural area of expansion.” Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 364-65 (2nd Cir. 1959) (owner of mark not able to enjoin its use by others in area where owner not likely to expand).
Union National Bank of Texas, Laredo, Texas v. Union National Bank of Texas, Austin, Texas, 909 F.2d. A senior user may not exclude others in areas where he does not currently do business nor is likely to do business in the future. Citing, Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F. 2d 358, 364-65 (2d Cir. 1959).
Confusion Related to a Mark
The touchstone of infringement inquiry is whether or not Defendant’s use creates confusion as to “source, affiliation, or sponsorship” of Defendant’s goods because of its purported likeness to Plaintiff’s goods. Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd., 155 F. 3d 526, 543 (5th Cir. 1998).
The 5th Circuit has enumerated the following list of non-exhaustive factors, no single one being dispositive, to determine whether likelihood of confusion exists (1) type of mark allegedly infringed; (2) similarity between 2 marks; (3) similarity of products or services; (4) identity of retail outlets and purchasers; (5) identity of advertising media used; (6) the Defendant’s intent; and (7) evidence of actual confusion. Taco Cabana Int’l, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 932 F. 2d 1113, 1122 n.9 (5th Cir. 1991) aff’d sub nom. See also, Two Pecos.
The first element, type of mark infringed, focuses on the strength of the mark. Strength of a service mark for purposes of analyzing likelihood of confusion is dependent on both placement of mark on spectrum of distinctiveness and the extent to which the consumers in the relevant market place recognize the mark as an indicator of source.
Similarity of the mark is determined by comparing the marks “appearance, sound and meaning.” The relevant inquiry is whether, under the circumstances of the use, the marks are sufficiently similar and that prospective purchasers are likely to believe that the two users are somehow associated. The greater the similarity between products, the greater the likelihood of confusion between marks.
Irreparable Injury
In a trademark case, a plaintiff may show irreparable injury by establishing a substantial likelihood of confusion. When a likelihood of confusion exists, the plaintiff’s lack of control over the quality of the defendant’s goods constitutes immediate and irreparable harm, regardless of the actual quality of the goods. The injury lies in the fact that the plaintiff no longer can control its own reputation and goodwill.
Injunctive Relief
To obtain preliminary injunction, moving party must demonstrate (1) substantial likelihood of success on merit; (2) substantial threat of irreparable injury if injunction not granted; (3) threatened injury to Plaintiff must outweigh threatened injury to Defendant; and (4) granting of preliminary injunction serves public interest. See, Cherokee Pump & Equipment, Inc. v. Aurora Pump, 38 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1994). If the moving party cannot prove all four elements then the court must deny injunctive relief since the decision to grant preliminary injunction is the exception rather than the rule. Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).
Union National Bank of Texas, Laredo, Texas v. Union National Bank of Texas, Austin, Texas, 909 F.2d 839 (5th Cir. 1990). The owner of a federally registered mark is only entitled to injunctive relief in the market it actually serves plus its “natural zone of expansion.” He may not enjoin others from using the mark if the likelihood of confusion between his product and the infringer’s is minimal or non-existent, such as where the parties to the action use the mark in totally different markets, or for different products. The “zone of expansion” doctrine represents a conundrum within the conundrum of trademark law. There is no established definition. A party seeking an injunction for trademark infringement must clear several hurdles in order to prevail. First, he must prove that the name he seeks to protect is eligible for protection. He must then prove he is the senior user. Having proven these elements he must then show a likelihood of confusion between his mark and that of the defendant. Finally, because he is asking for the equitable remedy of an injunction, he must show that the likelihood of confusion will actually cause him irreparable injury for which there is no adequate legal remedy.
To succeed in a trademark infringement claim, a party must first show that it has a protectable right in the mark and second, show that there is a likelihood of confusion. The non-exhaustive list of factors, or digits of confusion, includes: (1) the type of trademark allegedly infringed; (2) the similarity between the two marks; (3) the similarity of the products or services; (4) the identity of the retail outlets and purchasers; (5) the identity of the advertising media used; (6) the defendants’ intent; and (7) any evidence of actual confusion. Brennan’s, Inc. v. Bert Clark Brennan; Blake W. Brennan, 289 Fed. Appx. 706; .S. App. LEXIS 16890.
