Clearly using “clear” for Non-Transparent Goods is Deceptively Misdescriptive.

By Julie L. Spieker

Dolce Vita Footware, Inc. sought registration of the mark CLEAR for various bags, purses, wallets, and card cases – excluding transparent goods. The Examiner refused registration on the grounds that it is deceptively misdescriptive and on April 29, 2021 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “TTAB”) affirmed. In its original registration, Dolce Vita identified […]

ZERO-ing in on the Right Legal Test for Genericness

By Blog Staff

In Royal Crown Co. v. The Coca-Cola Co., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissing Royal Crown’s opposition to the registration of Coca-Cola’s trademarks for soft drinks and sports drinks with the term ZERO. The CAFC concluded that the […]

What’s In A Name?

Theresa Earnhardt, widow to professional race car driver Dale Earnhardt and step-mother to Kerry Earnhardt, appealed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that her stepson’s mark, EARNHARDT COLLECTION, was notas a whole primarily a surname. Theresa Earnhardt is the owner of trademark registrations and common law rights in the use of the mark DALE […]

Princeton Vanguard v. Frito-Lay: One Test to Rule All Generic Analysis

Fourth Circuit: OBX geographically descriptive with no secondary meaning; noninfringement affirmed

In a decision last month, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a trademark case. The mark at issue was OBX, which was an acronym coined to be short for the Outer Banks area of North Carolina. The plaintiff coined the acronym and sold various products bearing […]

Third Circuit: Evidence of secondary meaning must correspond to the asserted mark

In a decision Wednesday, the Third Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in a trademark case, finding the asserted mark not protectible as a matter of law.The district court granted summary judgment that the mark was generic. On appeal, the Third Circuit held there was a genuine issue of fact as to […]

First Circuit: District court’s determination that “duck tour” is nongeneric doesn’t hold water

In a lengthy decision last week, the First Circuit held a district court erred in finding the term "duck tour" nongeneric in the context of sightseeing tours on amphibious vehicles. The district court, based largely on the nongenericness of this aspect of the parties' marks, found the plaintiff was likely to succeed in its infringement […]

Tenth Circuit: 1-800-SKI-VAIL does not infringe VAIL service mark

In a decision last week, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling in a trademark case in favor of the defendant, finding the defendant's use of the vanity telephone number "1-800-SKI-VAIL" for marketing services relating to the ski industry was not likely to be confused with the Plaintiff's service mark registration for "VAIL" encompassing […]

Sixth Circuit: No likelihood of confusion between competing wines using same geographic term

In a decision last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that use of the mark "Chateau de Leelanau Vineyard and Winery" did not create a likelihood of confusion among consumers with the plaintiff's "Leelanau Cellars" federally-registered mark. "Leelanau" in both marks is a reference to a peninsula in Michigan where the wine […]

“Aspirina” descriptive of analgesic goods; denial of registration affirmed

In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the TTAB that the term "ASPIRINA" is descriptive of analgesics, and therefore not subject to trademark protection in the United States absent a showing of secondary meaning. While the evidence of record was conflicting as to whether ASPIRINA was descriptive, given the deferential standard […]