Trademarks perform a number of important functions. Scott Hervey discusses the spectrum of trademark strength in this archive episode of “The Briefing”
Get the full episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel here or listen to this podcast episode here.
Show Notes:
Scott:
Trademarks perform a number of important functions. They are consumer road signs; they tell consumers which products to buy. They are a company’s public persona; they epitomize of all the positive (and negative) qualities of a company or a product. Lastly, trademarks represent a solemn promise to the purchasing public that the products or services branded with a company’s mark will meet certain standards. Yet, even with marks as important as they are, some business select marks that are intrinsically weak and have limited protection. WE are going to talk about the spectrum of trademark strength on this installment of The Briefing by the IP Law Blog
Scott:
Trademarks can be one of the more valuable assets a company owns. Trademarks generate brand equity based on the amount a consumer will pay for a branded product as compared to a non-branded product. For some companies, brand equity can make up a substantial portion of its value. For example, according to a 2001 ranking by Interbrand, the Coca-Cola brand, valued at $68,945,000, represents 61% of Coca-Cola’s market capitalization as of July, 2001. Xerox’s brand, valued at $6,019,000, represents 93% of Xerox’s market capitalization as of July, 2001.
Josh:
In business, branding comes as second nature. In order to survive in a competitive environment, a business must separate itself and its products from the pack and summarize these differences in a concise and succinct manner. This is even more important for emerging companies who are new to the field and in competition against established businesses with market share.
Scott:
Given the important function of trademarks, it is imperative that an emerging company identify its marks, analyze whether the marks are strong or weak, and then protect the stronger marks from infringement, being diluted and from becoming generic due to public misuse.
Josh For the most part, a trademark can be anything. According to the Lanham Act, the Federal law that deals with trademark issues, a trademark can be a word, a saying, or a logo. A Trademark can even consist of a sound (think Intel), color (pink for Corning ware fiberglass insulation) and a smell. As long as the proposed mark meets the essential purpose of functioning as a trademark, that is, it serves to identify the manufacturer of the goods or provider of the services, it can properly be categorized as a trademark. The proposed mark must mentally trigger an association between the mark owner and the goods or services bearing the mark, otherwise it is not a trademark.
Scott:
And while it’s true that a trademark can be anything, not everything can and should be a trademark.
Josh:
That’s right Scott. There are certain marks that will be denied protection as a trademark. Marks which consist of immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter or matter which disparages any person, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, are not registrable or protectable.
Scott:
Neither are marks which resemble flags of code or arms or other insignias of the United States or of any state or municipality or of any foreign nation, or marks which utilize the name, portrait or signature of a particular living individual without that individuals consent Also, marks which consist or comprise of a portrait of a deceased president of the United States are not registrable during the life of the president’s widow except by written consent of the widow In addition, certain organizations, by acts of Congress, have been granted exclusive rights to use certain marks. For example, the United States Olympic Committee has been granted exclusive right to use a number of “Olympic” symbols, marks and terms
Josh:
Marks which describe the intended purpose, function or use of the goods, the size of the goods, desirable characteristics of the goods, the nature of the goods or the end effect upon the user are really not the best choice for a trademark. This type of mark is considered merely descriptive and is not registerable on the principal register absent establishing secondary meaning.
Scott:
Its iron Josh how often companies gravitate toward a descriptive mark. The penchant for a descriptive mark was explained to me by a client – they work because the consumer knows exactly what they are getting. That’s useful in the short term but does nothing for brand building.
Josh:
Here is a few examples of descriptive marks – NICE ‘N SOFT® for bathroom tissue or PARK ‘N FLY® for off-airport auto parking services are descriptive marks. The same is true with respect to marks that identify the place in which the goods or services originate and therefore are geographically descriptive.
Scott:
The major reasons for not protecting marks that are merely descriptive is to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods and to maintain freedom of the public to use language which naturally describes the goods or services, thus avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own product
Josh:
Marks that are merely self-laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product are regarded as being descriptive. Laudation does not per se prevent a slogan or mark from being registerable. Like other descriptive marks, a mark that is self-laudatory may be registerable upon establishing secondary meaning. However, courts have refused registration even on the Supplemental Register of marks that are so highly laudatory and descriptive of the alleged product that they are incapable of functioning as a trademark
Scott:
One step up from descriptive marks, but miles away as far as protectability goes, are suggestive marks. Suggestive marks are registerable on the Principal Register without proof of secondary meaning. Suggestive marks are those which, while not really descriptive of the product’s qualities, nevertheless, suggest some benefit or property of the product. An example involves ROACH MOTEL® for insect traps, in which this mark was enforced against an infringer using “Roach Inn.” The Court explained,
We do not find the mark ROACH MOTEL® to be a merely descriptive mark. While roaches may live in some motels against the will of the owners, motels are surely not built for roaches to live in. Hence, the mark is fanciful on conception. Indeed, its very incongruity is what catches one’s attention
Josh:
The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive and therefore not registerable absent evidence of secondary meaning or merely suggestive has always been a challenging task. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the quasi-judicial body responsible for adjudicating issues which arise concerning the registration of a trademark ) has opined that there is “a thin line of demarcation involved in making a determination as to whether a term or slogan is suggestive or merely descriptive and, apropos, thereto, when a term stops suggesting and begins to describe the goods in connection with which it is used, it is, at times, a difficult question to resolve.”
Scott:
The Board suggested that in determining whether a mark has crossed the threshold from suggestiveness to descriptiveness, the following factors should be analyzed: (1) is the mark used in a trademark sense and not in a descriptive manner to describe the goods; (2) is the mark an expression that would be or is commonly used to describe the goods; (3) does the mark possess some degree of ingenuity in its phraseology; (4) does the mark say something at least a little different from what might be expected from a product, or say expected things in an unexpected way; and (5) does the mark possess more than a single meaning, namely, a double-entendre, which imparts to it a degree of ingenuity and successfully masks or somewhat obscures the intended commercial message
Josh:
The strongest marks are those which are coined words, having no intrinsic meaning or arbitrary words which, although they might exist as words in the English language, have no conceivable rational connection to the product, e.g. KODAK® (coined) for film and CAMEL® (arbitrary) for cigarettes. Because such coined or arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive, no proof of secondary meaning is necessary before a court will protect the trademark rights of the senior user of such marks.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download