Seattle Trademark Lawyer

This is the second part of excerpts from my materials, “Basics of Trademark Protection in Plain English.” It focuses on the “offensive” considerations a trademark owner should think about when selecting a trademark.

C.       “Offensive” Considerations

As a trademark owner, you normally want to select a trademark that is both registrable and enforceable against later adopters. Your ability to do these things is heavily influenced by the technical strength of the mark. To determine strength, courts place the mark on the spectrum of trademark distinctiveness most prominently discussed in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976). In doing so, they categorize each mark as “generic,” “descriptive,” “suggestive,” “arbitrary,” or “fanciful.” 

A mark is generic if it denotes the thing itself, or category of thing. Generic marks have no trademark significance because they are incapable of distinguishing one source from another. If a mark is generic – either from inception, or because it has become generic over time, like the once-proprietary brands “elevator,” “escalator,” “nylon,” and “raisin bran” – it is deemed to be always generic and can never be registered or enforced. 

Descriptive trademarks immediately convey information about the good or service being sold. In this way, SPEEDY AUTO GLASS is a descriptive trademark because it tells consumers that the company installs auto glass, and that it does so in a hurry. Descriptive trademarks can only be registered on the lesser Supplemental Register (which doesn’t offer all the benefits provided by the Principal Register), and cannot be enforced against third parties, unless the owner can establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness, or “secondary meaning.” A mark acquires secondary meaning through longstanding use (usually at least five years) and proof of sales, advertising expenditures, or (most persuasively) consumer surveys. A descriptive mark with secondary meaning can be registered on the Principal Register and can be enforced against later-adopters (though third parties can still use descriptive terms to describe their own goods and services even if such terms happen to be your client’s trademark). These limitations make descriptive marks the weakest form of protectable trademark. Surnames and geographic names are classified as descriptive marks, as are self-laudatory “we are the best” words. For this reason, the very descriptive SEATTLE’S BEST COFFEE trademark is technically weak, though it has become commercially strong through its longstanding use, millions of dollars spent on advertising, and millions of cups of coffee sold.

Suggestive trademarks are one rung up the protectability ladder. They suggest a quality or characteristic of the good or service being sold, but require the consumer to exercise at least some degree of imagination to understand the information being conveyed. Take, for example, CHICKEN OF THE SEA. This mark tells consumers that the good sold under the mark is seafood, and it is akin to chicken. The consumer must process this information to understand that the good being hinted at is tuna fish. Marks with double entendres are likewise classified as suggestive. The distinction between descriptive and suggestive marks can be blurry, but it’s an important one, because suggestive marks do not need proof of secondary meaning. Suggestive marks, therefore, are inherently distinctive and are protectable upon adoption.

Arbitrary marks put a familiar word in an unfamiliar context, such as APPLE for computers. While APPLE as a brand name for fruit would be generic, it has no meaning when paired with computers. For this reason, arbitrary marks are considered inherently distinctive and, indeed, are given wide berth as a strong trademark.

Fanciful marks are perhaps the strongest class of mark. They are made-up words, like GOOGLE, EXXON, and POLAROID. They are accorded great protection because they usually leave the defendant with little explanation for adopting a confusingly similar mark. Given the infinite number of possible trademarks, a court can quickly conclude that a search engine named “GAGGLE” was only given that name to benefit from confused consumers. In this way, both arbitrary and fanciful trademarks are thought to “cast a long shadow,” which later trademark adopters need to avoid.

There also are a number of statutory bars to registration or enforcement that don’t stem from technical strength. Under federal law, they are largely set forth in Section 2 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052.  These include marks that are primarily surnames, marks that would tend to deceive consumers, marks that include someone’s name without their permission, and marks that include country flags.  Other statutes grant exclusive trademark rights to specified owners in the way that  OLYMPIC, OLYMPICS, and the five-ring logo may only be used by the U.S. Olympic Committee and its licensees (with a narrow carve-out for longtime users of the OLYMPIC and OLYMPIC names that are located near Washington’s Olympic Mountains). Obviously, one needs to avoid these marks if they want a brand they can register and protect in court. 

In summary, owners selecting a new trademark need to appreciate the ramifications of where the mark would likely be placed on the spectrum of distinctiveness, and avoid the statutory bars to registration and enforcement. Only then can they help maximize the scope of their trademark protection.

Hopefully, this discussion is helpful. The third and final installment — regarding “defensive” considerations in selecting a trademark — will come next.

I’m giving a talk to new lawyers about trademark protection — the nuts and bolts of things to consider to get the most out of a trademark. Following is the first part of an adaptation of the materials I prepared.

A.      Enforcement Principles

The main way to protect a trademark is by perfecting and maximizing one’s rights in the mark, which usually occurs by registering it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and then by enforcing those rights against competitors, imitators, and would-be users in an effort to keep them as far away as possible from the property. 

Enforcement, in turn, usually boils down to sending cease-and-desist letters to the wrongdoers in the hopes of obtaining voluntary compliance with your demands, under threat of suit; and if the wrongdoer doesn’t voluntarily comply, to carrying out the threat and commencing suit. In this respect, protection of one’s intellectual property rights is both binary and simple: either the wrongdoer voluntarily stops its bad behavior in response to your pressure, or it doesn’t; and, if needed, you either escalate the dispute to court, or you don’t. There really aren’t any other legal options.  (I don’t count hiring the likes of Tony Soprano (R.I.P) to enforce one’s rights as a legal – or advisable – option.) 

B.       Basic Principles of Trademark Law

Trademarks function the way cattle brands function on a ranch.  Cattle brands distinguish one cow from another, so there’s no question which cow belongs to which rancher, even if they get mixed together. Trademarks are the same way. They are unique names, symbols, or tag lines (among many other devices) that tell consumers that a good or service sold in connection with the brand comes from a particular producer. They are affixed to the product itself, or product packaging, or they are displayed on websites or other promotional materials. When consumers see a Nike shoe, for example, the Nike name, Swoosh logo, and “Just Do It” tag line tell consumers that the shoe doesn’t come from Adidas, New Balance, or any other manufacturer – it only comes from Nike. In this way, trademarks symbolize the owner’s reputation and encourage good, consistent, quality by enabling consumers to efficiently identify producers and make repeat purchases. In other words, if you like Nike shoes, you know where to go when you need to buy a pair (or who to avoid if you weren’t satisfied with your previous purchase).

Trademark law is a creature of both state and federal law (and both statutory and common law). At bottom, trademark rights arise through use, which means affixing the mark to a good or product packaging (for goods) or by displaying the mark on websites or signs (for services), and selling the item to consumers. Registration is available through state governments and the U.S.P.T.O. Registration is not required, but it expands the geographically limited rights that automatically arise through use. There is a lot to say about trademark registration, but further discussion is outside the scope of this discussion.

Protecting a brand normally starts with selecting a brand. Protection has two facets, which you can think of in terms of both sides of a coin. You probably want to register your mark (or at least have that option), and you want to be able to enforce it in court. But you also want to choose a brand that won’t get you sued by another trademark owner.  In other words, there are “offensive” considerations, and “defensive” considerations. To understand them, you need to know a few basic principles.

First, the maxim of “first in time, first in right” often controls. That means if you start using your mark first, you (usually) can go to court to prevent later adopters from using a brand that is close to yours in connection with similar goods or services. Registrations can change this outcome, but that discussion is outside the scope of this writing. Therefore, we will proceed with the simple notion that when there is a conflict between two trademark owners’ rights, the first user in a given geographic area will have superior rights – called priority – and will win in a trademark infringement lawsuit against a later adopter.

To do so, however, a trademark plaintiff also needs to prove that the later adopter’s trademark use is “likely to cause confusion” with the plaintiff’s prior trademark use. Whether a likelihood (probability) of consumer confusion exists is determined by the multi-factor test that applies in a given jurisdiction. In the Ninth Circuit, it is known as the “Sleekcraft” factors, after the influential trademark infringement case of AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979). But other jurisdictions have similar tests under different names.  Regardless of the jurisdiction, courts apply this test to determine whether an ordinary consumer would likely be confused into believing that the branded goods or services that come from the later adopter (the “junior” user) come from, are approved by, or having something to do with, the earlier adopter (the “senior” user). If the answer is yes, then a court would find the junior user liable for trademark infringement. 

The main factors in assessing a likelihood of confusion are the similarity in the parties’ marks (considering sight, sound, and meaning); similarity in the goods or services offered under the parties’ marks; the similarity in how the parties’ goods or services are advertised, marketed, and sold; and whether consumers have actually been confused in the marketplace. There are other factors, but these usually are the most important.

More to come in Part 2.