acquired distinctiveness Archives

acquired distinctiveness

Trade Dress Requires Separate Articulation and Distinctiveness Requirements

by Ashley K. Justice | Feb 20, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for trade dress infringement and unfair competition, finding that the district court erred in requiring the plaintiffs to articulate distinctiveness of trade dress infringement at the pleading stage. Cardinal Motors, Inc. v. H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., Case No. 23-7586 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2025) (Chin, Sullivan, Kelly, JJ.)

Cardinal is a designer and licensor of motorcycle helmets. At issue was the “Bullitt” helmet, which Cardinal exclusively licenses to Bell Sports and is “one of the most popular helmets made by Bell.” H&H manufactures and sells the “Torc T-1” helmet. Both the Bullitt and Torc T-1 helmets have “flat and bubble versions,” feature “metallic borders around the bottom and front opening of the helmet,” and “share similar technical specifications.”

Cardinal sued H&H in September 2020, alleging unfair competition and trade dress infringement. Cardinal amended its complaint twice but both amended complaints were dismissed for failure “to adequately plead the claimed trade dress with precision or with allegations of its distinctiveness.” In Cardinal’s third amended complaint, it included two alternative trade dresses – a “General Trade Dress” and “Detailed Trade Dress” – which listed features of the Bullitt at different levels of detail.

Despite the amendment, the district court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. Based on the general trade dress, the district court reasoned that Cardinal failed to allege distinctiveness and therefore failed to allege a plausible trade dress claim. The district court extended its reasoning to “summarily conclud[e]” that the detailed trade dress also failed to articulate distinctiveness. Cardinal appealed.

Prior to making any determinations, the Second Circuit clarified that distinctiveness and the articulation requirement are separate inquiries, and that the articulation requirement is evaluated first. A plaintiff meets the articulation “requirement by describing with precision the components – i.e., specific attributes, details, and features – that make up its claimed trade dress.” The Court explained that the articulation requirement assists courts and juries to evaluate infringement claims, ensures the design is not too general to protect, and allows a court to identify what combination of elements would be infringing.

Focusing on distinctiveness, the Second Circuit explained that a trade dress plaintiff must specifically allege that its product design has acquired distinctiveness. Acquired distinctiveness is when the mark has a secondary meaning, where the public primarily associates the mark with the “source of the product rather than the product itself.” Separate from the elements of trademark, the plaintiff must meet the articulation requirement, which entails listing the components that make up the trade dress.

Having clarified the pleading requirements, the Second Circuit found de novo that the district court erred in mixing the articulation requirement with the distinctiveness requirement at the pleading stage. The Second Circuit determined that the district court erred in dismissing Cardinal’s complaint for failure to meet the articulation requirement. The Court found that Cardinal met the articulation requirement because the general trade dress was “sufficiently [...]

Continue Reading

It’s a Hard Rock Life: Guitar-Shaped Hotel Warrants Trademark, but Hilton Doesn’t

by Christopher M. Bruno | Jun 22, 2023 | Trademarks

In a twin set of precedential opinions, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board laid the foundation for determining whether building designs can be trademark protected as service marks. In re Palacio Del Rio, Inc., Ser. Nos. 88412764; 88437801 (TTAB May 25, 2023) (Shaw, Goodman, Hudis, ATJs); In re Seminole Tribe of Florida, Ser. No. 87890892 (TTAB May 25, 2023) (Taylor, Greenbaum, Johnson, ATJs).

The subjects of the opinions were the designs of the Hilton Palacio del Rio in San Antonio, Texas, and the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Florida. The Board concluded that the former was nondistinctive trade dress, whereas the latter constituted protectable trade dress. For reference, the two designs at issue appear below:

In the Hilton case, Hilton sought separate registrations for the three-dimensional design of the “River” and “Street” sides of its hotel building due to their “unique and readily recognizable design,” consisting of a pattern of alternating protruding and receding rectangular shapes created by the assembly of the hotel’s modular guest rooms. Similarly, Seminole Tribe argued that its guitar-shaped building was akin to product packaging that can be protected under trade dress.

In both cases, the Board anchored its analysis in Supreme Court precedent in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992) and Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros. (2000), but with a different result in each case. As an initial matter, in both the Hilton and Seminole cases, the Board confirmed that a building structure, if inherently distinctive and not mere product design, could constitute protected trade dress. The Board analogized a hotel’s design to product packaging, which dispensed with the need to show secondary meaning.

Where the outcomes diverged, however, was the distinctiveness of the buildings that the two entities sought to protect. In the Hilton case, the Board determined that the record did not demonstrate that the Palacio del Rio’s building design was sufficient to differentiate it from competitor hotels. Although Hilton submitted customer declarations claiming that the Rio’s design was unique, the Board did not credit such evidence on the grounds that the customers did not have personal knowledge about what was commonplace in the hotel industry and that the declarations were substantively scant.

In the Seminole case, the Board found that the record reflected that no other hotel had the Hard Rock’s unique guitar design. Analogizing to In re Frankish Enterprises (TTAB 2015), in which a monster truck was found distinguishable from all other monster truck designs of record, the Board concluded that the guitar design was inherently distinctive.

Practice Note: Now that hotels have cracked the door open for building design trademarks, it remains to be seen whether other types of unique buildings will follow suit. As the two cases collectively demonstrate, developing a supportive record—i.e., one founded by compelling evidence of uniqueness—is likely necessary to secure a trade dress for building design.

Rick [...]

Continue Reading

Press # For Options, but Not for a Trademark Registration

by Brennen Baylor | Nov 29, 2022 | Trademarks

In a precedential opinion addressing the most fundamental requirement for trademark protection, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) refusal to register a “#” based mark on the ground that it fails to function as a mark. In re Pound Law, LLC, Ser. No. 87724338 (TTAB Nov. 9, 2022) (Adlin, Lynch, Larkin, ATJ)

Pound Law, claiming acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, sought to register #LAW as a mark for providing legal services and legal referral services to consumers seeking a lawyer where legal representation or referral is initiated by phone. During prosecution, the Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that #LAW failed to function as a service mark, reasoning that a consumer would only understand that dialing #LAW would put them in contact with some legal service provider, but not specifically Pound Law. Pound Law appealed.

Pound Law argued that the Examining Attorney improperly applied a per se rule against mnemonic or vanity telephone number marks as being incapable of functioning as a mark identifying the source of goods or services. In response, the Examining Attorney asserted that the PTO refused registration only after engaging in a specimen-based determination tailored to the #LAW mark. The Examining Attorney argued that, based on the manner of using the mark with a telephone, a consumer would regard #LAW only as a means of contacting Pound Law and concluded that #LAW does not indicate the source of legal services to be rendered, only a means by which legal services might be obtained.

To assess whether #LAW conveys an informational message or functions as a source identifier, the Board considered whether the nature of #LAW affects consumer perception of the asserted mark. The Board cited examples #LAW or #law being used throughout the legal industry, including as a hashtag in social media content. The Board reasoned that, in the context of social media, a hashtag functions as a searchable keyword, not as a source identifier. Pound Law argued that it ran radio advertisements vocalizing #LAW as “pound law” to explain to consumers that the asserted mark is not a hashtag.

The Board did not find Pound Law’s evidence persuasive, explaining that Pound Law’s radio advertising was insufficient to instill Pound Law as the source of the legal services in a consumer’s mind since “there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark, and consumers may pronounce a mark differently than intended by the brand owner.” The Board also pointed to evidence of Pound Law’s “extensive visual-only advertising,” which does not distinguish the use of an octothorpe as specifically a pound sign on a telephone keypad as opposed to a hashtag used on social media platforms. The Board concluded that many consumers would understand and pronounce #LAW as a hashtag (i.e., vocalized as “hashtag law”) “given the prevalence of social media and hashtags.” On this point, the Board highlighted “quite persuasive” evidence of numerous examples from the record showing third parties—e.g., law firms, legal [...]

Continue Reading

Big Little Lies: Guidelines for Challenging Trademark Acquired Distinctiveness Claims

by Sarah Bro | Dec 2, 2021 | Trademarks

For the second time, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined the standard for demonstrating fraud in a party’s claim of a trademark’s acquired distinctiveness for purposes of registration under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act. The Federal Circuit found that a party challenging an applicant’s Section 2(f) claim based on substantially exclusive use of that trademark does not need to establish secondary meaning in its own mark to undercut the applicant’s claim of substantially exclusive use. The Court also found that use of the mark by any party, regardless of its relationship to the challenger, may undercut a trademark applicant’s claim of substantially exclusive use. Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.R.L., Case No. 21-1011 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2021) (Taranto, J.)

Galperti S.R.L. (Galperti-Italy) filed a US trademark registration for the mark GALPERTI in 2008. In an effort to overcome the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) initial refusal to register the trademark as “primarily merely a surname” (and therefore not registrable unless the mark has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce), Galperti-Italy asserted acquired distinctiveness of the GALPERTI mark under Section 2(f) and stated that the mark had become distinctive of Galperti-Italy’s metal hardware goods through its substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for the five years prior to the trademark registration. In 2013, Galperti-USA, a US company unrelated to Galperti-Italy that operates in the similar business of metal flanges and related products, petitioned to cancel Galperti-Italy’s registration on various grounds, including fraud in Galperti-Italy’s claim of substantially exclusive use of the GALPERTI trademark during the years 2002 – 2007. Galperti-USA claimed that it and other third parties also used the mark during that time, undercutting Galperti-Italy’s “substantially exclusive use” claims.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) rejected Galperti-USA’s cancellation claims, including the fraud claim. Galperti-USA filed its first appeal, and the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s determination that Galperti-USA failed to prove the falsity of Galperti-Italy’s Section 2(f) claim. The Court remanded to the Board to assess whether the other uses of GALPERTI noted by Galperti-USA were significant or inconsequential, which would impact the proof of falsity of Galperti-Italy’s representations to the PTO. On remand, the Board again found that Galperti-USA failed to prove significant—rather than inconsequential—uses of GALPERTI between the years 2002 – 2007 so as to make Galperti-Italy’s representations of “substantially exclusive use” false. Galperti-USA filed its second appeal.

In this appeal, Galperti-USA challenged the Board’s conclusions that (1) Galperti-USA had to show that it acquired secondary meaning in its own GALPERTI trademark during the relevant time period, and (2) Galperti-USA could not undercut Galperti-Italy’s claims of substantially exclusive use with evidence of use by third parties with no privity to Galperti-USA. The Federal Circuit determined that both of the Board’s premises for its fraud analysis were incorrect as a matter of law, and it was therefore unclear whether the Board’s determination was affected by these errors. Taking a closer look at the Board’s conclusions, the Court found that [...]

Continue Reading

Standing Challenge Brews Trouble in Trademark Dispute

by Paul Devinsky | Nov 4, 2021 | Trademarks

Addressing for the first time Article III standing in a trademark case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that hypothetical future injury is insufficient to establish standing to oppose a trademark application. Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, Case No. 20-2277 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2021) (Dyk, J.)

Brooklyn Brewery brews and sells craft beers. Brooklyn Brew Shop (BBS) sells beer-making kits and related accessories. Between 2011 and 2016, the Brewery and BBS collaborated on the sale of co-branded beer-making kits. In 2011, BBS obtained a trademark in its name for beer-making kits. In 2014, BBS filed an application to register a mark in its name for several Class 32 goods, including various types of beer and beer-making kits, as well as Class 5 “sanitizing preparations.”

In 2015, the Brewery petitioned for cancellation of BBS’s 2011 trademark registration and filed a notice of opposition to BBS’s 2014 trademark application. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB) denied the petition for cancellation and rejected the opposition. The Brewery appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first addressed whether the Brewery had standing to appeal the TTAB’s decision. The Court noted that while it “ha[d] not yet had occasion to address Article III standing in a trademark case,” a party appealing a TTAB decision must satisfy both statutory and Article III requirements. The Court held that the Brewery did not have Article III standing to appeal the TTAB’s decision dismissing the opposition with respect to the Class 5 sanitizing preparations because the Brewery did not make or sell sanitizing preparations. The Court found the possibility that the Brewery might someday expand its business to include the sale of sanitizing preparations was not enough to establish the injury-in-fact prong of the Article III standing test. However, the Court found that the Brewery’s past involvement in the sale of co-branded beer-making kits with BBS was sufficient to establish the Brewery’s standing to challenge BBS’s registration and application for Class 32 beer-making kits.

On the merits, the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s decision with respect to BBS’s 2011 trademark registration. The Court agreed with the TTAB that the Brewery failed to establish inevitable confusion as to the beer-making kits and failed to establish that BBS’s mark was merely descriptive. The Court vacated the TTAB’s decision with respect to the 2014 trademark application, finding that the TTAB erred by not considering whether BBS proved acquired distinctiveness of its application and remanded for further proceedings.

Practice Note: Before seeking review of a TTAB decision in federal court, a party should ensure that it has satisfied the three-part test for Article III standing.

Zero Hero: Disclaiming Disputed Term Renders Dispute Moot

by Paul Devinsky | Apr 15, 2021 | Trademarks

The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board redesignated as precedential a decision dismissing a beverage company’s opposition to trademarks using the term “ZERO” for zero-calorie drinks after the trademark applicant disclaimed the term ZERO in its pending applications, the sole remedy requested in the opposition. Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Co., Opposition Nos. 91178927 (Parent Case); 91180771; 91180772; 91183482; 91185755; 91186579; and 91190658 (TTAB May 3, 2019) (redesignated precedential Mar. 30, 2021) (Hightower, ATJ). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s decision, holding that disclaiming the term ZERO rendered the dispute moot. Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., Case No. 19-2088 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2020) (Lourie, J.)

Royal Crown and Coca-Cola are competitors in the beverage market. Coca-Cola filed 16 applications to register marks appending the term ZERO to some of its existing beverage brands, such as Coke Zero, Coke Cherry Zero and Sprite Zero. Royal Crown filed oppositions to each of the 16 applications (later consolidated), arguing that the marks were generic or merely descriptive of the beverages’ zero-calorie attributes, and that the registrations should be denied without a disclaimer of the term ZERO. The Board initially held that Coca-Cola’s applications could be registered without a disclaimer of the term ZERO, finding that Royal Crown failed to show that ZERO was generic for zero-calorie products in the genus of soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks, and that Coca-Cola proved that the term ZERO had acquired distinctiveness for soft drinks and sports drinks, although not for energy drinks. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case back to the Board with instructions to apply the correct legal standard for genericness of the term ZERO, including examining whether the term ZERO referred to a key aspect of the genus when appended to a beverage mark, and to make an express finding regarding the degree of the mark’s descriptiveness.

On remand, the Board ordered the parties to rebrief certain issues. Instead, Coca-Cola filed an unconsented motion to amend each of its applications to disclaim the term ZERO. Coca-Cola argued that the disclaimer rendered the remaining issues in the case moot and that no further action was required by the Board. Although disclaimer was the sole remedy Royal Crown originally sought in its oppositions, Royal Crown protested that the disclaimer was procedurally improper and not case-dispositive. Royal Crown argued that its requested relief included a determination that ZERO was generic or merely descriptive, and that while a disclaimer was the manner in which that relief was demonstrated, a disclaimer did not moot the legal issues raised. Royal Crown asked the Board to defer ruling on the motion to amend until it had issued a full decision on the merits.

Agreeing with Coca-Cola, the Board found that since the disclaimer was the relief sought by Royal Crown and the form of the disclaimer was acceptable, entered the disclaimer and dismissed Royal Crown’s opposition.

Practice Note: In the original appeal from [...]

Continue Reading