Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05067/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05067-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

The Court has found neither law nor evidence to support a state law theory of 1

"palming off," nor has TTHA offered argument in regard to this claim, and the Court will

treat it as abandoned. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ARKANSAS TROPHY HUNTERS

ASSOCIATION, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5067

TEXAS TROPHY HUNTERS

ASSOCIATION, LTD. DEFENDANT

O R D E R

On the 22nd day of January, 2007, the captioned matter came on for

trial to the Court, and from the evidence presented, and the arguments

of counsel, the Court finds and orders as follows:

Procedural History

1. In this trademark infringement case, plaintiff claims that

defendant has violated the Lanham Act by infringing its trademark, using

a false designation of origin, and conducting false advertising, and has

engaged in unfair competition under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade

Practices Act and Arkansas common law. It seeks injunctive and

compensatory relief.

Defendant counterclaims, alleging that plaintiff has engaged in

federal statutory, and Arkansas common law, trademark infringement,

unfair competition, false designation of origin/palming off , and 1

trademark dilution. It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory

relief.

Neither party requested a jury, and the matter was tried to the

Court.

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
Throughout this opinion, the Court has used "ATHA" to designate the plaintiff, and 2

"Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association" to designate the name by which both plaintiff and

defendant were doing business in Arkansas.

-2-

Findings of Fact

2. The Court makes the following findings of fact:

* In 2003, several Arkansas hunters formed an organization they

called the Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association ("ATHA"), which is the

plaintiff in this lawsuit. The goals of the organization centered on

various hunting and fishing activities. 

* The organizers of ATHA were aware of the existence of a Texas

group known as the Texas Trophy Hunters Association ("TTHA"), a Texasbased hunting organization which is the defendant herein. TTHA engages

in a variety of activities, particularly the sponsorship of trade shows

and the publication of a magazine, The Journal of the Texas Trophy

Hunters.

* ATHA was incorporated in Arkansas on February 6, 2003.

* Between its formation and March, 2006, ATHA had a few

meetings, acquired a few members, held a few fish fries, sponsored a few

hunts, and filmed a few hunts. It developed a logo and had some shirts,

hats and window decals made up with the logo on them, some of which the

members wore or used themselves and some of which they gave away. It

had a website which was sometimes operational, sometimes not. It

appears never to have been a financially viable business, nor a

particularly vigorous one, but it continued to exist.

* In the Fall of 2005, TTHA, which had been in business in

Texas for some 30 years, decided to set up an Arkansas group using the

name Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association. Like ATHA, TTHA did some 2

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

investigation to determine if its proposed name was already being used

in Arkansas, and concluded that it was not. They then launched a large

and well-funded marketing effort, including the production of logobearing hats, shirts and other give-aways; a mail-out soliciting

membership; and plans for a trade show, the Hunters Extravaganza, to be

held in Fayetteville, Arkansas, on April 28-30, 2006.

* On February 10, 2006, TTHA applied to the United States

Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to register the mark "Arkansas

Trophy Hunters Association" in International Class 035, for "[a]rranging

and conducting trade shows in the field of hunting and outdoor

recreational activities." 

* On February 14, 2006, TTHA applied to the USPTO to register

the mark "Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association" in International Class

016, for "[m]agazines featuring game hunting, fishing, wildlife, and

related recreational activities."

* On March 6, 2006, TTHA became aware of the existence of ATHA.

Representatives of the two organizations talked, apparently amicably,

about the possibility of making some arrangement with regard to the name

they were both using, but no conclusions were reached.

* On March 8, 2006, the Arkansas Secretary of State granted

TTHA a Certificate of Trademark for the mark "ARKANSAS TROPHY HUNTERS"

to use on "[m]agazines featuring game hunting, fishing, wildlife, and

related recreational activities."

* On April 13, 2006, ATHA filed this lawsuit, seeking to enjoin

the trade show planned to start April 28, 2006. A hearing was promptly

held and this Court denied the injunction.

* On May 2, 2006, the Arkansas Secretary of State granted TTHA

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
The Lanham Act creates both a "Principal" and a "Supplemental" register. 3

Registration on the Principal Register is prima facie evidence of the registrant's

exclusive right to use a mark in commerce in connection with the goods or services

specified in the registration. 15 U.S.C. §1115(a). Registration on the Supplemental

Register does not convey substantive rights beyond those available at common law. In

re American Fertility Society, 188 F.3d 1341 (Fed Cir. 1999).

-4-

a Certificate of Service Mark Registration for the mark "ARKANSAS TROPHY

HUNTERS ASSOCIATION" for the use of "[a]rranging and conducting trade

shows in the field of hunting and outdoor recreational activities."

* On August 1, 2006, the USPTO refused both of TTHA's

applications to register the name "Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association"

on the Principal Register. The applications were refused on the basis 3

that the mark is merely descriptive. In refusing the Class 035

application, the USPTO noted that "the mark is primarily geographically

descriptive of the origin of applicant's services," and that "[t]he

addition of a generic or merely descriptive term to a geographic term

does not obviate a determination of geographic descriptiveness. . . .

Thus the addition of the descriptive wording TROPHY HUNTERS ASSOCIATION

for a group of trophy hunters, does not obviate the geographical

significance of the term ARKANSAS." In refusing the Class 016

application, the USPTO noted that "the proposed mark merely describes

the subject matter of applicant's publication and/or the primary

audience for the applicant's publication. . . . the wording ARKANSAS

TROPHY HUNTERS ASSOCIATION merely describes the subject matter and/or

intended user of the magazine that pertains to a group of trophy hunters

in Arkansas."

Conclusions of Law

3. Lanham Act Trademark Infringement Claims:

The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. "prohibits the use of a

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

mark in connection with goods or services in a manner that is likely to

cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or

services." Davis v. Walt Disney Co., 430 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2005); 15

U.S.C. §1125(a)(1). Equivalent protection from infringement and unfair

competition is afforded to both registered and unregistered marks.

Everest Capital Ltd. v. Everest Funds Management, L.L.C., 393 F.3d 755,

759 (8th Cir. 2005).

The first step in proving a claim under the Lanham Act is to

establish that a mark is protectible. Trade or service marks are

categorized as either generic, descriptive, suggestive, or arbitrary.

A generic mark is never protectible, and descriptive marks generally are

not protectible, while suggestive and arbitrary marks are "inherently

distinctive and protectible." Schwan's IP, LLC v. Kraft Pizza Co., 460

F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2006). It can thus be seen that the starting point

for the Court's analysis of the Lanham Act claims is to determine

whether the mark "Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association" is protectible.

A descriptive mark uses terms that "describe[] the ingredients,

characteristics, qualities, or other features of the product and may be

used as a trademark only if it has acquired a secondary meaning." Id.

The rationale for affording protection to suggestive or arbitrary marks,

while not granting that same protection to descriptive marks, is that

descriptive terms "are needed to describe all goods of a similar nature.

Such a term describes the ingredients, characteristics, qualities, or

other features of the product and may be used as a trademark only if it

has acquired a secondary meaning." In order to be entitled to

protection, "a descriptive term must be so associated with the product

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

that it becomes a designation of the source rather than of a

characteristic of the product." Id.

Following a hearing on the issue of preliminary injunctive relief,

this Court ruled that "Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association" appears "to

fall into the category of a descriptive mark." The evidence adduced at

the plenary trial of the matter has not altered the Court's conclusion

on that crucial issue. While the word "trophy" might, it is true, have

a secondary meaning, because there are "trophies" other than animals

which are hunted for sport (for example, athletic trophies or trophy

wives), those trophies are not "hunted" so much as "won," "vied for" or

"sought after." When the words "trophy" and "hunters" are combined, the

phrase is, in the Court's view, simply and clearly descriptive of people

who try to kill animals of sufficient size, age, or rarity to be

considered suitable for mounting. The addition of the word Arkansas

does not change the analysis. The Court agrees with the USPTO that

"Arkansas" is primarily geographically descriptive, and "trophy hunters

association" is merely a descriptive term. 

Nor was there any testimony from which the Court could conclude

that the mark is so closely associated with the services rendered by

either plaintiff or defendant that it has become "a designation of the

source rather than of a characteristic of the product." There being

no secondary or acquired meaning to this descriptive mark, the

Court concludes that the mark "Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association" is

not entitled to trademark protection under the Lanham Act.

The Court likewise rejects any contention that ATHA's use of the

name Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association is causing -- or could cause --

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

mistake, confusion or deception vis a vis TTHA's use of its marks Texas

Trophy Hunters Association or The Journal of the Texas Trophy Hunters.

The Lanham Act analysis, supra, applies to the mark Texas Trophy Hunters

Association, which does not appear to be registered. The mark The

Journal of the Texas Trophy Hunters, for which TTHA obtained federal

registration in 2000, is simply too different from "Arkansas Trophy

Hunters Association" to generate any confusion. The marks contain only

two words in common, the descriptive phrase "trophy hunters," and the

use of a state identifier is sufficient to avoid confusion between the

two. People do not accidentally show up for the Texas State Fair on the

date advertised for the Arkansas State Fair, or mistakenly attend a

meeting of the Arkansas Bar Association when what they wanted was to

attend a meeting of the Texas Bar Association. Nor did TTHA offer

evidence of confusion that would contradict the logic of this analysis.

For all these reasons, the federal trademark infringement claims

of both parties will be denied.

4. Lanham Act False Designation of Origin Claims:

The analysis of protectibility applies equally to the parties'

Lanham Act claims of false designation of origin, DaimlerChrysler AG

v. Bloom, 315 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2003), and those claims will also be

denied. 

5. Lanham Act False Advertising Claim:

A claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act involves a

different analysis. A plaintiff must establish:

* a false statement of fact by defendant about its own or

another's product;

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

* which has deceived, or has a tendency to deceive, a

substantial segment of the advertising audience;

* and which is material, in that it is likely to influence a

purchasing decision;

* which statement has entered interstate commerce; and

* which injures, or is likely to injure, the plaintiff.

American Italian Pasta Co. v. New World Pasta Co., 371 F.3d 387 (8th

Cir. 2004).

An actionable false statement may be either literally false

factually, or may be literally true or ambiguous factually, but convey

a false impression or be likely to deceive consumers. Id. Where a

plaintiff relies on a "tendency to mislead" theory, it must prove "that

the advertising actually conveyed the implied message and thereby

deceived a significant portion of the recipients." United Industries

Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 1998).

ATHA's false advertising theory appears to be that TTHA's use of

"Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association" tends to mislead consumers into

believing that they are dealing with an organization which has its roots

in Arkansas, rather than one rooted in Texas. ATHA failed, however, to

offer evidence that a significant portion of those who saw any

advertising by TTHA of its Arkansas organization were actually deceived,

and its Lanham Act false advertising claim fails on that account.

6. Unfair Competition under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade

Practices Act:

ATHA asserts a claim of unfair competition under the Arkansas

Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"), which prohibits "[k]nowingly

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-9-

making a false representation as to the . . . sponsorship. . . of goods

or services." A.C.A. §4-88-107(a)(1). It is not necessary, however,

for the Court to decide whether TTHA, in using the trade name "Arkansas

Trophy Hunters Association," knowingly misrepresented the sponsorship

of its trade show. That is because in order to prove its ADTPA claim,

ATHA must establish that it has suffered "actual damage or injury as a

result of an offense or violation as defined" in the ADTPA. A.C.A. §4-

88-113(f). ATHA offered no evidence of actual damage which would

support a claim under the ADTPA, and that claim will be denied.

7. Common Law Unfair Competition Claims:

Under Arkansas common law, when a trademark "has acquired a

secondary meaning, the original user has a property right which equity

will protect against unfair appropriation by a competitor." Tri-County

Funeral Service, Inc. v. Eddie Howard Funeral Home, Inc., 330 Ark. 789,

957 S.W.2d 694 (1997). 

The concept of "secondary meaning" under Arkansas common law is

similar to that under the Lanham Act:

There are certain names, marks, and symbols which in their

primary sense are merely generic or descriptive and do not

ordinarily indicate the origin of goods or services. Such

names, marks, or symbols, when used in their primary sense,

cannot form the subject matter of a trade or service mark.

However, a name, mark, or symbol by long and exclusive use

and advertising by one person in the sale of his goods and

services may become so associated in the public mind with

such goods or services that it serves to identify them and

distinguish them from the goods or services of others. When

such an association exists, the name, mark, or symbol is said

to have acquired "secondary meaning" in which the original

user has a property right which equity will protect against

unfair appropriation by a competitor.

Tri-County, supra, quoting Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Liberty

Insurance Co. of Texas, 185 F.Supp. 895 (E.D. Ark. 1960).

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-10-

For the same reasons that the Court finds no secondary meaning in

the mark at issue under the Lanham Act, it concludes that neither party

has shown the acquisition of secondary meaning under Arkansas common

law, so as to entitled it to recover on that theory.

8. Arkansas Statutory Trademark Infringement Claim:

Because its marks "ARKANSAS TROPHY HUNTERS" and "ARKANSAS TROPHY

HUNTERS ASSOCIATION" are registered in the State of Arkansas, TTHA

seeks relief under the Arkansas statutory scheme dealing with

trademarks, found at A.C.A. §4-71-201 et seq. A.C.A. §4-71-212

prohibits the use, without consent, of a registered mark or any

"reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation" of such a

mark. Relief under the statutory scheme is limited to injunctive relief

unless based on actions "committed with the intent to cause confusion

or mistake or to deceive."

TTHA has registered the mark "ARKANSAS TROPHY HUNTERS" to use on

"[m]agazines featuring game hunting, fishing, wildlife, and related

recreational activities," and the mark "ARKANSAS TROPHY HUNTERS

ASSOCIATION" for the use of "[a]rranging and conducting trade shows in

the field of hunting and outdoor recreational activities." The Court

finds no basis to grant any form of relief on the strength of these

registrations, because there is neither allegation nor evidence that

ATHA has any plans to hold a trade show or publish a magazine. Nor is

there any evidence of intent to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.

While the Court recognizes that, under the Arkansas scheme, a

"merely descriptive" mark is not properly registrable at all, it has not

treated ATHA's pleadings as a challenge to the registrations in

question. ATHA did not pray for cancellation of the registrations and

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-11-

did not carry out the proper procedures for mounting a challenge to the

registrations under the statute. Thus, its pleadings do not suffice as

a challenge to the registrations.

9. Trademark Dilution Claims:

Finally, TTHA claims that ATHA diluted its mark. Dilution claims

are different from infringement claims. "Prohibiting trademark

infringement protects trademark owners and consumers from likely

confusion. Prohibiting trademark dilution, on the other hand, protects

the holder of a famous trademark from misappropriation of its investment

in the mark." Everest Capital Ltd., supra, 393 F.3d at 762.

To be eligible for "dilution protection," a mark must be famous.

Eight criteria are listed in the statute for evaluating "fame":

* degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;

* duration and extent of use of the mark;

* duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark;

* geographical extent of the trading area in the mark is used;

* the channels of trade for the goods/services with which the

mark is used;

* degree of recognition of the mark in those trading areas and

channels;

* nature and extent of similar marks used by third parties;

* whether the mark was registered as of 1881, 1905, or on the

"principal register."

TTHA's claim fails when measured by these criteria, whether the

contention is related to the mark "Texas Trophy Hunters Association" or

the mark "Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association." These marks are not

inherently distinctive but merely descriptive, and have not acquired

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>
-12-

distinction, i.e., secondary meaning. They are used only in a very

narrow channel of trade, or niche market, and are not on the Principal

Register.

Fame is "a rigorous standard. 'Dilution is a cause of action

invented and reserved for a select class of marks -- those marks with

such powerful consumer associations that even non-competing uses can

impinge their value'." Id., quoting Avery v. Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton,

189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999). It cannot be seriously contended that

TTHA's use of "Arkansas Trophy Hunters Association" or even "Texas

Trophy Hunters Association" meets this rigorous standard -- even in the

niche market of hunting organizations. Nor has the Eighth Circuit

recognized a niche market dilution cause of action at this point. See

Frosty Treats Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., 426

F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2005) and Everest Capital, Ltd., supra. The Court

therefore concludes that TTHA's federal dilution claim should be denied.

The corresponding claim for dilution under state law must be denied

for the same reasons. The provisions made under Arkansas law to prevent

dilution follow the same "famous mark" analysis, and the same criteria

for fame are used. A.C.A. §4-71-213.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims of both parties herein are

dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and

attorney's fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05067-JLH Document 60 Filed 02/05/07 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: <pageID>