2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-5-2008 

# ET B rowne D r u g C o v

. C o co c are P ro d Inc P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4543

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" ET B r owne Dr u g C o v

. C oc oca r e P r od Inc " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 603. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/603P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 06- 4543 & 06- 4658

E .T . B R O W N E D R U G C O ., a N ew J er s eycorpor at i on,

A ppel l ant/C r os s - A ppel l ee

v. C O C O C A R E P R O D U C T S , IN C ., a N ew J er s eycorpor at i on,

A ppel l ee /C r os s - A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 05442) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG

. Sher i dan

A r gued D ece m ber13, 2007H onor abl e Loui s H

. P o l l ak, Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * J udge fort he East ern D istr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 2 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge

* O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t5, 2008 A rno ld B

. C alm an n , E sq u ir e S a ib e r, S c h les in g e r, S a tz & G o ld ste in O ne G at ew ayC ent er , Sui t e 1300 N ew ar k, N J 07102- 5311 E dw ar d M

. L ai ne, E s qui r e ( A r gued) D av id A

. P ran g e, E sq u ir e O p p e n h e im e r, W o lf

f & D o n n e lly 45 Sout h Seventh St r eet 3 4 0 0 P laza V II M i nneapol i s , M N 55402- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee R ober tM ahoney , E s qui r e ( A r gued) Jea n n e H am b u rg, E sq u ir e N or r i s , M cLaughl i n & M ar cus 721 R out e 202- 206 P. O

. B ox 1018 Som er vi l l e, N J 08876- 1018T he t erm appea r s w i t h and w i t houtcapi t al i zat i on t hr oughout 1 th e p a rties ’ b rie f

s a n d th e D istric t C o u rt’s o p in io n . It a p p e a rs in a ll ca p itals o n th e p ro d u c ts d e p icte d in v a rio u s e x h ib its a n d in B r ow ne’ s r egi s t r at i ons . W e us e “Cocoa B ut t erFor m ul a” f or c o n s is te n c yb u t a tta c h n o s ig n if ic a n c e to th is c h o ic e . 3 C ouns el forA ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T h is ca se i n v o lves a disp u te b etw ee n tw o m an u fa cture rs o f p erso n al c are an d b ea u ty p rod u cts t h at co n tai n co co a b u tt er. E

. T

. B row ne D rug C o. , Inc. (“B row ne”) cl ai m s that i thas a p r o t e c t e d t r a d e m a r k i n t e r e s tu n d e rt h e L a n h a m Ac t , 1 5 U. S

. C. § 1051 et

s eq. , i n t he t erm “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a, ” w hi ch 1 fea tur es pr om i nentl y o n i t s pr oduct s . C ococa r e Pr oduct s , I nc. ( “C ococa r e”) di s put es t he val i di t yof thi s as s er t ed tr ademar k. T h e D istri ct C o u rten te re d su m m aryjud g m en t i n C o co ca re’s favoraft erconcl udi ng t hat t he t erm i s gener i c and thus m aynot r ece i ve pr ot ect i on fr om t he tr ademar k l aw s . W e ag ree t hat B row ne h as no tdem on strat ed that“C oco a B utt er Form ula” i s a pr ot ect abl e tr ademar k, butr eac h that concl us i on bya di ffe r ent path. W e bel i eve t hat a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac texi s t s as t o w hether“C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” i s g en eri c. B uteven4 assu m ing itis de scripti v e , th is t erm m u st ha v e a sec o n d ary m eani ng t o be pr ot ectab le. B eca us e B r ow ne fa i l ed t o i dent i fy s uffi ci ent evi dence t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ton t hat poi nt , w e affi r m t he gra nt of sum m ary j udgm enti n favorof C o c o c a re . W e re m a n d , h o w e v e r, to a llo w th e D istric t C o u rt to e n te r a n a p p ro p ri a te o rd e r u n d e r 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 1 1 9

. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory B row n e, a N ew Jerse yco rpor at i on, m ark ets p erso n al ca re and bea ut yp rod u cts cont ai ni ng cocoa but t erundert he br and n a m e “ P a lm e r’s .” T h e “ P a lm e r’s ” lin e o f c o c o a b u tter p ro d u c ts is th e sa les lea d e r a m o n g p e rso n a l ca re a n d b e a u typ ro d u c ts con t ai ning coc o a b utt er. T he p ackag i ng con t ai ning t ho se p ro d u c ts d is p la y s “ P a lm e r’ s ” a n d “ C o c o a B u tt e r F o rm u la .” “Pal m er ’ s C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” i s on t he pr i nci pal r egi s t erof t he U ni t ed St at es Pat entand Tra demar k O ffi ce ( “PT O ”), a nd th u s th is t e r m i s p re s u m p tiv e ly v a lid a s a tr a d e m a rk

. See 15 U

. S. C

. § 1057( b)

. I n contr as t , “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” i s on t he P T O ’s su p p lem en tal reg iste r b u t no t on the p ri n cipa l r eg ist er. T he s t atut or ypr es um pt i on of val i di t yacc or di ngl ydoes not a tta c h to th a t te rm . See i d. § 1 0 9 4

. C ococa r e, a N ew J er s eycorpor at i on, al s o s el l s per s onal c a re a n d b e a u typ ro d u c ts c o n tain in g c o c o a b u tter, a lth o u g h its sa les a re f

a r sm a ller th a n th o se o f B ro w n e . In 1 9 9 4 , it i nt r oduced ne w pr oduct s for m ul at ed w i t h cocoa but ter a nd V ita m in E , la b e lin g th e m “ C o c o c a re C o c o a B u tte r F o rm u la .”5 T h is u se o f

“ C o c o a B u tter F o rm u la” g a v e rise to its d isp u te w ith B ro w n e .

“ [ T] h e p a r t i e s a gr e e t h a tBr o wn e k n e w o f i t s c l a i ms againstC oco care s i nce 1 99 3 bu tdid not pr osecute them becau se C o c o c a re sa les w e r e ‘d e m in im is’; a n d B ro w n e c o u ld o n ly co n firm tw o ‘si g h ti n g s’ of C o co ca re f

rom 1 9 9 4 - 20 0 0 .” A m e n d e d O p in io n G ra n tin g S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t a t 4 , E. T. B r ow ne D r ug C o. v. C ococar e Prods

. , I nc. , N o. 03 –5 44 2 ( PG S) (D

. N

. J. S ep . 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 ) (“D ist

. C t. O p . ”) ( fo o tn o te o m itted). B r ow ne fi r s tobj ect ed to C o co car e’ s us e of the t erm “C ocoa B ut t erFor m ul a” i n 2002 aft eri tbeca m e aw ar e of a pr oductfl y er f ro m a s e lle r o f

C o c o c a re ’s p ro d u c ts
. B r ow ne then br oughts ui ti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C ou rtfor t he D i stri ctof N ew Jer sey aftera cease-and-desi st l et t ers ent t o C ococa r e fa i l ed t o caus e i tt o s t op us i ng t he c o n te s te d te rm . B ro w n e a lle g e d , in tera lia , t hatC ococar e had v io late d th e L a n h a m A c t an d e q u iv a len t N e w Je rse ylaw b yits u se o f th e term “C o co a B u tte r F o rm u la. ” C o co ca re c o u n te rc la im e d , in tera lia , fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f B ro w n e’s s uppl eme nt al r egi s t r at i on of “Cocoa B ut t erFor m ul a” a nd am en d m en t of

B row n e’s p ri n cipa l r eg istrati o n o f “ P alm er’s C ocoa But t erFor m ul a. ” I t m oved for s um m ary j udgm ent on t he groun ds t hat “C oco a B utt er Form ula” i s not a pr otecta b le tr ad em ark b ec au se it is a g en eric term , that B row n e’s c lai m s are barr ed byt he def

ens es of l ache s and u n cl ean ha nds , and that t hos e cl ai m s s houl d be di s m i s s ed becaus e C ococa r e’ s us e ofBr o wne d o e s n o t d i s c u s s t h e c l a i ms i t b r o u g h t i n D i s t r i ct 2 C our tunderN ew J er s ey la w . T hos e cl ai m s t her efor e do not f e a tu re in o u r a n a lysis o f th is a p p e a l. 6 “C o co a B u tt er F o rm u la” w as a fair u se of a p rod u ct de scriptor. B row ne cross- m ov ed fo r s um m ary j ud gm ent on t he g eneri cness and fai r use i ssues, and on C oco care’ s coun t ercl ai m s. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that“C ocoa But t er F o rm u la” is a g e n e ric ter m a n d e n ter e d su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favo r of C oco care. It rej ect ed C oco care’s c o un t ercl ai m s, concl udi ng t hatno “s ubs t ant i ve evi dence ” s uppor t ed the a lleg a tio n s th a t B ro w n e m a d e d e lib e rat el yfrau d u len t sta tem e n ts t o t he PTO. Di s t
. Ct

. Op. a t1 2

– 1 3

. Th e Cou r tn o t e d t hat C o c o c a re h a d a d m itt e d it su f f e re d n o a c tu a l d a m a g e s a s a re su lt of B row ne’s al l eged act i on s, and re a soned t hat, becau se “s uppl ement al r egi s t r at i on pr ovi des no s u b st ant i ve r i ght s , [] t her e w oul d be no r eas on t o for ce the cancel l at i on of a s uppl ement al l yr egi s t er ed mar k. ” Id

. at13.
B ro w n e a p p e a ls. It ar g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in concl udi ng t hatt he t er m “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” i s gener i c. 2 Coc o c a r e a p p e a l s t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t ’ s r e f u s a l t o d i r e c tt h e PTO t o canc el t he s uppl em ent al r egi s t r at i on of “Cocoa B ut t er For m ul a” ort o di r ectt he addi t i on of a di s cl ai m ert o t hatt erm on th e p ri n c ip a l r e g is tr a tio n o f “ P a lm e r’ s C o c o a B u tte r F o rm u la .” C ococa r e al s o r enew s t he ar gum ent s t hat i ti s ent i t l ed t o entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent i n i t s favor beca us e “Cocoa B ut t erFor m ul a”7 h a s n o t a c q u ire d se c o n d a rym e a n in g , B ro w n e w a ited to o lo n g to actand made m i s r epr es ent at i ons t o t he PT O s uch thati t s act i on i s barr ed, r es pect i vel y , byt he def ens es of l ache s and uncl ean hands , and i t s ( C o co ca r e’ s ) us e of the t erm “C ocoa But t er For m ul a” a m ount s t o fai rus e. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T he D i s tr i ct C our t had j ur i s di ct i on overt he Lanham A ct cl ai m s pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1338( a) and pende ntj ur i s di ct i on o v er the stat e law claim s u n d er 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 3 8 (b). W e have ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r re v iew is p le n a ry. Be r n e r I

n t ’ l Cor p . v . M a rs Sa l es C o. , 987 F. 2d 975, 9 7 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ). O n ap p ea l from a g ran t of su m m ary j udgm ent , ourC our texer ci s es the sam e s t andar d of r evi ew as t he D i s t r i ctC our tand cons iders w hethergenui ne i s s ues of m a te ri a l f

a c t ex is t th a t p re c lu d e e n tr yo f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Id

. I I I . D i s cus s i on A . T he P rot ect abi l i t y of t he M ark “C ocoa B ut t er F orm ul a”
T o es t abl ish tr ademar k i nfr i ngementi n vi ol at i on of the L anham A ct , 15 U

. S

. C

. § 1114, a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove that( 1) t he m ar k i s val i d and l egal l y pr ot ect abl e, ( 2) i t ow ns t he m ark, a n d (3 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s u se o f

th e m a rk is lik e lyto c re a te c o n f u s io n c o n c e rn in g th e o ri g in o f g o o d s o r se rv ic e s . Fr eedom8 C ar d, I nc. v. JPMor

gan C has e & C o. , 432 F. 3d 463, 469–70 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. W e thus b egi n ouranal y s i s byas ki ng w hether

“ C o c o a B u tter F o rm u la” is a v a li d , leg a llyp ro tec tab le tr a d e m a rk

. T erm s assert ed as tr adem arks m ayfal l i n fo ur cat ego ri es: [1] arbi t r ary( orfanc i ful ) t erm s , w hi ch bea rno l ogi cal ors ugges t i ve r el at i on t o t he ac tual charact eri st i cs of t he go od s; [2] sugg est i ve term s, w hi ch s ugges t r at her t han desc ri be t he charact eri st i cs of t he go od s; [3] descri pti ve term s, w hi ch des cr i be a c har act erist i c ori ngr edi entof th e a rticle to w h ich it r e f e rs[ ;] a n d [ 4 ] g e n e ric t erm s , w hi ch funct i on as t he com m on des cr i pt i ve nam e of a produ ctcl ass. A

. J. C anf

i eld C o. v. H

oni ckm an , 8 0 8 F

. 2 d 2 9 1 , 2 9 6 (3d C ir

. 1986) ( i nt ernal cit at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. T he L anh am A ctprot ect s onlysom e of these c at ego ri es of t erm s. W o r k i n g b a c k wa r d , i tp r o v i d e s n o p r o t e c t i o n f o rg e n e r i c t e r ms beca us e a f

i r s t
- us er o f a t erm “ca nnotdepr i ve compet i ng m a n u f a c tu re rs o f th e p ro d u c t o f th e rig h t to c a ll an a rticle b yits name. ” Id

. at297 ( quot i ng A ber cr om bi e & F i t ch C o. v. H unt i ng W or ld, I nc. , 5 3 7 F .2 d 4 , 9 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 )); see al so P ark ‘ N F l y, Inc. v. D ol l arP ar k and Fl y, I nc. , 4 6 9 U. S. 1 8 9 , 1 9 4 ( 1 985) ( “G ener i c t erm s ar e not r egi s t r abl e and a r egi s t er ed mar k m aybe ca n ce ll ed at an yti m e o n the gro u n d [] i t h as be co m e g en eric. ”).9 I n contr as t , t he Lanham A ct p r ot ect s des cr i pt i ve t erm s i f they have a cqui r ed sec ondarym eani ng as s oci at i ng t he t erm w i t h t he c la im a n t. C a n

field , 808 F. 2d a t 2 9 2

– 9 3 , 2 9 6 ; s ee al s o B er ner , 987 F. 2d at979. Fi nal l y , t r ademar k l aw pr ot ect s s ugges t i ve and arb itr aryo r fa n cifu l t erm s w ith o u t anysh o w ing o f se co n d ary m e a n in g . B er ner , 987 F. 2d at979 ( ci t i ng C a n field , 808 F. 2d at 2 9 7 ).
B row ne has t he bur den i n t hi s cas e of pr ovi ng the exi sten ce of

a pr ot ect abl e mar k beca us e “Cocoa B ut t er F o rm u la” d o es n o t app ea r on the P T O ’s p ri n cipa l r eg ist er. C a n field , 808 F. 2d at297. I tcont ends t hat“C ocoa But t er For m ul a” s houl d r ece i ve pr ot ect i on fr om t he t r ademar k l aw s as a des cr i pt i ve t er m t hathas acqui r ed s econdarym eani ng. C ococa r e r es ponds t hatt he t erm sh o u l d r ece i ve no pr ot ect i on beca us e i t i s gener i c. T he part i es t hus pos e a di ffi cul tques t i on o f tr a d e m a rk la w . S e e id

. at 29 6 (“C o u rt s an d co m m en tat o rs have r ecogni zed the d i ffi cul t i es of di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een s u g g e s tiv e , d e s c ri p tiv e , a n d g e n e ri c m a rk s .” ).
W h et her“C ococa r e B ut t erFor m ul a” i s gener i c or d esc ri p ti v e, an d w h ethe r th at t erm h as a cq u ir ed sec o n d ary m e a n in g , a re q u e s tio n s o f f a c t. See i d. at307 n. 24 ( not i ng t hat “C o u rt s o f A p p ea ls ha v e g en era ll yh eld th at a d esig n ati o n ’s lev e l o f in h e re n t d istin c tiv e n e ss is a q u e stio n o f f a c t”) ; D ra n o

ffP er l s t ei n A s s ocs . v. Sklar , 967 F. 2d 852, 862 ( 3d C i r . 1992) (i d e n tif yin g s e c o n d a ry m e a n in g a s a q u e s tio n o f f a c t) . W e t her efor e as k w hether B r ow ne has pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence10 t o creat e a gen uine i ssue of m at eri al fact as t o those qu est i on s. See F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ); B er ner , 987 F. 2d at978.
A s not ed, w e conc l ude that B row ne has pr oduced evi dence s uffi ci ent t o cr eat e a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ton i t s cl ai m t hatt he t erm “C ocoa But t erFor m u la” is notgener i c, butdes cr i pt i ve. B utas w e al s o concl ude thatB r ow ne has fai l ed t o prod uce s uffi ci entevi dence t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m aterial fa ct as to w h ethe r t h e term h as a cq u ir ed sec o n d ary m e a n in g , w e re a c h th e sa m e re su lt as th e D istric t C o u rt – “C ocoa B ut t erFor m ul a” maynotr ece i ve the pr ot ect i ons of the L a n h a m A c t. 1. I s “C ocoa B ut t er Form ul a” G eneri c?

a. T h e P ri m ary S i gn i fi can ce T est and th e L i m i t ed C i rcum s t ances i n W hi c h Ca n

fie ld ’ s A l t ernat i ve T es t A ppl i es T his app eal rai ses the ini t ial q uest i on of the proper t est under w hi ch t o eval uat e w hether t he t erm “C ocoa B ut t er For m ul a” is g ener i c and thus notpr ot ect abl e as a tr ademar k. “T h e j u ri sp rud en ce o f ge n ericn ess re v o lves aro u n d the p ri m ary sign ifi ca n ce test , w h ich in q u ir es w h ethe r th e p ri m ary sig n if ica n c e o f a ter m in th e m in d s o f th e c o n su m in g p u b li c is t he produc t or t he produc er . ” C a n field , 8 0 8 F

. 2 d a t2 9 2

– 9 3

. We a sk “ w h e th e r c o n su m e rs th in k th e ter m re p re se n ts th e g e n e ricT he D i str ict C o u rtt r eat ed thi s ques t i on i n a s om ew hat 3 confus i ng m anner . I tfi r s ts t at ed thati ti s a “f undament al ques t i on i n t hi s cas e . . . w hether‘ cocoa but t er ’ or‘ cocoa but t er for m ul a’ i s t he r el evant pr oduct genus for e val uat i ng gener i cnes s . ” D i s t
. C t
. O p. at7. I t t hen acknow l edged t hat“the pr oductgenus i n t hi s act i on, how ever , i s n o t i n di s put e. ” I d. T hi s acco r ded w i t h i t s pr evi ous s t at ement s t hatB r ow ne des cr i bes th e genus as “s ki n car e pr oduct s i n t he coc oa but t er cat egory ” and tha tC ococa r e des cr i bes i tas “per s onal car e and beautyai d pr oduct s i n t he coc o a b ut t erm arket , ” id

. a t 5 ( quot at i on m arks o m i t t ed) , and thatanydi s t i nct i on betw een
“ sk in care produ ct s” and “ personal car e and beau t yaid p ro d u c ts ” is o n e w ith o u t a d if f e re n c e , id

. T he C ou rtcont i nued i n appar entagr eementw i t h t he 11 name of t he produc t [or s ervi ce] ora mar k i ndi cat i ng m er el yone s our ce of t hat pr oduct[ors ervi ce]

. ” D rano f f -Perl st ei n A ssocs. , 967 F. 2d at859 ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot at i on m arks and c itatio n o m itt e d ). If

th e ter m re f

e rs to th e p ro d u c t ( i

. e. , t he genus ) , t he t er m i s gener i c. I f, on t he otherhand, i tr efe r s t o one s our ce orpr oducerof t hat pr oduct , t he t erm i s notgener i c ( i

. e. , i ti s des cr i pt i ve, s ugges t i ve, or arbi t r ary orfanc i ful )

. T o gi ve an e x a m p le , “ C o la” is g e n e ric b e c a u se it ref e rs to a p ro d u c t, w her eas “Peps i C ol a” i s not g en eric beca us e i tr efe r s t o t he pr oducer

. T o r epea t , C ococa r e cont ends t hat“C ocoa Butt er For m ul a” i s gener i c w her eas B r ow ne ar gues i ti s des cr i pt i ve. T he D i s t r i ct C our t di d notappl yt he pr i m arys i gni fi canc e t es t
. I ti ns t ead a ppl i ed an a l t ernat i v e test s t at ed i n C anf i eld. 3p arti es, reaso n ing that the p rod u cts b ea ri n g the term at i ssu e “ are p a rt o f [ a ] n e w g e n u s; c o n sis tin g o f p e rso n a l c a re a n d b e a u tya id produ ct s , i nc l ud i ng cream s, l oti on s, ski n m ois turi zers and soaps, for m ul at ed w it h co co a but t er . ” Id

. at7. I tt hen depa r t ed fr om t he s ubm i s s i ons of the pa rt i es and i t s ow n pr i orr ecogni t i on of th e ir a g re e m e n t, ho w e v e r, b y sta tin g th a t “c o c o a b u tter f o rm u la i s t he r el evantpr oductcl as s . ” Id

. a t 8

. W e v a rie d in o u r in c lu sio n a n d e x c lu sio n o f th e w o rd “ D iet” 4 i n C a n field

. W e us e thatw or d t hr oughoutforcons i s t encybut at t ach no s i gni fi canc e t o t hatchoi ce. C anf i eld ref ers t o the prim ary sign ifi ca n ce testas if itd iffe rs 5 f ro m th e c o n s u m e r u n d e rs ta n d in g te s t. See i d. at299 ( r efe r r i ng t o “the pr i m ary s i gni fi canc e t es t and i t s r el at ed t es t of cons um er under s t andi ng”)

. M or e r ece nt l y , w e have t r eat ed the conce ptof cons um erunder s t andi ng as i ncl uded i n pr i m arys i gni fi canc e. See Ber ner , 9 8 7 F

. 2 d at 98 2 (refe rri n g to the p ri m ary 12 N eit h er p artyd ispu ted th at ap p roa ch

. W e c o n clud e, ho w ev er, t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d nothave ve ntur ed bey ond t he pri m arysi gn i fi cance t estt o an yal t ernat i ve g l oss. C anf i eld addr es s ed s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch a manufac tur er cr eat ed a ne w pr oduct and i t w as notcl eari f i tal s o had cr eat ed a new pr oductgenus . I t i nvol ved a di s put e overt he t erm “D i et C ho colat e F ud ge S od a. ” “[A ] fu nd am ental qu est i on . . . [w as] 4 w hetherchocol at e s oda or chocol at e fudge s oda i s t he r el evant pr oductgenus foreval uat i ng gener i cnes s . ” Id

. at 298–99. T he p r i ma r ys i g n i f

i c a n c e t e s t c o u l d n o ta n s we rt h a tq u e s t i o n , we

5sign ifi ca n ce testas f o cu sing o n “c o n su m er u n d erstan d in g ”). E i t her w ay , t he pri m arysi gn i fi cance t estrem ai ns t he cen t ral t est o f g e n e ri c n e s s in o u r C ir c u it. S e e C a n field , 808 F. 2d at299. Y etw e s ee nothi ng i n t he re cor d i ndi cat i ng t hatei t herpar t yhas as ked t hat w e or t he D i s t r i ct C our t us e the consumer under s t andi ng t es tt o gauge w hethera t erm i s gener i c. 13 r eas oned, s i nce i tappl i ed “onl yaft erw e have det erm i ned the r el evantgenus . ” Id

. a t 2 9 9

. O u r C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e f o llo w in g ru le w o u ld h e lp us fi ll in thi s gap of i dent i fy i ng t he appr opr i at e genus for an aly sis: “If

a p rod u ce r i n tr o d u ce s a p rod u c t th at [1 ] diff ers fr om an est abl i s hed produc t cl as s i n a part i cul archar act er i s t i c, and [2] us es a comm on des cr i pt i ve t erm of t hatchar act er i s t i c as t he name of the pr oduct , t hen the pr oducts houl d be cons i der ed i t s o wn g e n u s . ” I

d. at30 5– 06

. In tho se ci rcum st ances, “[w ] hethert he t erm t hati dent i fi es t he pr oducti s gener i c then depends on t he co m p eti tors’ nee d t o us e i t
. A tt he l eas t , i f no c o mmo n l y u s e d a l t e r n a t i v e e f f e c t i v e l yc o mmu n i c a t e s t h e s a me f u n c tio n a l in f

o rm a tio n , the ter m th a t d e n o tes th e p ro d u c t is gener i c. ” I

d. a t 3 0 6 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). S e e g e n e ra lly G enes ee Bre w i ng C o. v. Str oh B r ew i ng C o. , 124 F. 3d 137, 145 ( 2d C i r . 1977) (discus s i ng C a n fieldand descri bing i t s t estas a co m p lem en t t o , rathe r th an a reje c tion o f, th e p ri m ary s i gni fi canc e t es t w h en a courtcannotr eadi l ydet erm i ne the g e n u s o f a n e w p ro d u c t)

.14 C anf i eld d o e s n o t co n tro l h e re f o r a sim p le r e a so n : th is cas e does notpos e the ques t i on addr es s ed i n C a n fi e ld

. T he “ques t i on . . . att he cor e” of C a n fieldw as w hether “the r el evant pr oductcat eg o ryorgenus forpurpos es of eva l uat i ng gener i cnes s i s chocol at e s oda orchocol at e fudge s oda. ” I d. at 293. W e do not fa ce a com par abl e ques t i on, as t he part i es befor e us do notdi s put e w hetherw e s hou ld u se an exi s t i ng g e n u s o r a n e w g e n u s in o u r a n a ly sis . T h e yin ste a d a g re e , w ith onl yi ns i gni fi cantqui bbl es o verw or di ng, t hat“C ocoa But t er S k i n C a r e P r o d u c t s ” o r a n e q u i v a l e n tt e r m d e f i n e s t h e c a t e g o r y. T o u n d e rsta n d w h y th is d istin c tio n m a tters , w e re tu rn to t he pr i nci pl es under l y i ng C a n field

. It a d d re ss e d a w e a k n e ss in the p ri m a ry sig n ifi ca n ce test– the p resu m p ti o n that a c o u rt know s t he pr oduct ’s g en u s. I n m os tcas es , t hatgenus w i l l be o b v ious , even for new pr oduct s . A s l i ght change i n a det er gent ’ s for m ul a, forexampl e, l i kel yw i l l notcr eat e a ne w pr oductgenus . Pr obl ems m ayar i s e, how ever , if a produc t d if f e rs f ro m e x istin g p ro d u c ts in w h a t C a n fieldcal l s a “part i cul archar act er i s t i c. ” Exam pl es m ay i ncl ude the addi t i on o f a n e w f lav o r o r a n e w f

e a tu re d in g re d ien t ( s u c h a s h o n e yin t he “H oneyB r ow n A l e” a ti s s ue i n G enes ee Bre w i ng C o. )

. T he m a n u f a c tu re r th e n lik e lyh a s c re a ted a n e w typ e o f p ro d u c t. T hatm anufa ctur erm ayw el l need t o us e des cr i pt i ve t erm s i n t he pr oductname t o i dent i fyt he pr oduct t o cons um er s . T hi s r ai s es t he q uest i on of th e p roper genu s for the C ou rt ’s gen eri cness analy si s: t he est abli shed p roduct cl ass ora new produ ctcl ass t hatm odi fi es t he es t abl i s hed pr oductcl as s w i t h t he new15 c h a ra c te ri s tic

. C a n fieldaddr es s ed thi s pr obl em byar t i cul at i ng a t es tt hat supp l i es the p roper genu s fo r a generi cness analy si s. It s t est a p p l i e s wh e n a ma n u f

a c tu r e r u s e s t h e f

o l l o wi n g e q u a t i o n : n a me of new pr oduct= nam e of the es t ab l i s hed pr oductcl as s ( “D i et C hocol at e Soda” i n C a n field) + n a m e o f th e n e w c h a ra c ter istic ( “Fudge” i n C a n

field). See i d. a t 3 0 5

– 0 6

. T h e e stab li sh ed p rod u ct cla s s in o u r ca se is “S k in C are Pr oduct s ” or“Lot i on. ” The new char act er i s ti c is “C ocoa B ut t er . ” B r ow ne coul d have c al l ed i t s new pr oduct s “C ocoa B u tte r S k in C a re P ro d u c ts ” o r “ C o c o a B u tte r S k in C a re L o tio n .” U s e of thes e t erm s w ou ld have s at i s fi ed C a n field ’ s equat i on ( name of t he new char act erist i c + nam e of the es t abl i s hed p r o d u c t c la s s ) a n d tr ig g e re d its te s t. C anf i eld s t at ed thatt he pri m arysi g n i fi cance t estw ou l d n ot have b een u seful becau se t he gene r i cnes s det er m i nat i on w oul d have de pended on the unr es ol ved thr es h o ld defi ni t i on of the genus ( “C ocoa But t er S k in C a re P ro d u c ts ” v s . “ S k in C a re P ro d u c ts ” ).
O f c o u rse , w h e n it i n tro d u c e d sk in -c a re p ro d u c ts co n tai n ing co c o a b u tt er ( i

. e. , ad d ing a n ew ch ara cterist ic), B r ow ne di d notl abel tho se pr oduct s w i t h t he t erm “C ocoa B ut t erSki n C ar e Pr oduct s ” or“C ocoa But t erL ot i on. ” I ns t ead, it u se d “ C o c o a B u tter F o rm u la.” T h is ter m d o e s n o t f ru stra te t he appl i cat ion of

t he pr i m arys i gni fi canc e t es tbeca us e i tdoes notr ai s e the ques t i on w hethert o us e “C ocoa B ut t erFor m ul a” orT he publ i c nee d notknow t he i dent i t yof the p roducerfor 6 the p ri m arysign ifi ca n ce o f th e term to b e the p rod u ce r. C a n field , 8 0 8 F .2 d a t 3 0 0 (c iti n g S .R e p . N o . 9 8

– 6 2 7 , at 5 (19 8 4 )). 16 “F orm ula” as t he proper gen us for ou r anal y si s. C oco care al so has not s ugges t ed t hat “For m ul a” i dent i fi es t he e st abl i s hed pr oduct cl as s . B r ow ne does notm ake ba byfor m ul a af t eral l , or s el l al gor i t hm s o rr eci pes . N ordoes anyr ecor d evi dence su g g est t h at co n su m ers u se “ F o rm u la” t o d esc ri b e th e skin ca re p r o d u c tc a t e g o r y . Br o wn e ’ s u s e o f a d i f f e r e n te q u a t i o n t o n a me i t s pr o d u ct (“ C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” = name of t he new c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ( “ Co c o a Bu t t e r ” ) + a t e r m notdes cr i bi ng t he es t abl i s hed pr oductcl as s ( “For m ul a”) ) does not br i ng i nt o pl ay t he w eakn ess i n the pri m arysi gn i fi cance t estt hat C a n field add resse d beca us e i tdoes notr ai s e the ques t i on of the pr oper genus forouranal y s i s . A ppl y i ng C a n fieldh e r e a m o u n ts to a ttem p tin g to re m e d ya n o n -e x iste n t p ro b lem

. W e th e re f o re w ill eval uat e the gene r i cness o f the t erm “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” u n d e r t h e p ri m a ry si g n if ic a n c e te s t o n ly.
b. I s t he T erm “C ocoa B ut t er For m ul a” G e ne r i c U nde r t he P rim a ry S ign if

ican ce T est? “[T] he pr i m arys i gni fi canc e t es t
. . . i nqui r es w hethert he pr i m ary s i gni fi canc e of a t erm i n t he m i nds of t h e c o n su m i ng publ i c i s the p roductort he pr oducer

. ” I d. a t2 9 2

– 9 3

. We 6U nder t hi s anal y s i s , t he D i s t r i ct C our t s houl d not have 7 br oken up the t erm forpurpos es of i t s anal y s i s and cons i der ed “C ocoa But t er ” s epar at el yfr om “For m ul a. ” See D i s t
. C t
. O p. at 5, 7. 17 appl i ed thatt es ti n B er ner , as ki ng w het hert he evi dence demonst r at ed thatt he t erm ati s s ue pr i m ar i l ysi gni fi ed the p ro d u c t g e n u s to c o n s u m e rs . B er ner , 987 F. 2d at980–81. L i ke t he t er m under di s put e i n B er ner , t he m eani ng of “C ocoa But t er For m ul a” s houl d be “e val uat ed by exami ni ng i t s m eani ng t o t he r el evantconsum ing publ i c. ” Id

. at981. T hateval uat i on re q u ire s lo o k in g a t th e m a rk a s a w h o le, n o t d iss e c tin g it i n to v a ri o u s p a rt s . I

d. W e t her efor e i nqui r e w hether t he cons um i ng 7 publ i c under s t ands “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” t o r efe r t o a pr oduct genus ort o a pr oducer

. W e as k s peci fi cal l yi f the evi dence s ubm i t t ed byB r ow ne cr eat es a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tas t o i t s cont ent i on t hat t he consumi ng publ i c does notunder s t and t he t erm “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” t o r efe rt o a pr oductgenus ( i

. e. , th a t it is n o t g e n e ri c , b u t d e s c ri p tiv e in th is c a s e ). Pl ai nt i ffs s eeki ng to est abl i s h t he des cr i pt i venes s of a m ar k oft en us e one of

t w o t ypes of s ur veyevi dence

. J

. T hom as M c Ca r t h y , M c Ca r t h yo n Tr a d e ma r k s a n d Unf a i rComp e t i t i on ( 4t h ed. 2008) [her ei naft er M cC ar t hy on T r ademar ks ] des cr i bes a “ T e f lo n su rv e y ” a s “ e ss e n ti a llya m in i-c o u rse in th e g e n e ric ver s us t r ademar k di s t i nct i on, fol l ow ed bya t es t
. ” 2 M cC ar t hy on T r ademar ks § 12: 16. T hat s ur vey runs a part i ci pantt hr ough a number of t erm s ( s uch as “ w as hi ng m achi ne” a nd18 “C hevr ol et ”) , as ki ng w hethert heyar e comm on names orbr and names. A ft ert he pa rt ici pantgr as ps t he di s t i nct i on, t he s ur vey as ks t he par t i ci pantt o cat egor i ze a num berof t erm s , i ncl udi ng th e te rm a t is s u e . I

d. (discu ssing su rve ycre ated fo r E

. I

. D uP ont de N em ours & Co. v. Y

os hi da I nt ’ l , I nc. , 393 F. Supp. 502 (E .D .N .Y . 1 9 7 5 ))

. A “Ther m o s s ur vey , ” on the otherhand, as ks t he r es pondenthow he ors he w oul d as k for t he produc t at i s s ue. I f, t o us e the t er m underdi s put e i n t he cas e fr om w hi ch the s ur vey g e t s i t s n a me , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s l a r ge l y s a yt h e b r a n d n a me ( “ Th e r mo s ” ) r a t h e rt h a n t h e i n i t i a l p r o d u c tc a t e g o r yn a me ( “V acuum B ot t l e”) , t he sur vey pr ovi des evi dence t hatt he br and name ( “Ther m os ”) has become a gene r i c term fort he pr oduct cat egory . 2 M cC arthyon T r ademar ks § 12: 15 ( di s cus s i ng s ur vey us ed i n A m e r ic a n T h e r m o s P r o d

s . C o . v . A la dd in In d u s ., I nc. , 207 F. Supp. 9 ( D

. C onn. 1962) )

. T o put t hi s i n t he t erm s of t he p ri m arysi gn i fi cance t est , t he t erm w ou l d b e gen eri c beca use the c o n su m ers w o u ld b e u sing it to r ef er t o the p rod u ct ca tego ry r athert han a pr oducer w ho m akes pr oduct s w i t hi n t hatpr oduct c a te g o ry. B ro w n e c o n d u c ted a su rv e yin th is c a se th a t g e n e ra lly adher es t o t he “Ther m os s ur vey ” model

. T he s ur veypos ed a num berof open- ended que s t i ons as ki ng r es ponden t s t o “ i d ent i fy o r de scribe the p rod u ct ca tego ry ” in w h ich its pro d u cts fa ll

. It as ked ea ch of the 154 val i d r es pondent s “[w ] hatw or d orw or ds w oul d y ou us e t o i dent i fy or des cr i be a s ki n car e pr oductw hi ch19 cont ai ns cocoa but t er ?” an d “[ i] f y ou neede d t o i dent i fyor d esc ri b e a sk in ca re p rod u ct c o n tai n ing co co a b u tt er, w h at w o rd orw or ds w oul d y ou us e i ns t ead of or i n addi t i on t o j us ts ay i ng cocoa but t er , i f any ?” N ei t her “C ocoa B ut t er For m ul a” norany form of the w ord “F orm ula” appeared am on g the r espon den t s’ a n s w e rs . T h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ta p p e a r s t o h a v e a d m i t t e d t h e s u r v e y. C ococa r e does not s ugges t on t hi s appea l t hatw e s houl d excl ude i t
. N or do w e s ee a r eas on t o do s o. W e ther efor e as k w hether t h e su rveyevi dence cr eat es a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hether“C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” i s notgener i c, but d e s c ri p tiv e . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e su rv e y h a d “ little orno prob at i ve val ue” a nd “s houl d be af for ded l i t t l e orno w ei ght

. ” W e u n der s t and the C our tt o have made that det erm i nat i on w i t hi n t he s um m aryj udgm entfr amew or k r ather t han t o have e ng ag ed i n anyi nappr opr i at e w ei ghi ng of the e v id e n c e a t th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta g e . See , e . g. , U ni ver s al C i t y St udi os , I

nc. v. Ni nt endo C o. , 7 4 6 F

. 2 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 8 (2d C ir

. 1984) ( hol di ng a s ur veyt o be “s o badl yfl aw ed thati tcannotbe u sed to d em o n str ate the ex ist en ce o f a q u esti o n o f f ac t”). C o co ca re a r gues t hatw e s houl d r evi ew t hi s deci s i on forcl ear error . I tpoi nt s t o ourdeci s i on i n J o h n s o n & J

o h n s o n - Mer ck Con s u merPh a r mac e u t i c a l s Co. v . Rh o n e - Po u l e n c Ror er P har m aceut i cal

s , I nc. , 1 9 F

. 3 d 1 2 5 , 1 3 5

– 3 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ), w h e re w e e m p lo y e d th a t s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . R or erdi d notW e h a v e e x p l a i n e d t h e i mpo r t a n c e o f t h e d i s t i nct i on 8 betw een the pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on and s um m aryj udgm ent sta g e s o f lit ig a tio n : In th e p o stu re b e f

o re u s– a tra d e m a rk c a se in wh i c h s u mm a r y j u d g me n tp r o c e e d i n g s f o l l o w a g ran t of a p reli m inary injun cti o n in the p lai n ti ff ’s favor–t he di s t i n ct i on betw een the s t andar ds for s um m ary judgmentand pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on become cr i t i cal

. Fai l ur e t o s t r ict l yobs erve the pr i nc i p l e s g o v erni ng s um m aryj udgm entbecomes par t i cul ar l y s i gni fi cant i n a t r adema rk or tr ad en am e action , w h ere su m m aryjud g m en ts are th e e x c e p ti o n . [ I ] n f

e r e n c e s c o n c e r n in g c r e d ib ili ty t hat w er e pr evi ous l ym ade i n rul i ng on [a] m ot i on fora pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on cannot det erm i ne [a ] R u le 5 6 (c ) m o tio n a n d sh o u ld n o t b e u se d to su p p o rt p ro p o sitio n s th a t u n d e rp in th e d e c isio n to g ra n t th e m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. D oebl ers ’P enns

ylvani a H

ybr i ds , I nc. v. D oebl er , 442 F. 3d 812, 820 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) (cit ati on and q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )

. T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t wo stan dar ds r emai ns as i m por t anti n t he cont extof w ei ghi ng t he r es ul t s of a s ur vey as i n m aki ng cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ( t he i s s ue i n D oebl er ). 20 co m e to u s at t h e s u m m a ry j u d g m en t st ag e, ho w ev er. I t i nvol ved a D i s t r i ctC our tt hathad w eighed surveyevi dence dur i ng t he cour s e of a four

- day evi dent i aryhear i ng on a mot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. 8W e rej ect B row ne’s argum ent t hat w e shou l d u se an ab use 9 of di s cr et i on s t andar d of r evi ew beca us e w e do not agr ee that th is is a q u e s tio n o f

th e a d m is s i b i l i t y o f

th e s u rv e y s . See In re P aol i R ai lr oad Y

ar d P C B Li t igat i on , 3 5 F

. 3 d 7 1 7 , 7 4 9 (3d C ir

. 1994) ( appl y i ng a def

er ent i al sta ndar d of r evi ew t o rul i ngs on ad m issi b il ityo f e x p ert op inion s). 21 O ur ca se invol ves no s uch w ei ghi ng of evi dence or f a c tu a l f in d in g s. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s r o le h e re w a s to e v a lu a te t h e r e c o r d e v i d e n c e t o d e t e r mi n e wh e t h e r Br o wn e ’ s c l a i ms co u ld p roc ee d to tr ial u n d er th e sum m ary jud g m en t stan d ard

. In t hi s cont ext , w e do notdefe rt o t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r es ol ut i on of t hatl egal ques t i on. I ns t ead, w e w i l l conduct pl enary r evi ew as w e have on ot herocca s i ons w hen a D i s t r i ctC our thas gr ant ed s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See I ber i a Foods C or

p. v. R om eo , 150 F. 3d 2 9 8 , 3 0 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); see al so Ni nt endo , 746 F. 2d at 115, 118 ( s how i ng no defe r ence t o D i s t r i ctC our topi ni on)

. 9
T h e D istric t C o u rt f

a u lted th e s u rv e yf

o r w h a t it per cei ved as t w o err or s . I t cr i t i ci zed t he s ur veyfornotus i ng t he t erm “Pal m er ’ s , ” bel i evi ng t hatthi s om i s s i on “underm i ne[d] B r ow ne’ s t heory of t he cas e” and m ade t he questi o n s “fl aw ed and mi s l eadi ng. ” D i s t. C t
. O p. at9. T he C our tal s o bel i eved th a t th e su rv e yc o n tain e d lea d in g q u e stio n s. F o r e x a m p le , it c o n sid e re d th e q u e stio n “ W h a t w o rd o r w o rd s w o u ld y o u u se to i dent i fyordes cr i be a s ki n care p r oductw hi ch cont ai ns cocoa b u tter? ” to b e h ig h ly su g g e stiv e in o rd e r t o e v o k e a s p e c if ic r es pons e.C ococa r e pr es ent s expert evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat“C ocoa 10 B ut t er ” m ay have di s cour aged t he us e of t hos e w o rds in t he ans w er s . B utt hi s does notdeprive the s ur veyof pr obat i ve v alue

. It m ere ly cre ates a q u esti o n as to h o w m u ch w eigh t a j u ry s h o u l d g i v e t h e s u r v e y. I n addi t i on t o t hi s s ubs t ant i ve di ffe r ence , t hos e ca s es di ffe r 11 pr ocedur al l y fr om t hi s cas e. I n bot h of thos e ca s es w e r evi ew ed t he w ei ghtgi ven t o s ur vey s byD i s t r i ctC our ts c ons i der i ng m o tio n s f

o r e n tr y o f p re lim in a ry i n ju n c tio n s . See s upr a not e 8 (dis cus s i ng pr ocedur al di s t i nct i on betw een pr el i m i nary injun cti o n an d su m m aryjud g m en t st ag es o f trad em ark litig a tio n ). 22 W e do not agr ee t hes e ques t i ons w er e s o m i s pl ace d. T he su rve yw as in tend ed to rev ea l w h ethe r c u stom ers u se th e w o rd “C o co a B u tt er F o rm u la” to d esc ri b e c o co a b u tt er sk in ca re pr oduct s orl ot i ons . T he p arti es ’ gener i cnes s di s put e tur ns on t h a tq u e s t i o n . W e t h u s s t e e ra wa yf r o m th e c r i t i c i s m th a t“ s o me o f th e su rve y q u esti o n s u se tw o o f th e thre e w o rds (c o co a b u tt er) of B r ow ne’ s s our ce i dent i fi er( cocoa but t erfor m ul a)

. ” I d. We stru g g le to co n

jure h o w B row n e c o u ld h av e p u rsue d the c o re gener i cnes s i nqui r yw i t houtdoi ng s o. A s w e bel i eve the 10 ques t i ons ar e nothi ghl y s ugges t i ve orm i s l eadi ng, t hi s cas e does not , as t he D i s t r i ct C our ts ugges t s , fi nd s i m i l ar i t i es i n N o v a rtis C ons um erH

eal th, I nc. v. Johns on & J

ohns on- Mer ck Consum er P har m aceut i cals C o. , 290 F. 3d 578, 592 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , and R or er , 19 F. 3d at135. 11C ococa r e does not di s t i ngui s h i n i t s openi ng br i ef be t w een 12 “T efl on survey s” and “ T herm os survey s. ” Iti m pli ci t l yargues, how ever , t hatB r ow ne s houl d have conduct ed the form err ather t han the l at t erw h en i tcont ends t hat“[t ] he pr operques t i on w o u ld h av e a sk ed su rv e yresp o n d en ts i n a straigh tfo rw ard fas hi on w hethert he des i gnat i on ‘co co a but t erfor m ul a’ i d en ti fied a br and, ora comm on name. ” C ococa r e does not expl ai n w hyB r ow ne had to co n d ucta “Tefl on s ur vey ” r ather th a n a “ T h e rm o s s u rv e y .” 23 W e al s o do not per cei ve anyr eas on forB r ow ne t o have i ncl uded the w or d “Pal m er ’ s ” i n i t s s ur vey . T hi s l i t i gat i on focus es on t he t erm “C ocoa Butt er Formul a, ” noton t he r egi s t er ed tr ademar k “Pal m er ’ s C ocoa But t erFor m ul a. ” The i ncl us i on of the w or d “Pal m er ’ s ” i n t he s ur veyw oul d have confus ed mat t er s and w ould h av e t aken the s urveyout s i de the

“ T h e rm o s s u rv e y ” m o d e l. 12
B row n e’s su rve yd o es h a v e n o n -tri v ial flaw s, h o w ev er. O nl y 3 0 % of val i d r es pondent s us ed a noun i dent i fy i ng t he produ ct gen us ( e. g. , lo tio n , c re a m ). T h e m a jo rityo f re sp o n d e n ts ei t her answ ered w i t h an adject i ve d escr i bing t he p roduct cl ass ( e. g. , h e a lin g , m o istu riz in g ) o r d id n o t an sw e r. T h is s u g g e sts t hatt he ques t i ons confus ed many r es pondent s . T he sur veym ay h av e c au sed this co n fu sio n b yd ev iat ing fro m the s tand ard

“ Th e r mo s s u r v e y ” mo de l bya s k i n g r e s p o n d e n t s f o rt e r ms des cr i bi ng the produc t s i n addi t i on t o as ki ng ( as a “Ther m os s ur vey ” s houl d) fort erm s i dent i fy i ng t he pr oduct s . T he s ur vey24 l i kel yw oul d have been s t r onges t i f i thad as ked r es pondent s , as t he “Ther m os s ur vey ” al s o di d, how t hey w oul d as k at a s t or e for th e typ e o f

p ro d u c t a t is s u e . T he s e f l a ws n o n e t h e l e s s d o n o t d e p r i v e t h e s u r v e y of pr obat i ve val ue. T he s ur vey r ai s es a r eas onabl e i nfer en ce t hat

“ C o c o a B u tter F o rm u la” d o e s n o t d e sc rib e th e p ro d u c t g e n u s in t he op inion of

t he 46 r es pondent s w ho des cr i bed the pr oduct cl as s . A r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d r el y on t hati nfer ence t o concl ude th a t co n su m e rs d o n o t u se th e w o rd s “ C o c o a B u tter F o rm u la” to des cr i be the ca t egoryof s ki n car e pr oduct s cont ai ni ng cocoa but t er . C ococa r e coul d at t ack the i nfer ence at t r i al , but t hatdoes nots t op t he s ur veyfr om cr eat i ng a genui n e issue of m at er i al fac t
. I ti s pr emat ur e forus now t o concl ude that t he sur veydoes n o t p ro v id e p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e th a t “C o c o a B u tter F o rm u la” is n o tg e n e r i c . B r o w n e c o u l d h a v e p e r f o r m e d a b e t t e rs u r v e y. In d e e d , itm ig h t h a v e ru e d th e su rv e y ’s d e sig n f law s a f ter a trial. B utt he s ur veyi s str o n g en ough t o al l ow B r ow ne t o s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm enton t he gene r i cnes s i s s ue. B row ne also p oint s t o ev i den ce t hat com peti t ors use t erm s ot hert han “Cocoa B ut t erFor m ul a. ” Thi s evi dence t ends to p ro v e th a t th e te rm is n o t g e n e ri c . S e e C a n field , 808 F. 2d at 306 n. 20 ( “C our t s have l ong focus ed on t he avai l abil it y of c o m m o n lyu se d a ltern a tiv e s in d e c id in g w h e th e r a te r m is gener i c. ” ( ci t i ng H

ol z apf el ’s C om pos i t i ons C o. v. R aht

j en ’s A m er i can C om

pos i t i on C o. , 183 U

. S. 1 (19 0 1) ) )

. I ti ndi cat es t hat ot her com peti t ors ( and t hu s C o c ocare) di d n ot need t o u seI n contr as t , w e s t ruggl e t o per cei ve the r el evanc e as cr i bed 13 b yB row n e to th e f

ac t th at dicti o n aries d o n o t in c lu d e the term
“ C o c o a B u tter F o rm u la.” N o t all g e n e r ic ter m s a p p e a r in d ictio n a rie s, a f

a c t so o b v io u s B r o w n e m a k e s n o e f f o rt to d is p ro v e it. T he D i s t r i ctC our tappea r ed t o r eas on t hatt he r egi s t r at i on 14 of “Cocoa B ut t erFor m ul a” on t he PT O ’ s s uppl ement al r egi s t er r athert han i t s pr i nci pal r egi s t erw eake ns B row ne’ s cl ai m t hat t h e t e r m i s d e s c r i p t i v e . We k n o w o f n o s u p p o r tf

o rt h a tv i e w. A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly e x p lain e d e lse w h e re , the v a lid ity of a t er m t hat does not appea ron t he pr i nci pal r egi s t erand i s not di s t i nct i ve ( i

. e. , one thati s des cr i pt i ve r athert han s ugges t i ve, or a rb itr a ryo r fa n cifu l) d ep en d s o n it s ac q u isi ti o n o f se co n d ary m e a n in g . See Ber ner , 9 8 7 F

. 2 d at 97 9 (ex p lai n ing that arb itrary ors ugges t i ve t er m s ar e di s t i nct i ve and a ut om at i cal l yqual i fyfor t r ademar k pr ot ect i on, w hi l e des cri pt i ve t erm s onl yr ece i ve tr a d e m a rk p ro te c tio n a f te r a s h o w in g o f

s e c o n d a ry m e a n in g ). W e a lso n o te th at B row n e is n o t entit led to su m m ary j udgm enti n i t s favoron t he ques t i on of gene r i cnes s . T he w eakne s s es i n t he gene r i cnes s s ur v ey al one cr eat e a ge nui ne iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t o n th a t p o in t.

25 t he w or d “For m ul a” t o comm uni cat e t o cons um er s t he type of pr oduct s t hati t s ol d. T hi s bol s t er s ourconcl us i on t hata genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t s on t he ques t i on of gene r i cnes s , and 13 thu s the D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld n o t hav e e n tered su m m ary ju d g m e n t th a t “C o c o a B u tter F o rm u la” is g e n e ric

. In ste a d , it 14 shou l d h ave p roceeded t o a seco nd arym eaning an al y si s.26 2 . A ss u m in g “ C o c o a B u tte r F o r m u la ” is D es cri pt i ve, H as i t A cqui red Secondary M eani ng?
B eca us e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fa ct e x is t s on t he ques t i on w hether “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” i s gener i c, t he part i es nor m al l y w oul d need t o pr ocee d t o tr i al t o r es ol ve thatissue. E v e n a s s u mi n g th atB r ow ne pr evai l ed and pr oved “Cocoa B ut t er For m ul a” t o be des cr i pt i ve, i tal s o w oul d need t o s how t hatt he ter m h a d a c q u ire d se c o n d a rym e a n in g w h ich a ss o c iate d it w ith B ro w n e . C ococa r e m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton t he bas i s t hat B r ow ne had notpr oduced e vi dence cr eat i ng a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac ton t he s econda r ym eani ng ques t i on. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt se t o u t in its o p in io n h o w a se c o n d a rym e a n in g a n a ly sis wo u l d p r o c e e d a n d l a i d o u t r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s f r o m o u rc a s e l a w. B u t i t did no t g o fu rth er. I n stead , the C o u rtco n clud ed that “[ i] n t his case [t here] are ot her con t rol l i ng fact ors w hich t aken as a w hol e s how t hatcocoa but t erfor m ul a i s gener i c. ” D i s t
. C t
. O p. a t 1 2 . T h e p a rties p re se n ted th e se c o n d a rym e a n in g q u e stio n to the D istri ct C o u rt , h o w ev er, an d w e h av e the irarg u m en ts be fo re u s. W e th u s re so lv e th a t q u e stio n b e c a u se o f o u r in ter e st in jud ici al ec o n o m y , an d af firm o n this ba sis th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s e n tr y o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See Ni ci ni v. Morra , 212 F. 3d 798, 805 ( 3d C i r. 2 000) ( s t at i ng t hatw e mayaff i r m on anygr ound s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd ).27 Secondarym eani ng i s a new and addi t i onal m eani ng t hat at t ache s t o a w or d ors ym bol t hati s noti nher ent l ydi s t i nct i ve. See ge ner al l

y 2 M cC ar t hyon T r adem ark s § 15: 1. W e have expl ai ned:
S e c o n d a ry m e a n in g e x ists w h e n th e tra d e m a rk is in ter p re ted b yth e c o n su m in g p u b lic to b e n o t o n ly an ident i fi cat i on of the pr oduct , butal s o a rep rese n tat ion o f th e pro d u ct’s origin. S ec o n d ary m eani ng i s gener al l y es t abl ishe d through ext ens i ve advert i s i ng w hi ch cr eat es i n t he m i nd of cons um er s an as s oci at ion betw een di ffe r ent pr oduct s bear i ng t he s ame m ark. T hi s as s oci at i on su g g e sts th a t th e p ro d u c ts o rig in a te f ro m a sin g le s our ce. O nce a t r ademar k w hi ch coul d not ot herw i s e have excl us ive appr opr i at i on achi eves s econda r ym eani ng, compet i t or s can be pr event ed f ro m u sin g a sim ilar m a r k

. T h e p u rp o se o f th is ru le is to m in im ize c o n f u sio n o f th e p u b li c a s to t he or i gi n of the pr oduct and t o avoi d di ver s i on of cus t om er s m i s l ed bya s i m i l arm ark.
Scot tP aperC o . v. Scot t ’s Li qui d G old, I nc. , 589 F. 2d 1225, 1 2 2 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).
W e have i dent i fi ed an e l even- i t em, non- exhaus t i ve l i s tof fac t or s r el evantt o t he fa ctual det erm i nat i on w hether a t erm has acqui r ed s econda r ym eani ng:28 (1 ) th e e x ten t o f

sa les a n d a d v e rtisin g lea d in g to buy eras s oci at i on; ( 2) l ength of us e; ( 3) excl us i vi t y o f u se; ( 4) t he fa ctof copy i ng; ( 5) cus t om ers ur vey s ; ( 6) cus t om er t es t i m ony ; ( 7) t he us e of the mar k in tr ade j our nal s ; ( 8) t he s i ze of t he compa n y ; ( 9) t he numberof s al es ; ( 10) t he num berof cus t om er s ; and, ( 11) actual confus i on. C om m er ce Nat ’ lI

ns . Ser vi ces, Inc. v. C om m er ce I ns . A gency, I nc. , 214 F. 3d 432, 438 ( 3d C i r . 2000)

. “[T] he evi dent i arybar m u st b e p lac e d so m e w h a t h ig h e r” w h e n th e c h a llen g e d ter m is p a rt ic u la rl yd e s c ri p tiv e . I d. a t 4 4 1

. B r ow n e’s pr offe r ed s how i ng of s econda rym eani ng i ncl udes t he fol l ow i ng evi dence :

• i t s us e and pr om ot i on of the t erm “C ocoa B utt er Form ula” conti nu ou sl yfor20 y e a r s;

• t he s ubs t ant i al amount s o f m oneyi thas s pentpr om ot i ng t he t erm “C ocoa But t er F o rm u la;”

• th e n a tu re a n d q u a lityo f th e a d v e rtisin g in s uppor t of t he t erm “C ocoa But t er F o rm u la;”

• C o co ca re’s all eg ed inten t to co p ythe term29 “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a; ” and

• th e in c re a s e in th e sa les o f p ro d u c ts b e a ri n g th e te rm “ C o c o a B u tte r F o rm u la .”
T h is ev iden ce m aysee m , at firstb lush , to su p p o rt B r ow ne’ s cl ai m t hat t he t erm “C ocoa B ut t er Form u la” has g a in e d se c o n d a rym e a n in g . B u t s e rio u s f law s c a u se it to f

a il t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat eri al fac ton t he ques t i on of s econda r ym eani ng. T h e e v i d e n c e ’ s c o r e d e f i c i e n c yi s t h a twh i l e i ts h o ws B r ow ne us ed the t erm “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” on many occa s i ons overa l ong per i od of t i m e, i tdoes nots how B r ow ne s ucce eded i n cr eat i ng s econda r ym eani ng i n t he mi nds of cons um er s . A l t hough t he evi dence l eave s no doubtt hatB r ow ne hoped the t erm w oul d ac q u ir e s econda r ym eani ng, not hi ng s how s t hati tachi eved thi s goal

. J ur or s w oul d have t o m ake a l eap of fai t h t o concl ude thatt he t erm gai ned s econda r ym eani ng b ec au se th e reco rd fa il s to p rov ide m ea n ing fu l sup p o rt
. A jury cou l d ev al uate the quali t y of the advert i si ng or con si der t he ri se i n pr oducts al es , buti tw oul d have t o g u ess w hatl as t i ng i m pr es s i on t he adve r t i s i ng l efti n t he mi nd of cons um er s orw hat p o rt io n o f

B ro w n e ’s re v e n u e g ro w th it c a u s e d

. W e i ndi cat ed i n C om m er ce Nat i onalI ns ur ance Se r vi ces t hata plaint i ff mi ghtes t abl i s h s econda r ym eani ng t hr oughW e do no tsugg estt hat a partyat t em pti ng t o est a b li sh 15 se c o n d a rym e a n in g a lw a y s m u st sh o w th a t m a rk e tin g m a ter ials su cc ee d ed in cre ati n g b u y er a sso ciati o n o r th at th e term c o n tr ib u te d to s a le s g ro w th

. 30 e v id e n c e o f

a d v e rt is in g a n d s a le s g ro w th

. S e e id

. at438. A 15 pl ai nt i ff c oul d cr ea te a r eas onabl e i nfer ence , forexampl e, t hat a term had gai ned s econda r ym eani ng bys how i ng t hati thad appea r ed fora l ong per i od of t i m e i n a pr eval entadvert is i ng campai gn. E vi dence of r evenue gr ow t h s i m ul t aneous w i t h s uch m a rk e tin g w o u ld s tr e n g th e n th a t in f e re n c e , p a rticu lar lyif su p p o rte d b ye v id e n c e o f o th e r f a c to rs a m o n g th o se w e listed in C om m er ce Nat i onal

. T hi s cas e, how ever , di ffe r s i n an i m por t antw ayfr om s uch an e xampl e. B r ow ne has i nt r oduced no e vi dence i ndi cat i ng t hati teverus ed “C ocoa B ut t er For m ul a” a s a s t andal one t erm i n m arket i ng orpacka gi n g . I ns t ead, i tal w ay s us ed t he term con nected w i t h the “Pa l m er’ s,” f orm i ng t he p hrase “P alm er’s C o co a B u tte r F o rm u la. ” F o r ex am p le, B row n e’s l ot i on bot t l es bor e l ogos w i t h “Pal m er ’ s ” i m m edi at el y above the w or ds “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a, ” cr eat i ng one vi s ual pr es ent at i on f o r th e c o n su m e r. T h e m a rk e tin g a n d sa les e v id e n c e th u s lik e ly w oul d r ai s e a r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hat “Pal m er ’ s C ocoa But t er For m ul a” ha s gai ned s econda r ym eani ng i n the m i nds of theT hi s cas e does not putt hatques t i on ati s s ue. T he part i es do 16 notdi s put e that B r ow ne has a val i d, r egi s t er ed tr ademar k i n t he t erm “Pal m er ’ s C ocoa But t erFor m ul a. ” C ococa r e does s eek a ltera tio n o f

th e p rin c ip a l r e g is tra tio n o f th a t term , b u t o n lyto t he ext en t i ti ncl udes t he t erm “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a, ” w hi ch i tas s er t s i s gener i c. 31 publ i c. 16
B u t B ro w n e w a n ts to d o so m e th in g m o re c o m p lica ted : it w an t s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t a p o r t i o n ( “ Coc o a Butt e r Fo r mul a ”) of t he l ar ger t erm ( “Pal m er ’ s C ocoa But t erFor m ul a”) has acqui r ed an ind ep en d en t s e c o n d arym ea n ing

. N o thing in the rec o rd w oul d al l ow a j ur y t o eval uat e t he str ength of the t erm “C ocoa B ut t er F o rm ul a” i ndepende nt l yfr om t he l ar gert erm i ncl udi ng “Pal m er ’ s . ” W e thus concl ude, underth e s p eci fi c ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed byt hi s cas e, t hatt he mar ket i ng and sales evi dence pr ovi ded by B r ow ne does not cr eat e a r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hat “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” ha s acqui r ed s econda r ym eani ng. N o r do es B row n e’s a s s erted ev iden ce o f C o co ca re’s i nt ent t o copy t he t erm “C ocoa B ut t er For m ul a” cr eat e a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t as t o s econda r ym eani ng. T hi s evi dence pert ai ns al m ostexclusi velyt o tr ade d res s ( i

. e. , th e o v e ra ll a p p e a ra n c e o f

lab e ls, w ra p p e rs, a n d c o n tain e rs u se d inSee ge ner al l y 1 M cC ar t hyon T r ademar ks § 8: 1 ( compar i ng 17 tr ad e d ress a n d tr ad em ark s). B row ne apparentl y dropp ed a t rade dress c laim b ecause 18 C ococa r e pr es ent ed unr ebut t ed evi dence t hati tadopt ed the cont es t ed tr ade dr es s ear l i ert han B r ow ne. C o c o c a re c o n d u c ted a se c o n d a rym e a n in g su r v e yth a t it 19 arg u es ten d s to p rov e a lack o f se co n d arym ea n ing in the term 32 packa gi ng a pr oduct ) , an is s ue notpr es ent ed byt hi s cas e. 17 18 B ro w n e o n lyid e n tifi e s o n e p iec e o f e v id e n c e th a t co n c e iv a b ly s ugges t s an i nt ent t o copy . C ococa r e’ s foundert es t i fi ed thathe m ayhave know n aboutB r o w n e’ s us e of “ C ocoa But t er F o r mu l a ” wh e n Co c o c a r e b e g a n u s i n g t h a t t e r m o n i t s o wn p rod u c ts. B u t he a lso testi fied that h e d ec ided to u se th e w o rd “For m ul a ” b e c a u s e i ti s a s t a n d a r d d e s c r i p t o ri n t h e c o s me t i cs i ndus t r y . H e neve rt es t i fi ed that he copi ed B r ow ne and nothi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s t hat he di d. E ven vi ew i ng t hi s evi dence i n t h e l i g h t mo s t f

a v o r a b l e t o Br o wn e , we c a n n o td i s c e rn h o w a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d concl ude t hat C ococa r e i nt ended t o copy B ro w n e ’s u s e o f

th e te rm “ C o c o a B u tte r F o rm u la .”
B ro w n e c o u ld h a v e o v e rc o m e th e se d e f icie n c ies in its e v i d e n c e b yc o n d u c t i n g a s e c o n d a r y me a n i n g s u r v e yi n t h e s a me w ayi tconduct ed i t s gener i cnes s s ur vey . I tcoul d h ave us ed s ur veyevi dence t o s h o w t hat“C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” ha d acqui r ed s econda r y m ea ni ng i n t he mi nds of cons um er s , t hus c r e a t i n g a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f

a c to n t h a ti s s u e . We 19“C o co a B u tt er F o rm u la. ” T h at su rve yd o es n o t sup p o rt B r ow ne’ s pos i t i on. I ns t ead, i tar guabl yprov ide s evi dence agai ns tB r ow ne and w oul d be us ed b y C ococa r e t o r ebutany evi dence of s econda r y m eani ng offe r ed by B r ow n e. W e need notat t empt t o di s cer n , how ever , w hetherC ococa r e’ s s ur vey under cut s any evi dence byB r ow ne. T hati s notourr ol e att he s um m aryj udgm ents t age. I ns t ead, w e as k w hetherB r ow ne has i d e n t i f i e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w a j u r y t o r e s o l ve t he s e c o n d a rym e a n in g q u e stio n in its f a v o r. W e c o n c lu d e th a t it has not
. A ccor di ngl y , w e nee d notcons i derher e anyevi dence o f f e re d in s u p p o rt o f

C o c o c a re ’s p o s itio n .

33 n e v e r h a v e h e ld , an d d o n o t h o ld to d a y , tha t a p a r ty se e k in g to e sta b lish se c o n d a rym e a n in g m u st s u b m it a s u rv e yo n th a t p o in t. H ow ever , B r ow ne’ s fai l ur e t o conducta s econda r ym eani ng s ur veyl eave s i tw i t hout evi dence of any s or ti n t hi s cas e of the s econda r ym eani ng of the t erm “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a. ”
W e thus concl ude thatB r ow ne has fai l ed t o i dent i fy evi dence cre at i ng a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ton t he ques t i on w hether“C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” has acqui r ed sec o n d arym ea n ing

. C o co ca re is en ti tl ed to en tr yo f su m m ary jud g m en t on the ba sis that B row n e l ac k s a pro tectab le trad em ark in te re s t in th e te rm “ C o c o a B u tte r F o rm u la .”
B. C anc e l l a t i o n o r Al t e r a t i on o f R e gi s t r at i ons and R em a inin g A rg u m en ts
H avi ng hel d “C ocoa But t erFor m u la ” t o be gene r i c, t heSi nce thi s cas e fa l l s s quar el yw i t hi n D i tri ’s requi rem ents , 20 w e n e e d n o t d e f

in e th e e x a c t co n to u rs o f “ c o n tro v e rs[ ies ] a s to t he val i di t yof ori nt er fer ence w i t h a r egi s t er ed mar k. ” For exampl e, w e do notdeci de w hether, in the abs ence of an 34 D istri ct C o u rtb ri e f

lyco n side red w h ethe r (as C o co ca re r eques t ed i n a count er cl ai m ) i ts houl d r equi r e a di s cl ai m erof the “C ocoa B ut t er For m ul a” por t i on of t he pri nci pal r egi s t r at i on of “Pal m er ’ s C ocoa B ut t er For m ul a” and ca ncel t he s uppl ement al r egi s t r at i on of “C ocoa B ut t er For m ul a. ” See 15 U

. S. C

. § 1119. T hi s pr ovi s i on s t at es i n r el evantpar t : “I n anyact i on i nvol vi ng a re gis t ered m ark t he court m ay determ i ne the r i gh tto r egi s t r at i on, or dert he ca ncel l at i on of re gi s t r at i ons , i n w hol e or i n par t , r es t or e ca ncel ed r egi s t r at i ons , and otherw i s e r ect i fyt he r egi s t erw i t h r es pectt o t he r egi s t r at i ons of an y p artyt o t he acti o n. ” Id

. W e have expl ai ned that“a c ont r over s yas t o t he vali dityof o r i nter fe re n c e w i t h a regi st ered m ark m ustexis t befor e a di s t r i ctcour thas j uri sd ic t i on t o gr antt he ca ncel l at i on r emedy

. ” D i tr i v. C oldw el l B anker R es i dent i al A f f i l i at es , I nc. , 954 F. 2d 869, 873 ( 3d C i r . 1992)

. A contr over s ycl ear l yexi s t ed a s to th e v a lid ityo f

th e ter m “ C o c o a B u tt e r F o rm u la” a n d its pl ace on t he suppl ement al r egi s t er . T hi s r ai s es t he quest i on of t he nee d fora di s cl ai m eron t he pr i nci pal r egi s t er of t hatpor t i on o f th e la rg e r m a rk “ P a lm e r’ s C o c o a B u t t e r F o rm u la .” M or eover , C ococa r e expl i ci t l ycount er cl ai m ed form odi fi cat i on o f th a t larg e r m a rk

. T h e se c irc u m sta n c e s m e e t D i tri ’s r equi r ement t hat“a con tr o ver s yas t o t he val i di t yof or in te rf e re n c e w ith a re g is te re d m a rk m u s t e x is t.” 20appr opr i at e count er cl ai m , a D i s t r i ct C o ur tm ayor dert he a d d i t i o n o f

a d i s c l a i me rt o a t e r m ( e. g. , “Pal m er ’ s C ocoa But t er For m ul a”) , i ncl udi ng a por t i on found t o be gene r i c ( e. g. , “C ocoa B u tte r F o rm u la ” ). 35 T he D i s t r i ct C our t decl i ned t o or derr el i ef unde r§ 1119, how ever . I tappar ent l ybel i eved thata di s cl ai m erof “Cocoa B u tt er F o rm u la” o n the p ri n cipa l r eg istrati o n o f “ P alm er’s C o c o a B u t t e r F o rm u la ” w o u ld n o t b e n e f it C o c o c a re . See gener al l y 15 U

. S. C

. § 1119; 3 M cC ar t hyon T r ademar ks § 19: 63 (e x p lain in g e f

f e c t o f a d isc laim e r). Y e t, ev e n if C o c o c a re w ill notbenef

i tfr om t hatdi s cl ai m er , w e s ho u ld notal l ow t he abs ence of a discl ai m eron t he pr i nci pal r egi s t ert o confus e a fu ture b u sine ss into b eli ev ing that itm ayn o t use the term “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a. ” C f

. B er ner , 987 F. 2d at979. A s s uch, o n r e m a n d th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld o rd e r th a t an a p p ro p ria te d iscl aim er sh o u ld b e e n tered o n the p ri n cipa l r eg ist er. T h e treat m e n t of

the s u p p lem en tal reg istrati o n is m o re compl i c a t ed s i nce a des cr i pt i ve t erm l acki ng s econda r ym eani ng m ay not appea r on t he pr i nci pal r egi s t er , butm ayappea ron t he s u p p le m e n ta l r e g is te r. See, e. g. , I n re Bush Bros

. & Co. , 884 F. 2d 569, 570 ( Fed. C i r . 1989)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ho u l d not enterany o rder regar ding t he sup plem ental regi strat i on un l ess f o r so m e re a so n C o c o c a re p ro c e e d s to trial o n its c o u n ter c laim and pr evai l s on t he i s s ue of the gene r i cnes s of the t erm “C ocoa B ut t erFo r mul a . ” I f

Coc o c a r e d o e s p r o v e “ Coc o a Butt er For m ul a” t o be gene r i c, t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen coul d or dert he36 re m o v a l o f

th a t te rm f

ro m th e s u p p le m e n ta l r e g is te r. C o c o c a re a rg u e s th a t B ro w n e ’s tra dem ark cl ai m m ust f a il b ec au se o f B row n e’s f ail u re to a ssert i ts r ig h ts i n the term “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” i n a t i m el yfas hi on and, b ec aus e of al l eged mi s r epresent at i ons t o t he PT O , B r ow ne has “uncl ean h an d s. ” C o co ca re a lso a rgu es th at i t sho u ld r e ce ive s u m m ary jud g m e n t o n it s af

firm ati v e d ef

en se th at i ts use o f th e term “C ocoa But t erFor m ul a” cons t i tut es fai r us e. W e nee d notr eac h t hes e ar gum ent s i n l i ght of our concl us i on t hatB r ow ne does not have a p rotect abl e tr ademar k r i ghti n t he t erm “C ocoa But t er F o rm u la .”
I V . C oncl usi on W e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt in a ll r es pect s butone. W e r emand to all o w the C our tt o ent eran o r d e r a d d r e s s i n g Co c o c a r e ’ s r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f u n d e r1 5 U. S

. C. § 1 1 1 9

.