# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 39 99

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

ZW USA, Inc ., a Cal ifo rn ia Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

PWD Sy st em s, LLC, a Mi ss ou ri Li m it ed Liab il it y Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 40 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

ZW USA, Inc ., a Cal ifo rn ia Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

PWD Sy st em s, LLC, a Mi ss ou ri Li m it ed Liab il it y Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Decem be r 14 , 20 17 Fil ed : Ap ril 26 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , KELL Y and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Thi s cas e in vo lv es a tra de m ark di sp ut e be twee n two co m pa ni es th at se ll pl as ti c ba gs fo r pi ck in g up an d di sp os in g of do g dr op pi ng s. ZW USA, In c. en te red th e do gba g m ark et fir st an d reg is te red th e m ark ONEPUL. PWD , LLC en te red th e m ark et
aft er ZW un de r th e tra de na m e Bag Sp ot

. On it s web si te , PWD us es th e ph ras e “ on epu ll ” to de sc rib e so m e of it s pr od uc ts

. ZW su ed PWD fo r in fr i n g e men t of it s ONEPUL t rad em ark , a nd PWD co un te rs ue d cl ai m i n g t h a t th e ONEPUL t rad em ark
is in va li d. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to PWD on th e in fri ng em en t
cl ai m , and to ZW

on th e v al id it y

cla im . Bot h p art ie s ap pe al ed

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

ZW an d P W D sel l p la st ic ba gs th at cu st om ers us e to pi ck up aft er t he ir d og s. Bo th co m pa ni es se ll “ wick et ” ba gs (al so cal le d “ he ad er” ba gs ). Lik e pl as ti c gr oc ery ba gs , wick et ba gs are so ld st ack ed on to p of on e an ot he r an d co nn ect ed to so m e so rt
of he ad er st rip

. Als o li ke gr oc ery ba gs , wick et ba gs are di sp en se d by te ari ng th e ba g of f th e he ad er str ip

. W ic ke t b ag s ar e d es ig ne d to be di sp en se d on e at a ti m e, wit h a
si ng le pu ll of t he ha nd

.

ZW
, a Cal ifo rn ia co m

pa ny, be ga n se ll i n g b a gs fir st

. ZW st an ds fo r “ zero

was te .” At so m e po in t, ZW be ga n us in g th e m ark s “ ONEPUL” an d “SI NGLPUL”
wit h it s wick et ba gs

. The se m ark s, of co ur se , are m is sp el le d tru n c a t i o n s o f th e ph ras es “ on e-p ul l” an d “ si ng le -p ul l.” In 20 13
, ZW ap pl ie d fo r tra de m ark s fo r

-2

-ONEPUL an d SIN G LPUL, whi ch th e Uni te d St at es Pat en t an d Trad em ark Offi ce

(PTO) gr an te d in 20 14

. The PTO di d no t as k ZW fo r pr oo f t h a t t h e m ark s ha d

acq ui red di st in ct iv en es s in th e do g- ba g m ark et pl ace. Si nc e 20 10
, ZW ha s sp en t so m e $ 1

. 5 m il li on on ad ve rti si ng fo r al l of it s pr od uc ts ; it is un cl ear wha t po rti on of t h a t

su m was s pe nt on ad ve rti si ng ONEPUL w ic ke t b ag s.

PWD is a Mi ss ou ri co m

pa ny th at be ga n se ll in g wick et ba gs in 20 12

. It m ark et s it s pr od uc t s u n d e r t h e tra de na m e Bag Sp ot , an d co m pe te s wit h ZW fo r cu st om ers

. PWD ’s web si te id en ti fie s it s wick et ba gs us in g th e ph ras es “ on e-p ul l” an d “ on e pu ll .”
As pa rt of it s m ark et in g st rat eg y , PWD pu rch as ed th e te rm “ zero was te ” fro m Goo gl e Adwo rd s. As a res ul t, whe n a pe rs on us es Goo gl e to se arch fo r “ zero was te ,” PWD ’s
si te ap pe ars ne ar t he to p o f th e res ul ts pa ge

.

ZW f i le d su it al le gi ng in fri ng em en t of it s ONEPUL an d SINGLPU L

tra de m ar k s

. PWD co un te rs ue d, cl ai m in g th at bo th tra de m ark s were in va li d. At

su m m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at , whi le PWD ha d no t in fri ng ed

on ZW ’s m ark s, PWD ha d no t pr es en te d ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to ov erco m e th e st ro ng
pr es um pt io n th at ZW ’s reg is te red m ark s w e r e va li d. It th eref or e gr an te d PWD

su m m ary jud gm en t on th e in fri ng em en t cl ai m , and gra nt ed ZW su m m ary jud gm en t

on th e v al id it y

cla im . On ap pe al , th e p art ie s ra is e th e sa m e is su es th at were b efo re th e d is tri ct co ur t. We add res s ea ch in tu rn

.

-3

-II . Trade m ar k Inf ri ng ement

ZW co nt en ds th at PW D ’ s de sc ri ption of it s wick et ba gs as “ on e-p ul l” in fri ng es 1

on it s O N EPUL tra de m ark

. W e rev ie w th is cl ai m de no vo

. Fro st y Treat s In c. v. 2

So ny Com

pu te r Ent m ’t Am ., Inc ., 42 6 F .3d 10 01 , 10 03 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

Trad em ark s are “ an y

word , nam e, sym

bo l, o r de vi ce .

. . us ed by a pe rs on

. . . to id en ti fy

an d d is ti ng ui sh hi s o r he r go od s . . . fro m th os e m an uf act ur ed or so ld by

ot he rs .” 15 U.S.C. § 11 27

. The own er of “ a r e g i s t e r e d mark

. . . ha s a ci vi l act io n
ag ai ns t an y on e em

pl oyin g an im it at io n of it in co m m erce whe n ‘suc h us e is li ke ly to

cau se co nf

us io n, or to cau se m is ta ke

, or to de cei ve .’ ” KP Perm an en t Mak e-Up
, In c.

v. Last in g I mp res si on I, In c., 54 3 U.S. 11 1, 11 7 (2 00 4) (q uo ti ng 15 U.S.C. § 11 14 (1 )(a) ). The p l ai nt iff m ark own er ha s th e bu rd en of “ sh owi ng th at th e de fen da nt ’s act ua l pr act ic e is li ke ly to pr od uc e co nf us io n in th e min ds of co ns ume rs ab ou t t he ori gi n o f th e g oo ds or s erv ic es in qu es ti on .” Id . (em ph as is ad de d)

.

To d et erm in e th e li ke li ho od of c on fu si on , we eva lu at e si x fa ct or s:

PWD arg ue s th at it s us e of th e ph ras e “ on e-p ul l” was no t a “ us e in co m m erce ” 1 th at wou ld su bjec t it to su it fo r i n f r i n g e ment

. See Sen si en t Tech s. Co rp

. v. Sen so ry Effect s Fl av or Co
., 61 3 F.3 d 75 4, 76 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). W e di sa gr ee. A m ark is “ in us e in co m

m erce on go od s whe n

. . . it is pl aced in an y m an ne r on th e go od s

. . . or th e di sp la y s as so ci at ed th erewi th

. . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 11 27

. PWD pl aced th e ph ras e

“ on e-p ul l” pr om in en tl y o n t h e web pa ge de sc rib in g th e pr od uc ts in qu es ti on

. Cu st om ers can ord er t he ba gs fro m th e sa m e web pa ge . That is a us e in co m m erce

.
In it s co m

pl ai nt , ZW al so cl ai m ed th at PWD ha d in f r i n g e d i ts SINGLPUL 2

m ark

. Bu t PWD ’s web s i te on ly us es th e ph ras e “ on e-p ul l,” ZW pr es en te d no

ev id en ce in th e di st ric t co ur t th at PWD in fri ng ed it s SINGLPUL m ark

, an d ZW

m ak e s n o a r g um en t reg ard in g it s SINGLPUL m ark on ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ar y jud gm en t to PWD on th e SINGLPUL in fri ng em en t cl ai m . See Fed . R. App . P. 28 (a)( 8) (A).

-4

-(1 ) th e st ren gt h of th e own er’s m ark ; (2 ) th e si m il ari ty be twee n th e

own er’s m ark an d th e al le ge d in fri ng er’s m ark ; (3 ) th e de gr ee to whi ch th e pr od uc ts co m

pe te wit h each ot he r; (4 ) th e al le ge d in fri ng er’s in te nt
to “ pa ss of

f” it s go od s as th os e of th e tra de m ark own er; (5 ) in ci de nt s of
act ua l co nf

us io n; an d (6 ) th e type of pr od uc t, it s co st s an d co nd it io ns of
pu rch as e.

Co -Rec t Pro ds

., In c. v. Mar vy! Adv ert

. Ph ot og rap hy, In c., 78 0 F.2 d 13 24
, 13 30 (8 th
Ci r. 19 85 ) (ci ti ng Sq ui rtC o v. Sev en -Up Co
., 62 8 F.2 d 10 86
, 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 )).

“ The se fact or s do no t op erat e in a m at he m at ic al ly pr e c i s e f o rm ul a; rat he r, we us e th em at th e su m

m ary jud gm en t st ag e as a gu id e to de t erm in e whe th er a reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d a li ke li ho od of co nf us io n.” Dul ut h News-Tri bu ne v. Mes ab i Pub l’g
Co
., 84 F.3 d 10 93
, 10 96 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Acco rd in gl y , “ [f]actu al di sp ut es reg ard in g

a si ng le fact or are in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e rev ers al of su m m ary jud gm en t un le ss th ey ti lt th e en ti re b a l a n c e in fav or of su ch a fin di ng .” Id

. “ W he n

. . . a tra de m ark
di sp ut e cen te rs on th e pr op er in te rp ret at io n to be gi ve n to th e fact s, rat he r th an on th e fact s t he m se lv es , su m

m ary di sp os it io n i s ap pr op ria te .” Id . at 1 09 9.

W e st art by ex am in in g th e st ren gt h of th e ONEPUL m ark

. “ A st ro ng an d
di st in ct iv e” m ark is “ en ti tl ed to gr eat er pr ot ect io n th an a weak or co m m on pl ace on e.” Sq ui rtC o, 6 28 F.2 d at 10 91

. W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d th at “ [t]wo re le va nt m eas ur em en ts
of a m ark ’s st ren gt h are it s co nc ep tu al st ren gt h an d it s co m m erci al st ren gt h.” Lov el y Sk in

, In c. v. Is ht ar Sk in Care P r o d s ., LLC, 74 5 F.3 d 87 7, 88 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).
ONEPUL is co nc ep tu al ly weak

. It is

, aft er al l, li tt le m or e th an a m is sp el li ng of “ on epu ll .” A s t o c o mm erci al st ren gt h, ZW su bm it te d ev id en ce th at it ha d sp en t $1 .5

3

ZW arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op e rly ig no red ev id en ce th at it s 3 ONEPUL m ark is in he ren tl y di st in ct iv e be cau se th e PTO reg is te red th e m ark wit ho ut

as ki ng for a sh owi ng of s eco nd ary m ean in g. We hav e pr ev io us ly b een sk ep ti cal of si m il ar arg um en ts

. See Lov el y Sk in

, 74 5 F.3 d at 88 7 n.4

. Bu t ev en as su m in g th at th e PTO’ s m an ne r of reg is te rin g th e ONEPUL m ark is rel ev an t, it do es li tt le to bo ls te r ZW ’s arg um en t for con cep tu al st ren gt h b ecau se ONEPUL is s ti ll jus t a m is sp el li ng

-5

-m il li on on ad v e r t i s i n g si nc e 20 10

. Thi s is ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce of co m m erci al

st ren gt h, bu t sa y s li tt le ab ou t “ m in ds of co ns um ers ,” whi ch is th e rel e v a n t un it of

an al y si s fo r li ke li ho od of c on fu si on . KP Perm an en t M ak e-Up , 54 3 U.S. at 11 7.

On th e si m il ari ty fact or , we co ns id er “ th e i mp res si on th at each m ark in it s

en ti ret y is li ke ly to ha ve on a pu rch as er ex erci si ng th e at te nt io n us ua ll y gi ve n by

pu rch as ers of su ch pr od uc ts .” Dul ut h News- Trib un e, 84 F.3 d at 10 97

. W e fin d cl ear si m il ari ty be twee n th e ONEPUL m ark an d PWD ’s us e of th e ph ras e “ on e-p ul l.” Bu t
th at do es no t en d ou r an al y si s. “ [O]t h e r w i s e si m il ar m ark s are no t li ke ly to be

co nf us ed whe n us ed in co nju nc ti on wit h [ t he ] cl earl y di sp la y ed na m e of [th e]

m an uf act ur er.” Id

. (ci ti ng Pi gn on s S.A. de Mec an iq ue de Prec is io n v. Po la ro id Co rp ., 65 7 F.2 d 48 2, 48 7 (1 st Ci r. 19 81 )). Tha t is th e cas e he re: PWD ’s “ on e-p ul l” ba gs are

so ld fro m a web si te th at pr om in en tl y di sp la y s it s tra de na m e, Bag Sp ot

. ZW do es no t

co nt es t th is

. In st ead

, ZW arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d pr oc ed ur al ly by req ui rin g

e x p ert te st im on y

—wh ic h ZW di d no t pr es en t— on si m il ari ty. Bu t th at is n o t w h a t
th e di st ric t co ur t di d. The co ur t m erel y ex pl ai ne d th at ZW co ul d ha ve of fere d ex pe rt

ev id en ce t o b ol st er i ts cla im th at ONEPUL and “ on e-p ul l” are s im il ar.

As to th e de gr ee of co m

pe ti ti on be twee n ZW an d PWD ’s wick et ba gs , we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at ZW an d PWD co m pe te in th e m ark e t f

or do g- was te
d is po sa l pr od uc ts , whi ch ren de rs co nf us io n m or e li ke ly. Bu t se e Kem p v

. B u mb l e Bee Seaf oo ds

, In c., 39 8 F.3 d 10 49
, 10 56 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ [D]irect co m pe ti ti on is no t
th e on ly as pe ct of th is in qu iry (al th ou gh a sh owi ng of di rect co m pe ti ti on m ay in crea se th e li ke li ho od of c on fu si on ).”).

of th e ph ras e “ on e-p ul l.” And ev en if it di d su pp or t ZW ’s arg um en t, thi s wou ld no t be en ou gh to req ui re rev ers al of su m m ary jud gm en t. Dul ut h News- Trib un e, 84 F.3 d
at 10 96 , 10 99

.
-6

-W e ne xt co ns id er t h e ex te nt to whi ch th e al le ge d in fri ng er at te m pt s to “ pa ss of f” it s m ark as th at of th e tra de m ark ow ne r. “ W hi le pr oo f of ba d in te nt is no t

req ui red fo r su cces s in an in fri ng em en t or unf ai r co m pe ti ti on cl ai m , ‘the ab se nc e of

su ch in te nt is a fact or to be co ns id ered .’ ” Sen si en t Tech s., 61 3 F.3 d at 76 6 (q uo ti ng Fro st y Treat s, 42 6 F.3 d at 10 08 ). W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d th at “ [k ]nowl ed ge of an ot he r’s

pr od u c t a n d a n in te nt to co m pe te wit h th at pr od uc t is no t

. . . eq ui va le nt to an in te nt

. . . to m is le ad an d to cau se co ns um er co nf us io n.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Lui gi no ’s, In c.

v. St ou ffer C o r p

. , 1 7 0 F.3 d 82 7, 83 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )). ZW ci te s two pi eces of

ev id en ce to sh ow in te nt

. Fi rs t, it sa y s th at PWD was a w a r e o f t h e de ta il s of ZW ’s
bu si ne ss be cau se PWD ’s fo un de rs are rel at iv es of ZW ’s pr in ci pa ls

. Tha t is ev id en ce

o f kn owl ed ge on ly. Seco nd

, ZW ci te s PWD ’s pu rch as e of th e Goo gl e Ad w o r d

“ zero was te ” as ev id en ce th at PWD ha d ba d in te nt

. Tha t m ig ht be rel ev an t if we were

a na lyzin g a “ zero was te ” tra de m ark

, bu t th e is su e in th is cas e is th e li ke li ho od of

co nf us io n be twee n ZW ’s ONEPUL m ark an d PWD ’s pr od uc t de sc rip ti on

. Acco rd in gl y , ZW ha s in tro du ced on ly m in im al ev id en ce th a t P WD in te nd ed to do

an y th in g b ut fai rly com

pe te wit h ZW in t he do g- was te di sp os al in du st ry

.

On th e “ act ua l co nf

us io n” fact or , we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at ZW
in tro du ced no ev id en ce th at an y co ns um er had ev er ac tua lly co nf us ed ZW ’s ONEPUL

m ark wit h P W D’ s d es cri pt io n o f it s “ on e-p ul l” ba gs

.

Fi na ll y , w e c o n s id er “ th e ki nd of pr od uc t, it s co st an d th e co nd it io ns of

pu rch as e” to de te rm in e “ whe th er th e de gr ee of care e x e r c i se d by t he pu rch as er can el im in at e th e li ke li ho od of co nf us io n whi ch wou ld ot he rwis e ex is t.” Sq ui rtC o, 62 8
F.2 d at 10 91 (q uo ti ng Gro tri an , Helf feri ch

, Sch ul z, Th. St ei nwe g Nach f. v. St ei nwa y & So ns , 52 3 F.2 d 13 31
, 13 42 (2 d Ci r. 19 75 )). To do so , we st an d “ in th e sh oe s of th e

or di na ry pu rch as er, bu y in g un de r th e no rm al ly pr ev al en t co nd it io ns of th e m ark et an d gi vi ng th e at te nt io n su ch pu rch as ers us ua ll y gi ve in bu y in g th at cl as s of go od s.” Gen

. Mi ll s, In c. v. Kell og g Co
., 82 4 F

. 2 d 6 2 2
, 62 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The ev id en ce on th is fact or is m in im al —i t co ns is ts on ly of th e pa rti es ’ web si te s an d

-7

-on li ne di st rib ut io n m et ho ds

. B a s e d on th at ev id en ce, it se em s th at an or di na ry 4

co ns um er ex erci se s m in im al care whe n pu rch as in g a lo w-co st , fu ng ib le pr od uc t li ke
do g- was te di sp os al ba gs , ev en in bu l k

. S e e K em p, 39 8 F.3 d at 10 55 (“ The re is
al way s les s lik el ih oo d o f co nf us io n wh ere g oo ds are exp en si ve an d pu rch as ed aft er

care fu l con si de rat io n.” (q uo ti ng Ast ra Ph arm

. Pro ds

., In c. v. Beck m an In st ru m en ts , In c., 71 8 F.2 d 1 2 0 1
, 1 2 0 6 ( 1 s t Ci r. 19 83 ))). Bu t th e fact th at th e pa rti es se ll th ei r

res pe ct iv e p r o d u c t s on di ffer en t web si te s un de r di ffer en t tra de na m es cu ts st ro ng ly

a ga in st a li ke li ho od of co nf us io n. See Dul ut h News- Trib un e, 84 F.3 d at 10 9 9 (aff irming su m

m ary jud gm en t whe re “ di st rib ut io n m et ho ds en su re[d ] th at t h e v a s t

m ajor it y of or di na ry pu rch as ers [wo ul d ] n o t b e co nf us ed .”). And ZW m ak es no
arg um en t t o t he co nt rary on a pp eal

.

Tak en as a who le

, th e ev id en ce t h a t ZW su bm it te d at su m m ary jud gm en t
sh owe d on ly th at ZW an d PWD were in c o mp e t i t i o n wit h on e an ot he r. And whi le
di rect co m

pe ti t i o n c a n i nc reas e th e li ke li ho od of co nf us io n, se e Kem

p, 39 8 F.3 d at
10 56
, ZW p r es en te d no ev id en ce fro m whi ch a jury co ul d in fer th at co ns um ers are l ik el y to co nf

us e ZW ’s ONEPUL wick et ba gs wit h PWD ’s Bag Sp ot “ on e-p ul l ”
wick et ba gs

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t

to PW D on th e in fri ng em en t cl ai m

.

II I. Tra demark

Val id ity

W e tu rn no w to PWD ’s co un te rcl ai m th at ZW ’s m ark s are in va li d. Befo re ad dr es si n g t h e mer it s, we m us t de te rm in e th e sc op e of PWD ’s arg um en t. Two of

ZW ta ke s is su e wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s a d mi s s io n of Exh ib it G, whi ch 4

co ns is te d o f pr in t-o ut s o f th e web si te s o f th ird -p art y do g- ba g re ta il ers . ZW

ob jects th at th e ex hi bi t is un au th en ti cat ed he ars ay

. Bu t ZW ’s arg um en t ha s no be ari ng on it s in f r in ge m en t cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t ba se d it s de te rm in at io n of no n- in fri ng em en t

on th e web si te s of ZW an d PWD
, no t th i r d

- pa rty web si te s. The ad m is si bi li ty of Exh ib it G is rel ev an t o nl y to th e va li di ty of ZW’ s ONEPUL m ark

.

-8

-ZW ’s reg is te red m ark s were be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t: SINGLPUL an d ONEPUL. The

di st ric t co ur t di d no t pa ss on th e va li di t y of th e SINGLPUL m ark an d, on ap pe al

, PWD m ak es no a f

f irmativ e arg um en t as to th at m ark ’s va li di ty. Acco rd in gl y , we

co ns id er th e arg um en t w a i ve d an d ex pr es s no op in io n on th e va li di ty of ZW ’s
SINGLPUL m ark

.

The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e ONEPUL m ark was en ti tl ed to a st ro ng
pr es um pt io n of va li di ty. The co ur t th en co n c l u de d th at PWD ha d no t pr es en te d

en ou gh ev id en ce to ov erco m e th at pr es um pt io n, an d gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t to
ZW

. W e rev ie w su m

m ary jud gm en t de no vo , an d ap pl y th e sa m e st an da rd s as th e di st ric t co ur t. Fro st y

Treat s, 4 26 F.3d at 1 00 3.

In or de r to r e c ei ve pr ot ect io n un de r th e Lan ha m Act, a m ark m us t be
di st in ct iv e—t ha t is

, it m

us t un iq ue ly id en ti fy a pa rti cu la r br an d. Two Pes os , In c. v. Taco Cab an a, In c., 50 5 U.S. 7 63
, 76 8 (1 99 2)

. The PTO or ga ni zes m ark s us in g
cat eg or ie s of as cen di ng di st in ct iv en es s: “ (1 ) ge ne ric ; (2 ) de sc rip ti ve ; (3 ) su gg es ti ve ; (4 ) arb it rary; o r (5 ) fan ci fu l.” Id

. Su gg es ti ve , arb it rary, an d fan ci fu l m ark s are i n he ren tl y di st in ct iv e, an d th us el ig ib le fo r reg is try. See id

. By de fin it io n, g e n e r i c

an d de sc rip ti ve m ark s l ack th e req ui si te di st in ct iv en es s. Id

. at 76 8– 69

. A ge ne ric

m ark “ refe [rs ] to th e ge nu s of whi ch th e pa rti cu la r pr od uc t i s a s pe ci es .” Id . a t 76 8.

In ot he r wor ds

, a ge ne ric m ark “ de no te s th e pr od uc t rat he r th an an y of th e br an ds of
th e pr od uc t.” Doo r Sy st em s, Inc. v. Pro -Lin e Doo r Sy st em s, Inc., 83 F.3d 16 9, 1 71 (7 th Ci r. 19 96 ). A de sc rip ti ve m ark “ co nv ey s an ‘im m ed ia te id ea of th e in gr ed ie nt s,
qu al it ie s or char act eri st ic s of th e go od s.’” Fro st y Treat s, 42 6 F.3 d at 10 05 (q uo ti ng St ua rt Hall Co

. v. Am

pa d Cor p., 51 F.3 d 78 0, 78 5– 86 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 )). Des cri pt iv e

m ark s m ay on ly be pl aced on th e Pri nc ip al Reg is te r “ if s h o w n t o ha ve acq ui red a

se co nd ary m ean in g.” Id.

The Lan ha m Act pr ot ect s bo th reg is te red an d un reg is te red tra de m ark s. See
Mat al v. Tam
, 13 7 S. Ct

. 17 44
, 17 52 (2 01 7) (“ [E]ven if a tra de m ark is no t fede ral ly

-9

-reg is te red

, it m ay st il l be en fo rcea bl e un de r § 43 (a) of th e Lan ha m Act, whi ch crea te s

a fed eral cau se of act io n fo r tra de m ark in fri ng em en t.”)

. In a tra de m ark su it

, whe th er

a m ark is reg is te red is im

po rta nt be cau se it de te rm in es whi ch pa rty be ars th e bu rd en of pe rs ua si on

. If th e m ark is no t reg is te red

, th e m ark us er be a r s t h e b u r d e n of
sh owi ng th at th e m ark is pro te ct ed by t he Lan ha m Act. Zo bm on do Ent m ’t, LLC v.
Fal ls Med i a , LL C
, 60 2 F.3 d 11 08
, 11 13 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Bd

. of Su pe rv is or s fo r Lou is ia na St at e Uni v. Agr ic

. & Mec h. Co ll

. v. Sm ack App arel Co
., 55 0 F.3 d 46 5, 47 4 (5 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ To pr ev ai l on th ei r tra de m ark i n f r i n g em en t cl ai m , th e pl ai nt iff s

. . . m us t es ta bl is h own ers hi p in a le ga ll y [p ro te ct ab le ] m ark

, an d

. . . th ey m us t sh ow in fri ng em en t by d em on st rat in g a li ke li ho od of co nf us io n.” ). Bu t if a m ark is l i s te d

on th e PTO’ s Prin ci pa l Regi st er, the pa rty ch al le ng in g th e m ark ’s va li di ty be ars th e bu rd en of s ho win g t he m ark is no t p ro te ct ed by the Lanh am Act. Lov el y Sk in , 74 5
F.3 d at 88 3. In th is cas e, ZW ’s ONEPUL m ark was li st ed on th e Pri nc ip al Reg is te r,

5

so PW D bo re t he bu rd en of s ho win g i t was no t v al id

.

The Lan ha m Act al so pr ov id es th at own ers of reg is te red m ark s m ay us e th e
reg is tra ti on as ev id en ce of th e m ark ’s va li di ty. 15 U.S.C. § 11 15 (a). The co nt en t of
th at ev id en ce de pe nd s on ho w th e PTO reg is te red th e m ark

. W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d th at , 6
whe n th e PTO reg is te rs a m ark wit ho ut as ki ng th e reg is tra nt to sh ow t h e mar k ha s
acq ui red se co nd ary m ean in g, th e reg is tra ti on is ev id en ce th at th e m ark is in he ren tl y di st in ct iv e ( i.e.
, su gg es ti ve , arb it rary, or fan ci fu l). See Aro m at iq ue , In c. v. Gol d Seal

, In c., 28 F.3 d 86 3, 86 9 (8 th C i r

. 1 9 94 ). In th is cas e, it is un di sp ut ed th at th e PTO

reg is te red ONEPUL wit ho ut req ui rin g ZW to sh ow th at it ha d acq ui red s e c o n d a ry

In th is la tt er type of cas e—wh ere th e PTO ha s li st ed th e m ark on th e Pri nc ip al 5 Reg is te r—t he pl acement of th e bu rd en on th e ch al le ng in g pa rty is so m et im es cal le d th e “ pr es um

pt io n o f va li di ty.” See Lov el y Sk in , 74 5 F .3d at 8 82 –8 3.

The co nt en t of th e ev id en ce pr ov id ed by a m ark ’s reg is tra ti on is al so 6

so m et im es cal le d t he “ pr es um pt io n o f va li di ty.” See Lov el y Sk in , 74 5 F .3d at 8 83

.
-1 0-m ean in g. Acco rd in gl y , ZW’ s re g i s t rat io n cert ifi cat e is ev id en ce th at th e ONEPUL

m ark is in he ren tl y

di st in ct iv e.

The Lan ha m Act te ll s us wha t a m ark ’s reg is tra t i o n mea n s , bu t th e or di na ry

ru le s of ci vi l pr oc ed ur e te ll us wha t to do w i t h t h a t in fo rm at io n. At su m m ary jud gm en t, th e ev id en ce is vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty (h ere, m ark own er ZW ), an d su m m ary jud gm en t is wit hh el d if th ere are ge nu in e di sp ut es of m at eri al fact

. Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). The co ur t co ns id ers th e who le reco rd

,

an d refr ai ns fro m weig hi ng th e ev id en ce or m ak in g cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns

. Torg ers on v. Ci ty of Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F .3d 10 31 , 10 42 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (en ba nc ).

In th is cas e, PWD su bm it te d ev id en ce to sh o w t h a t ONEPUL was ei th er
ge ne ric or de sc rip ti ve wit ho ut se co nd ary m ean in g. On ge ne ric ne ss , PWD su bm it te d

pr in to ut s fro m se ve ral web si te s whe re co m pe ti to rs us e th e p h r a se s “ on e pu ll ” or

“ on e-p ul l” to de sc rib e th ei r do g ba gs , whi ch PWD co nt en ds e s t a b l is he s th at “ on e- 7

pu ll ” is jus t a type of do g ba g. O n de sc rip ti ve ne ss , PWD su bm it te d ZW ’s pr od uc t
de sc rip ti on s to sh ow th at ONEPUL is a va ria nt of th e ph ras e “ on e-p ul l,” whi ch PWD

arg ue s im m ed ia te ly co nv ey s th e m an ne r in whi ch ZW ’s ba gs are di sp en se d: wit h on e
pu ll of t he ha nd . ZW

rep li ed wit h it s cert ifi cat e of reg is tra ti on , a nd arg ue d th at th e PTO fou nd ONEPUL to b e in he ren tl y di st in ct iv e.

ZW arg ue s th at th is ev id en ce sh ou ld no t ha ve be en co ns id ered by th e di st ric t 7

co ur t be cau se it i s b o t h h e ars ay an d un au th en ti cat ed

. W e di sa gr ee. The pr in te d web pa ge s are no t he ars ay be cau se th ey are no t of fere d to pr ov e th e tru th of th e m at te r

as se rte d. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( c)(2 ). Tha t is

, th ey are no t of fere d to pr ov e th e fact th at ZW ’s co m

pe t i t o r s ’ ba gs can act ua ll y be di sp en se d wit h on e pu ll

. The y are of fere d to sh ow th e fact th at cert ai n o f ZW ’s com pe ti to rs us e th e ph ras e “ on e-p ul l”
to de sc rib e th ei r pr od uc ts

. Mo reo ve r, th ere is no th in g in th e Ru le s of Evid en ce th at

wou ld pr ev en t PWD fro m au th en ti cat in g th e web pa ge s at tri al . See Fed . R . C iv . P

. 56 (c)( 2)

.
-1 1-Viewi ng th e re c o r d as a who le

, th ere is a fact di sp ut e as to whe th er th e

ONEPUL m ark is ge ne ric or d es cri pt iv e. On t hi s re co rd , th e on ly way to gr an t ZW

su m m ary jud gm en t on PWD ’s va li di ty cl ai m s was to de ci de th at ZW ’s ev id en ce was
st ro ng er or m or e cred ib le th an PWD ’s e vi de nc e. Su ch a d et erm in at io n is im pr op er
at su m m ary jud gm en t, an d m

us t be le ft to th e tri er of fact

. W e m us t th eref or e rev ers e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o ZW on th e v al id it y cla im s. 8

IV. Conc lu si on

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng rea s o n s , w e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t on in fri ng em en t, an d rev ers e on va li di ty. The cas e is rem an d e d fo r pr oc eed in gs

co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The pa rti es als o d is pu te whet he r ONEPUL has acq ui red sec on da ry m ean in g 8 in th e rel ev an t m ark et pl ace. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad dr es s th is qu es ti on , an d we li ke wis e d ecl in e to do so

.
-1 2-