Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

is  generally  of  little  value  in  separating  generic  from  de-
scriptive terms.  See Schwan’s IP, LLC v. Kraft Pizza Co., 
460 F. 3d 971, 975–976 (CA8 2006); Hunt Masters, Inc. v. 
Landry’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc., 240 F. 3d 251, 254–255 
(CA4 2001); A. J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F. 2d 291, 
301–303  (CA3  1986);  Miller  Brewing  Co.  v.  Jos.  Schlitz 
Brewing  Co.,  605  F. 2d  990,  995  (CA7  1979);  In re  Hikari 
Sales USA, Inc., 2019 WL 1453259, *13 (TTAB 2019).  Alt-
hough  this  is  the  minority  viewpoint,  see  2  McCarthy
§12:17.25, I  nonetheless  find  it  to be  the  more  persuasive 
one. 

Consider the survey evidence that respondent introduced
below.  Respondent’s survey showed that 74.8% of partici-
pants  thought  that  “Booking.com”  is  a  brand  name,
whereas 23.8% believed it was a generic name.  App. 66.  At 
the same time, 33% believed that “Washingmachine.com”—
which does not correspond to any company—is a brand, and 
60.8% thought it was generic.  Ibid. 

is  not 

inherently  more  descriptive 

What could possibly account for that difference?  “Book-
ing.com” 
than 
“Washingmachine.com”  or  any  other  “generic.com.”    The 
survey  participants  who  identified  “Booking.com”  as  a 
brand  likely  did  so  because  they  had  heard  of  it,  through
advertising or otherwise.  If someone were to start a com-
pany called “Washingmachine.com,” it could likely secure a 
similar level of consumer identification by investing heavily 
in advertising.  Would that somehow transform the nature 
of the term itself?  Surely not.  This hypothetical shows that
respondent’s survey tested consumers’ association of “Book-
ing.com” with a particular company, not anything about the 
term itself.  But such association does not establish that a 
term  is  nongeneric.    See  Kellogg,  305  U. S.,  at  118–119; 
Abercrombie, 537 F. 2d, at 9. 

Under the majority’s approach, a “generic.com” mark’s el-
igibility for trademark protection turns primarily on survey