Source: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4666
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 22:44:56
Document Index: 742616629

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 32', '§ 1114', '§ 51', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 15', '§ 51', '§ 1451', '§ 403', '§ 343', '§ 1119', '§ 1120', '§ 14', '§ 1064', '§ 2', '§ 1052', '§ 2', '§ 1052', '§ 70', '§ 77', '§ 33', '§ 1115', '§ 11', '§ 70', '§ 71', '§ 15', '§ 35', '§ 1117', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 33', '§ 1115', '§ 7', '§ 1057', '§ 1065', '§ 33', '§ 1115', '§ 15', '§ 1065', '§ 43', '§ 1125', '§ 51']

Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. | 698 F 2d 786 | February 25, 1983
698 F.2d 786 (1983)
OAK GROVE SMOKEHOUSE, INC., and Visko's Fish Fry, Inc., Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants.
[787] Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer & Matthews, Wm. R. Forrester, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant cross-appellee.
Before GOLDBERG, GEE and HIGGIN-BOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
This appeal of a trademark dispute presents us with a menu of edible delights sure to tempt connoisseurs of fish and fowl alike. At issue is the alleged infringement [788] of two trademarks, "Fish-Fri" and "Chick-Fri," held by appellant Zatarain's, Inc. ("Zatarain's"). The district court held that the alleged infringers had a "fair use" defense to any asserted infringement of the term "Fish-Fri" and that the registration of the term "Chick-Fri" should be cancelled. We affirm.
Zatarain's "Fish-Fri" consists of 100% corn flour and is used to fry fish and other seafood. "Fish-Fri" is packaged in rectangular cardboard boxes containing twelve or twenty-four ounces of coating mix. The legend "Wonderful FISH-FRI ®" is displayed prominently on the front panel, along with the block Z used to identify all Zatarain's products. The term "Fish-Fri" has been used by Zatarain's or its predecessor since 1950 and has been registered as a trademark since 1962.
Appellee Visko's Fish Fry, Inc. ("Visko's") entered the batter mix market in March 1980 with its "fish fry." Visko's product is packed in a cylindrical eighte-enounce container with a resealable plastic lid. The words "Visko's FISH FRY" appear on the label along with a photograph of a platter of fried fish. Visko's coating mix contains corn flour and added spices.
Other food manufacturing concerns also market coating mixes. Boochelle's Spice Co. ("Boochelle's"), originally a defendant in this lawsuit, at one time manufactured a seasoned "FISH FRY" packaged in twelve-ounce vinyl plastic packets. Pursuant to a settlement between Boochelle's and Zatarain's, Boochelle's product is now labelled "FISH AND VEGETABLE FRY." Another batter mix, "YOGI Brand ® OYSTER SHRIMP and FISH FRY," is also available. Arnaud Coffee Corporation ("Arnaud") has manufactured and marketed "YOGI Brand" for ten to twenty years, but was never made a party to this litigation.[1] A product called "Golden Dipt Old South Fish Fry" has recently entered the market as well.
Zatarain's first claimed foul play in its original complaint filed against Oak Grove on June 19, 1979, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The complaint alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act §§ 32(1), 43(a), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a) (1976), and La.Rev.Stat. [789] Ann. § 51:1405(A) (West Supp.1982). Zatarain's later amended its complaint to add Boochelle's and Visko's as defendants. Boochelle's and Zatarain's ultimately resolved their dispute, and Boochelle's was dismissed from the suit. The remaining defendants, Oak Grove and Visko's, filed counterclaims against Zatarain's under the Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (1976); the Clayton Act § 4, 15 U.S.C. § 15 (1976); La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 51:1401 (West Supp. 1982); the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1461 (1976); and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act § 403, 21 U.S.C. § 343 (1976). The defendants also counterclaimed for cancellation of the trademarks "Fish-Fri" and "Chick-Fri" under section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119 (1976), and for damages under section 38 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1120 (1976).
Battered, but not fried, Zatarain's appeals from the adverse judgment on several grounds. First, Zatarain's argues that its trademark "Fish-Fri" is a suggestive term and therefore not subject to the "fair use" defense. Second, Zatarain's asserts that even if the "fair use" defense is applicable in this case, appellees cannot invoke the doctrine because their use of Zatarain's trademarks is not a good faith attempt to describe their products. Third, Zatarain's urges that the district court erred in cancelling the trademark registration for the term "Chick-Fri" because Zatarain's presented sufficient evidence to establish a secondary meaning for the term. For these [790] reasons, Zatarain's argues that the district court should be reversed.
A. BASIC PRINCIPLES[2]
The threshold issue in any action for trademark infringement is whether the word or phrase is initially registerable or protectable. Vision Center v. Opticks, Inc., 596 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir.1980); American Heritage Life Insurance Co. v. Heritage Life Insurance Co., 494 F.2d 3, 10 (5th Cir. 1974). Courts and commentators have traditionally divided potential trademarks into four categories. A potential trademark may be classified as (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, or (4) arbitrary or fanciful. These categories, like the tones in a spectrum, tend to blur at the edges and merge together. The labels are more advisory than definitional, more like guidelines than pigeonholes. Not surprisingly, they are somewhat difficult to articulate and to apply. Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 617 F.2d 1178, 1183 (5th Cir.1980); Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 115.
A generic term is "the name of a particular genus or class of which an individual article or service is but a member." Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 115; Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir.1976). A generic term connotes the "basic nature of articles or services" rather than the more individualized characteristics of a particular product. American Heritage, 494 F.2d at 11. Generic terms can never attain trademark protection. William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 265 U.S. 526, 528, 44 S.Ct. 615, 616, 68 L.Ed. 1161 (1924); Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1183; Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 115. Furthermore, if at any time a registered trademark becomes generic as to a particular product or service, the mark's registration is subject to cancellation. Lanham Act § 14, 15 U.S.C. § 1064(c) (1976). Such terms as aspirin and cellophane have been held generic and therefore unprotectable as trademarks. See Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y.1921) (aspirin); DuPont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co., 85 F.2d 75 (2d Cir.1936) (cellophane).
A descriptive term "identifies a characteristic or quality of an article or service," Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 115, such as its color, odor, function, dimensions, or ingredients. American Heritage, 494 F.2d at 11. Descriptive terms ordinarily are not protectable as trademarks, Lanham Act § 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1) (1976); they may become valid marks, however, by acquiring a secondary meaning in the minds of the consuming public. See id. § 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). Examples of descriptive marks would include "Alo" with reference to products containing gel of the aloe vera plant, Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., 423 F.2d 845 (5th Cir.1970), and "Vision Center" in reference to a business offering optical goods and services, Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 117. As this court has often noted, the distinction between descriptive and generic terms is one of degree. Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1184; Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 115 n. 11 (citing 3 R. Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 70.4 (3d ed. 1969)); American Heritage, 494 F.2d at 11. The distinction has important practical consequences, [791] however; while a descriptive term may be elevated to trademark status with proof of secondary meaning, a generic term may never achieve trademark protection. Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 115 n.11.
As noted earlier, descriptive terms are ordinarily not protectable as trademarks. They may be protected, however, if they have acquired a secondary meaning for the consuming public. The concept of secondary meaning recognizes that words with an ordinary and primary meaning of their own "may by long use with a particular product, come to be known by the public as specifically designating that product." Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rickard, 492 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir.1974). In order to establish a secondary meaning for a term, a plaintiff "must show that the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer." Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 118, 59 S.Ct. 109, 113, 83 L.Ed. 73 (1938). The burden of proof to establish secondary meaning rests at all times with the plaintiff; this burden is not an easy one to satisfy, for "`[a] high degree of proof is necessary to establish secondary meaning for a descriptive term.'" Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 118 (quoting 3 R. Callman, supra, § 77.3, at 359). Proof of secondary meaning is an issue only with respect to descriptive marks; suggestive and arbitrary or fanciful marks are automatically protected upon registration, and generic terms are unprotectible even if they have acquired secondary meaning. See Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1185 n.20.
Even when a descriptive term has acquired a secondary meaning sufficient to warrant trademark protection, others may be entitled to use the mark without incurring liability for trademark infringement. When the allegedly infringing term is "used fairly and in good faith only to describe to users the goods or services of [a] party, or their geographic origin," Lanham Act § 33(b)(4), 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4) (1976), a defendant in a trademark infringement action may assert the "fair use" defense. The defense is available only in actions involving descriptive terms and only when the term is used in its descriptive sense rather than its trademark sense. Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1185; see Venetianaire Corp. v. A & P Import Co., 429 F.2d 1079, 1081-82 (2d Cir. 1970). In essence, the fair use defense prevents a trademark registrant from appropriating a descriptive term for its own use to the exclusion of others, who may be prevented thereby from accurately describing their own goods. Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1185. The holder of a protectable descriptive mark has no legal claim to an exclusive right in the primary, descriptive meaning of the term; consequently, anyone is free to use the term in its primary, descriptive sense so long as such use does not lead to customer confusion as to the source of the goods or services. See 1 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11.-17, at 379 (1973).
[792] 4. Cancellation of Trademarks
B. "FISH-FRI"[3]
We are mindful that "[t]he concept of descriptiveness must be construed rather broadly." 3 R. Callman, supra, § 70.2. Whenever a word or phrase conveys an immediate idea of the qualities, characteristics, effect, purpose, or ingredients of a product or service, it is classified as descriptive and cannot be claimed as an exclusive trademark. Id. § 71.1; see Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc., 295 F.Supp. 479, 488 (S.D.N.Y.1968). Courts and commentators have formulated a number of tests to be used in classifying a mark as descriptive.
A suitable starting place is the dictionary, for "[t]he dictionary definition of the word is an appropriate and relevant indication `of the ordinary significance and meaning of words' to the public." American Heritage, 494 F.2d at 11 n.5; see also Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 116. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 858 (1966) lists the following definitions for the term "fish fry": "1. a picnic at which fish are caught, fried, and eaten; .... 2. fried fish." Thus, the basic dictionary definitions of the term refer to the preparation and consumption of fried fish. This is at least preliminary evidence that the term "Fish-Fri" is descriptive of Zatarain's product in the sense that the words naturally direct attention to the purpose or function of the product.
The "imagination test" is a second standard used by the courts to identify descriptive terms. This test seeks to measure the relationship between the actual words of the mark and the product to which they are applied. If a term "requires imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of goods," Stix Products, 295 F.Supp. at 488, it is considered a suggestive term. Alternatively, a term is descriptive if standing alone it conveys information as to the characteristics of the product. In this case, mere observation compels the conclusion that a product branded "Fish-Fri" is a prepackaged coating or batter mix applied to fish prior to cooking. The connection between this merchandise and its identifying terminology is so close and direct that even a consumer unfamiliar with the product would doubtless have an idea of its purpose or function. [793] It simply does not require an exercise of the imagination to deduce that "Fish-Fri" is used to fry fish. See Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 116-17; Stix Products, 295 F.Supp. at 487-88. Accordingly, the term "Fish-Fri" must be considered descriptive when examined under the "imagination test."
The correct categorization of a given term is a factual issue, Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1183 n.12; consequently, we review the district court's findings under the "clearly erroneous" standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. See Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 113; Volkswagenwerk, 492 F.2d at 478. The district court in this case found that Zatarain's trademark "Fish-Fri" was descriptive of the function of the product being sold. Having applied the four prevailing tests of descriptiveness to the term "Fish-Fri," we are convinced that the district court's judgment in this matter is not only not clearly erroneous, but clearly correct.[4]
Descriptive terms are not protectable by trademark absent a showing of secondary [794] meaning in the minds of the consuming public.[5] To prevail in its trademark infringement action, therefore, Zatarain's must prove that its mark "Fish-Fri" has acquired a secondary meaning and thus warrants trademark protection. The district court found that Zatarain's evidence established a secondary meaning for the term "Fish-Fri" in the New Orleans area. We affirm.
[795] In assessing a claim of secondary meaning, the major inquiry is the consumer's attitude toward the mark. The mark must denote to the consumer "a single thing coming from a single source," Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co., 254 U.S. 143, 146, 41 S.Ct. 113, 114, 65 L.Ed. 189 (1920); Aloe Creme Laboratories, 423 F.2d at 849, to support a finding of secondary meaning. Both direct and circumstantial evidence may be relevant and persuasive on the issue.
Since 1950, Zatarain's and its predecessor have continuously used the term "Fish-Fri" to identify this particular batter mix. Through the expenditure of over $400,000 for advertising during the period from 1976 through 1981, Zatarain's has promoted its name and its product to the buying public. Sales of twelve-ounce boxes of "Fish-Fri" increased from 37,265 cases in 1969 to 59,439 cases in 1979. From 1964 through 1979, Zatarain's sold a total of 916,385 cases of "Fish-Fri."[6] The district court considered this circumstantial evidence of secondary meaning to weigh heavily in Zatarain's favor. Record on Appeal, Vol. I at 273.
In addition to these circumstantial factors, Zatarain's introduced at trial two surveys conducted by its expert witness, Allen Rosenzweig.[7] In one survey, telephone interviewers questioned 100 women in the New Orleans area who fry fish or other seafood three or more times per month. Of the women surveyed, twenty-three percent specified Zatarain's "Fish-Fri" as a product they "would buy at the grocery to use as a coating" or a "product on the market that is especially made for frying fish." In a similar survey conducted in person at a New Orleans area mall, twenty-eight of the 100 respondents answered "Zatarain's `Fish-Fri'" to the same questions.[8]
The authorities are in agreement that survey evidence is the most direct and persuasive way of establishing secondary meaning. Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 119; Aloe Creme Laboratories, 423 F.2d at 849; 1 J. McCarthy, supra, § 15.12(D). The district court believed that the survey evidence produced by Zatarain's, when coupled with the circumstantial evidence of advertising and usage, tipped the scales in favor of a finding of secondary meaning. Were we considering the question of secondary meaning de novo, we might reach a different conclusion than did the district court, for the issue is close. Mindful, however, that there is evidence in the record to support the finding below, we cannot say that the district court's conclusion was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the finding of secondary [796] meaning in the New Orleans area for Zatarain's descriptive term "Fish-Fri" must be affirmed.
The record contains ample evidence to support the district court's determination that Oak Grove's and Visko's use of the words "fish fry" was fair and in good faith. Testimony at trial indicated that the appellees did not intend to use the term in a trademark sense and had never attempted to register the words as a trademark. Record on Appeal, Vol. II at 28, 33, 226-30, 243-47. Oak Grove and Visko's apparently believed "fish fry" was a generic name for the type of coating mix they manufactured. Id. at 28, 226, 244. In addition, Oak Grove and Visko's consciously packaged and labelled their products in such a way as to minimize any potential confusion in the minds of consumers. Id. at 244-45, 251-52. The dissimilar trade dress of these products prompted the district court to observe that confusion at the point of purchase — the grocery shelves — would be virtually impossible. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court's determinations are correct. We hold, therefore, that Oak Grove and Visko's are entitled to fair use of the term "fish fry" to describe their products; accordingly, Zatarain's claim of trademark infringement must fail.[9]
[797] 2. Secondary Meaning
Allen Rosenzweig's survey evidence regarding a secondary meaning for "Chick-Fri" also "lays an egg." The initial survey question was a "qualifier:" "Approximately how many times in an average month do you, yourself, fry fish or other seafood?" Only if respondents replied "three or more times a month" were they asked to continue the survey. This qualifier, which may have been perfectly adequate for purposes of the "Fish-Fri" questions, seems highly unlikely to provide an adequate sample of potential consumers of "Chick-Fri." This survey provides us with nothing more than some data regarding fish friers' perceptions about products used for frying chicken. As such, it is entitled to little evidentiary weight.[10]
The last morsels on our plate are the counterclaims filed against Zatarain's by Oak Grove and Visko's. One group of counterclaims alleges violations of federal antitrust statutes and Louisiana law prohibiting the restraint of trade. In addition, the counterclaims pray for awards of attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act § 35, 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (1976), due to Zatarain's alleged bad faith in instituting this infringement action. The district court found these allegations to be clearly without merit, noting that Oak Grove and Visko's had introduced absolutely no evidence at trial to support the counterclaims. Our review of the record fully supports the district court's judgment in this regard, and it is hereby affirmed.
Finally, Oak Grove and Visko's assert a counterclaim based on the federal regulations governing the identity labelling of packaged foods, 21 C.F.R. § 101.3 (1982).[11] The counterclaim alleges that Zatarain's [798] sale of 100% corn flour under the name "Fish-Fri" is deceptive and misleading to the public. In particular, Oak Grove and Visko's maintain that the size of the product identification "corn flour" on the "Fish-Fri" box is not reasonably related to the most predominate words on the box as required by the regulations. After examining the "Fish-Fri" package, the district court found this counterclaim to be without merit. The court initially noted that the size of the words "corn flour" complies with the specifications of 21 C.F.R. § 101.2(c) (1982), which sets a minimum requirement for information appearing on the principal display panel of packaged foods. The court then found that the identification of Zatarain's "Fish-Fri" as a corn flour product was reasonably related in size to the words "Fish-Fri." This finding is not clearly erroneous and therefore is affirmed.
[1] Prior to trial, Visko's moved to dismiss Zatarain's complaint for failure to join Arnaud as a party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a). In the alternative, Visko's moved to join Arnaud as a third-party defendant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a). The district court denied the motion.
[2] We are not the first to swim up this stream. For excellent discussions of the basics of trademark law, see Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 617 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir.1980); Vision Center v. Opticks, Inc., 596 F.2d 111 (5th Cir.1979); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir.1976); Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 830, 97 S.Ct. 91, 50 L.Ed.2d 94 (1976).
[3] We note at the outset that Zatarain's use of the phonetic equivalent of the words "fish fry" — that is, misspelling it — does not render the mark protectable. Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1186 n. 24.
[4] Oak Grove and Visko's argue in a conclusory manner that the term "fish fry" is a generic name for the class of substances used to coat fish prior to frying. We are unable to agree. No evidence in the record indicates that the term "fish fry" is the common, recognized name for any class of foodstuffs. The district court specifically rejected the contention that the term "Fish-Fri" was generic. This finding was not clearly erroneous and must be affirmed.
Second, a glance at the survey itself convinces us that, regardless of its purpose, the questions were not framed in a manner adequate to classify the mark properly. Respondents were asked the following questions: "2. If you planned to fry fish tonight, what would you buy at the grocery to use as a coating? 3. Are you familiar with any product on the market that is especially made for frying fish?" If these questions were to test the associational link between the mark "Fish-Fri" and Zatarain's product, they should have been devoid of such broad hints as the place of purchase ("grocery"), the nature of the product ("coating"), and the purpose or function of the product ("to fry fish"). Furthermore, we caution that survey samples such as these — 100 women in each of four randomly selected cities — may not be adequate in size to prove much of anything. Cf. Union Carbide Corp., 531 F.2d at 385-88 (citing cases); American Thermos Products Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc., 207 F.Supp. 9, 20-22 (D.Conn.1962).
Lanham Act § 33(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a) (1976). See also id. § 7(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). This statutory presumption can be rebutted by establishing the generic or descriptive nature of the mark. Vision Center, 596 F.2d at 119; Flexitized, Inc. v. National Flexitized Corp., 335 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 913, 85 S.Ct. 899, 13 L.Ed.2d 799 (1965).
[5] A mark that has become "incontestable" under section 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065 (1976), cannot be challenged as lacking secondary meaning, although it is subject to seven statutory defenses. See id. § 33(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). In order for a registrant's mark to be deemed "incontestable," the registrant must use the mark for five continuous years following the registration date and must file certain affidavits with the Commissioner of Patents. Id. § 15, 15 U.S.C. § 1065. No evidence in the record indicates that Zatarain's has satisfied the requirements of "incontestability;" consequently, we must determine whether proof of secondary meaning otherwise exists.
[6] This figure represents the total sales volume for all sizes of "Fish-Fri."
[7] See supra note 4. Visko's and Oak Grove argue that the survey evidence should not have been admitted at trial because it was hearsay. We find this argument to be without merit. See Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Out in America, 481 F.2d 445, 447-48 (5th Cir.1973); Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Rogers Imports, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 670, 680-684 & n.104 (S.D.N.Y.1963); Fed.R. Evid. 703 advisory committee note.
[8] The telephone survey also included this question: "When you mentioned `fish fry,' did you have a specific product in mind or did you use that term to mean any kind of coating used to fry fish?" To this inartfully worded question, 77% of the New Orleans respondents answered "specific product" and 23% answered "any kind of coating." Unfortunately, Rosenzweig did not ask the logical follow-up question that seemingly would have ended the inquiry conclusively: "Who makes the specific product you have in mind?" Had he but done so, our task would have been much simpler.
[9] The district court also rejected Zatarain's claims of unfair competition under the Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1976), and La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 51:1405(A) (West Supp. 1982), relying upon the absence of any likelihood of confusion between the products of Zatarain's, Oak Grove, and Visko's. We affirm these conclusions also.
[10] Even were we to accept the results of the survey as relevant, the result would not change. In the New Orleans area, only 11 of the 100 respondents in the telephone survey named "Chick-Fri," "chicken fry," or "Zatarain's `Chick-Fri'" as a product used as a coating for frying chicken. Rosenzweig himself testified that this number was inconclusive for sampling purposes. Thus the survey evidence cannot be said to establish a secondary meaning for the term "Chick-Fri."
[11] The regulation reads in pertinent part as follows:
Citations: 698 F 2d 786