Opinion ID: 3066602
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Contestable Marks

Text: The Sovereign Order challenges the finding that its contestable marks are weak. The district court stated that the marks are “generic” because they employ “commonly used” words. SMOM III, No. 09-81008-CIV, slip op. at 7. It also found that the marks are used extensively by third parties. The Sovereign Order contends that the district court erred by underestimating the uniqueness of its marks. 28 Case: 14-14251 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 29 of 49 We agree with the Sovereign Order that the district court erred in two respects. First, the strength of a mark does not turn on its component words in a vacuum, but instead “the relationship between the name and the service or good it describes.” Frehling Enters., 192 F.3d at 1335 (emphasis added). For example, “apple” is a common word, but it is a strong mark when used in connection with personal computers. See 2 McCarthy § 11:11. And “sun” is a common word, but it is a strong mark when used in connection with banking. See Frehling Enters., 192 F.3d at 1335. The correct standard is whether the Sovereign Order’s marks are strong when used in connection with the Sovereign Order’s services. The district court erred by evaluating the uniqueness of the individual words that comprise the Sovereign Order’s marks—e.g., “hospitaller” and “Saint John”—instead of evaluating the relationship between the marks and the services that the Sovereign Order provides. Second, the district court misunderstood what matters when considering third-party use. With respect to licensees, their use does not weaken the Sovereign Order’s marks. See Univ. of Ga. Athletic Ass’n, 756 F.2d at 1545 (“[W]idespread use of a mark by licensees would tend to support, rather than rebut, the proposition that [the] mark is a strong one.”). And, with respect to foreign groups using the Sovereign Order’s marks in other countries, their use is irrelevant to the strength of the marks in the United States. See E. Remy Martin & Co. v. Shaw-Ross Int’l Imports, Inc., 756 F.2d 1525, 1531, 1533 (11th Cir. 1985). As for 29 Case: 14-14251 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 30 of 49 the remaining examples, “the significance of third-party use” depends on “the entire name a third party uses.” Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160, 1165 (11th Cir. 1982) (emphasis added). That other organizations use parts of the Sovereign Order’s word marks is not persuasive evidence of third-party use. See id. Moreover, the district court identified only twenty examples of third-party use—a number “substantially less than in other cases in which we have found significant third-party use.” Id.