Opinion ID: 775415
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: exclusivity, length, and manner of use; 4. amount and manner of advertising;

Text: 80 5. amount of sales and number of customers; 6. established place in the market; and 81 7. proof of intentional copying. 82 TrafFix, 200 F.3d at 937. No single factor is determinative and every one need not be proven. See Centaur, 830 F.2d at 1222. 1. Direct consumer testimony 83 Herman Miller provides affidavit evidence from design experts, authors, historians, and past and present Herman Miller employees to support its claim that consumers associate the Eames lounge chair and ottoman with Herman Miller. In addition, Herman Miller presents media coverage relating to individuals who specifically own Herman Miller Eames lounge chairs and ottomans and producers of television shows that specifically purchased Herman Miller Eames lounge chairs and ottomans for their sets. Herman Miller also has presented evidence of a extensive secondary market specifically in Eames lounge chairs and ottomans produced by Herman Miller. Finally, Herman Miller has presented various magazine and newspaper articles warning the consuming public seeking a Herman Miller Eames lounge chair and ottoman of the existence of a market for knockoffs of Eames-designed furniture. 84 Direct consumer testimony need not take the form of explicit testimony from consumers stating that 'I care that X produced this product.' Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 294 (7th Cir. 1998). Instead of this explicit testimony, Herman Miller has presented a variety of circumstantial testimony indicating a link between Herman Miller and the Eames lounge chair and ottoman in the mind of the consuming public for modern furniture. In concluding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of secondary meaning in TrafFix, this court noted the lack of direct customer testimony, but instead relied upon deposition testimony of employees of the defendant and former employees of the plaintiff indicating they could recognize the plaintiff's sign, which was the subject of the disputed trade dress claim. 200 F.3d at 937. The evidence in this case relating to a connection between Herman Miller and the Eames lounge chair and ottoman among the consuming public is even more extensive. 2. Consumer surveys 85 The district court particularly noted the absence of consumer studies or surveys linking the lounge chair and ottoman with Herman Miller. 5 Because the determination of whether a mark has acquired secondary meaning is primarily an empirical inquiry, survey evidence is the most direct and persuasive evidence. Survey evidence is not the only relevant evidence, however. Sugar Busters LLC v. Brennan, 177 F.3d 258, 269 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal citation and quotations omitted) (emphasis added). Other courts have held that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of secondary meaning at summary judgment without consumer surveys. See Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports News, L.L.C., 212 F.3d 157, 165-66 (3d Cir. 2000); TrafFix, 200 F.3d at 937; Yamaha Int'l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Hunting Hall of Fame Found. v. Safari Club Int'l, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1765, 1771 (D. Ariz. 1987). While consumer surveys certainly would have been helpful to Herman Miller's claim, their absence is not fatal, at least on summary judgment. 3. Exclusivity, length, and manner of use 86 In contrast to other Eames-designed products that Herman Miller discontinued producing either temporarily or permanently, Herman Miller has produced the Eames lounge chair and ottoman continuously since 1956. This court has noted that, [t]he duration of use of the mark can establish secondary meaning where the duration is more than a relatively short period. 6 Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc., 871 F.2d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 1989). In this case, Herman Miller has presented evidence that it has used the Eames lounge chair and ottoman trade dress for far more than a relatively short period.