Opinion ID: 718674
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Strength of the Trademark

Text: 9 As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether plaintiff's mark is strong enough to merit trademark protection. To do this, we must classify the mark, Duluth News-Tribune, into one of four categories: 1) arbitrary or fanciful, 2) suggestive, 3) descriptive, or 4) generic. Cellular Sales, Inc. v. Mackay, 942 F.2d 483, 485 (8th Cir.1991). An arbitrary or fanciful trademark is the strongest type of mark and is afforded the highest level of protection. Id. at 486. At the other end of the spectrum, a generic term is one that is used by the general public to identify a category of goods, and as such merits no trademark protection. See Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 561 F.2d 75, 79-81 (7th Cir.1977) (holding Lite Beer to be generic), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1025, 98 S.Ct. 751, 54 L.Ed.2d 772 (1978). Suggestive and descriptive marks fall somewhere in between. A suggestive mark is one that requires some measure of imagination to reach a conclusion regarding the nature of the product. See American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson Chemical Co. Inc., 589 F.2d 103, 106 (2d Cir.1978) (holding the mark Roach Motel to be suggestive because [w]hile roaches may live in some motels against the will of the owners, motels are surely not built for roaches to live in). A descriptive mark, on the other hand, immediately conveys the nature or function of the product and is entitled to protection only if it has become distinctive by acquiring a secondary meaning. See 20th Century Wear, Inc. v. Sanmark-Stardust Inc., 747 F.2d 81, 87-88 (2d Cir.1984) (finding Cozy Warm ENERGY-SAVERS to be descriptive), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052, 105 S.Ct. 1755, 84 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985). 10 We find that the district court properly classified plaintiff's mark, Duluth News-Tribune, as descriptive. The words convey meaning too directly to be suggestive, yet are too specific to be generic. The name Duluth News-Tribune notifies the reader that the product is a Duluth newspaper, but is too specific to describe all newspapers, or even all Duluth newspapers. Viewing the facts in plaintiff's favor, we will also assume that the mark Duluth News-Tribune has acquired secondary meaning meriting trademark protection. 2 11 Plaintiff attempts, however, to extend this protection beyond Duluth News-Tribune, to the term News-Tribune, on the theory that customers in the Iron Range refer to plaintiff's paper in shorthand form as the News-Tribune. Plaintiff has offered no evidence sufficient to substantiate this claim. The only direct evidence of a customer's shorthand reference to the Duluth News-Tribune is from a customer who refers to the paper as Duluth News. Moreover, the widespread use of the words news and tribune throughout the newspaper industry precludes plaintiff from claiming exclusive privilege to use these words. Thus, although the mark Duluth News-Tribune merits some level of protection, the shorthand News-Tribune merits none. 12