Opinion ID: 456012
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Association

Text: 55 To establish that a descriptive term has secondary meaning, the 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). 56 Secondary meaning is achieved by an association between a name and a source. When this mental recognition occurs among purchasers, the name becomes legally protectable as an identification symbol. American Scientific Chemical, Inc. v. American Hospital Supply Corp., 690 F.2d 791, 792 (9th Cir.1982). Secondary meaning has been defined as association, nothing more. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 434 F.2d 794, 802 (9th Cir.1970). The test of secondary meaning is the effectiveness of the effort to create it, and the chief inquiry is directed towards the consumer's attitude about the mark in question: does it denote to him 'a single thing coming from a single source?'  Id. (citations omitted). 57 Whether a symbol or device has acquired a secondary meaning is a question of fact. American Scientific Chemical, Inc., supra. Since all factual questions on this issue were resolved by the jury, we must determine whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. We cannot disturb a jury's verdict unless no reasonable person would accept the evidence presented to establish a fact essential to prove liability. Glovatorium, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 684 F.2d 658, 660 (9th Cir.1982). Factors considered in determining whether a secondary meaning has been achieved include: (1) whether actual purchases of the product bearing the claimed trademark associate the trademark with the producer, (2) the degree and manner of advertising under the claimed trademark, (3) the length and manner of use of the claimed trademark and, (4) whether use of the claimed trademark has been exclusive. See 1 Gilson, Trademark Protection & Practice, Sec. 2.09. 58 The record is replete with evidence supporting the jury's finding that the relevant market, the rebuilders who used valve body kits, associate the name Shift Kit with Transgo. While there was evidence that other manufacturers used the name shift kit to describe valve body components that were manufactured for high performance vehicles used by hot rodders, drag racers and car enthusiasts, it is clear that these products were sold in a separate market. 59 Furthermore, the parties agreed before the trial that the relevant market consisted of transmission rebuilders. Indeed, on the first day of trial, Fairbanks was successful in preventing the introduction of evidence that Fairbanks had used Transgo's trademark Reprogramming Kit. 60 Our review of the record satisfies us that a reasonable juror could conclude that there was substantial evidence that the primary significance of Shift Kit to rebuilders at all relevant times was to identify Transgo and not the product. 61