Opinion ID: 738216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Protectability of Lauder's Mark

Text: 31 A mark is classified as descriptive if it tells something about a product, its qualities, ingredients or characteristics. Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d at 1076; see, e.g., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 1040 (2d Cir.1992); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 11 (2d Cir.1976). A descriptive mark generally may be protected only if it has acquired secondary meaning. Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d at 1076; see, e.g., Arrow Fastener Co. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d at 391. Secondary meaning attaches to a mark when the consuming public primarily associates the term with a particular source. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d at 1040; see, e.g., Arrow Fastener Co. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d at 390 (secondary meaning attaches when the [term] and the business have become synonymous in the mind of the public (internal quotation marks omitted)). 32 A suggestive mark is one that suggests the product, though it may take imagination to grasp the nature of the product. Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d at 1076; see, e.g., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d at 1040 (a suggestive mark requires imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of goods (internal quotation marks omitted)); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d at 11 (same). A term that is merely self-laudatory, such as plus or super, seeking to convey the impression that a product is excellent or of especially high quality, is generally deemed suggestive. See, e.g., Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 722 F.2d 999, 1005 (2d Cir.1983) (PLUS, when applied to goods, merely implies additional quantity or quality); In re Ralston Purina Co., 191 U.S.P.Q. 237, 238 (T.T.A.B.1976) (SUPER, when used to connote a vague desirable characteristic or quality allegedly connected with [a] product, is suggestive). [A] suggestive mark is protected without a showing of secondary meaning. Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d at 1076; see, e.g., Arrow Fastener Co. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d at 391. 33 In determining whether a mark should be classified as descriptive or suggestive, the court must focus on how the mark is used in context, rather than on its use in the abstract. See, e.g., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d at 1041; Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d at 12. The district court's finding as to a mark's proper classification will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d at 1039-40. 34 In the present case, the district court's characterization of Lauder's 100% mark as suggestive, whether read alone or as part of the phrase 100% Time Release Moisturizer, is not clearly erroneous. Standing alone, 100% does not describe qualities, ingredients, or characteristics. It implies that the product is of the highest quality; as the vice president in charge of Gap's Personal Care Department stated in describing his plan for Gap to use that term, 100% suggest[s] that a product [i]s the best, [i]s all that a consumer could expect from such a product, and create[s] a positive association with 'giving it your all, or your 100%.'  But in order to have an idea of the nature of the product's qualities, ingredients, or characteristics, a consumer needs additional information. 35 The phrase 100% Time Release Moisturizer as a whole is somewhat more descriptive, but the most descriptive parts are Time Release and Moisturizer; and the term 100% as a modifier of either is more suggestive than descriptive. The phrase 100% Time Release Moisturizer could be read to indicate the purity of the moisturizing content of Lauder's product, or to imply an enduring effect. Or, as the district court found, it could be read as indicating that the bottle contains nothing but time-release moisturizer or that the product moisturizes continuously until removed or worn off. All of these interpretations require some stretch of the imagination. And of course, as the court found, if the term 100% is simply viewed as the brand of time-release moisturizer, it plainly is suggestive. 36 In sum, we see no error in the court's finding that Lauder's use of 100%, either alone or as part of the phrase 100% Time Release Moisturizer, is suggestive rather than descriptive. Thus, despite the absence of secondary meaning, Lauder's mark is entitled to protection. Lauder was not entitled to relief in the present case, however, unless it established a likelihood of confusion.