Opinion ID: 178211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusivity, Length, and Manner of Use

Text: The district court noted that Tenneco claimed that it continuously used its “71” product numbers since 1983 and its “171” numbers since 2003. These numbers appear on the struts, packaging, sales catalogs, sell sheets, price lists, and promotional rebates. However, the district court noted that on the packaging the number is always prominently accompanied by the Monroe trademark. For the purpose of the end consumer, the district court found that the “use of multiple marks appearing together suggests that the product number has a different purpose than identifying the product as belonging to Tenneco. The Monroe mark identifies the source of the product, and the number identifies the type of product contained inside the package.” Tenneco does not seriously dispute this finding, arguing only that there is “no requirement . . . that a mark be used or advertised 4 The only other evidence Tenneco submitted to the district court on this factor was Richard Alameddine’s declaration, which the district court refused to consider following Defendants’ objection. Tenneco has not appealed that decision, so we do not consider it either. 17 Nos. 08-2276/09-1920, Tenneco v. Kingdom Auto Parts alone in order to be entitled to protection.” The district court’s finding, however, is not a strictly legal one, but rather one of common sense, and is not incorrect. Although neither of the parties nor the district court mentions it in this context, we also find it significant that the product numbers are used to specifically describe the strut and identify the vehicle to which the strut is designated. This use strongly favors Defendants’ claim that these product numbers primarily describe the product, not the source. This factor strongly favors Defendants.