Opinion ID: 699269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Descriptiveness of Self-realization As a Trademark

Text: 44 While SRF did not register the term Self-realization as a trademark with California or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it did assert in its suit that it had trademark rights to the term. The district court originally ruled on summary judgment for CSR that Self-realization was invalid as a trademark because it was generic. After SRF moved for reconsideration, the district court reconsidered its ruling as it applied to Self-realization when the term was used in the context of SRF's products and services. However, the court granted summary judgment for CSR on other grounds, because Self-realization was descriptive of SRF's products and services, and it lacked secondary meaning. A trademark that is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is invalid. Bada Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 426 F.2d 8, 11 (9th Cir.1970). SRF argues the district court erred. We affirm. 45
46 A trademark is descriptive if it describes the product to which it refers or its purpose. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C. Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 1040 (2d Cir.1992). The products in question are books, magazines, audio and video recordings, and spiritual and Yoga services. The issue is whether Self-realization is descriptive with respect to those products and services. 47 CSR introduced evidence in support of summary judgment showing that Self-realization described a generic state of spiritual attainment, and that attaining this state is the purpose of Yoga. It follows that products like Self-realization books and services like Self-realization Yoga classes are products and services with the purpose of helping the purchaser achieve the state of Self-realization. Self-realization is thus descriptive as it applies to SRF's products and services. 48
49 SRF argues that the evidence showed that Self-realization is suggestive, not descriptive. If SRF is correct, it would not have to prove that Self-realization has acquired secondary meaning with respect to SRF's products and services to establish that the term is a valid mark. See id.; AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 349 (9th Cir.1979). We reject the claim that Self-realization is suggestive as to SRF's products and services. 50 Although the distinction between descriptive and suggestive marks may be inarticulable, several criteria offer guidance. The primary criterion is the imaginativeness involved in the suggestion, that is, how immediate and direct is the thought process from the mark to the particular product. AMF Inc., 599 F.2d at 349 (citations and quotations omitted). If the mental leap between the word and the product's attribute is not almost instantaneous, this strongly indicates suggestiveness, not direct descriptiveness. 1 McCarthy Sec. 11.21, at 11-108 to -109 (citing Investacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Inv. Banking Corp., 931 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir.1991)). 51 Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Co. v. Annick Goutal, 673 F.Supp. 1238 (S.D.N.Y.1987), cited by SRF, illustrates the difference between suggestiveness and descriptiveness. Both parties manufactured perfumes called Passion. The court ruled that the term was suggestive, not descriptive. Id. at 1243-44. The most obvious way to describe a perfume is by its scent: Musky, for instance. It takes a mental leap to imagine that the scent evokes a particular emotion, like Passion. 52 SRF's marks are not suggestive. No mental leap is required to conclude that a Self-realization book is a book designed to help readers achieve higher consciousness. 53 SRF cites In re Recovery, Inc., 196 U.S.P.Q. 830 (T.T.A.B.1977), in support of its argument. Recovery, Inc. had applied to register the term Recovery as a service mark for its training, conferences, and publications. The company's products and services were all designed to teach lay leaders to provide aftercare self-help to people who had completed psychiatric counseling. Id. at 831. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, finding that Recovery was suggestive in context, reversed a finding that the term was descriptive and a registration denial. Id. at 832. 54 The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board admitted that this case illustrated how difficult it can be to distinguish between descriptiveness and suggestiveness. Id. Even so, we do not think the case supports SRF's argument. Recovery was most likely to be descriptive in the context of self-help services and products, which could be used directly by people who had completed psychiatric counseling or had not participated in such counseling at all. However, Recovery, Inc.'s use of the term was one step removed--Recovery products and services were services to teach informal counselors to teach ex-patients to help themselves. 55 We think this extra step constitutes the difference between descriptiveness and suggestiveness, and SRF's use of Self-realization lacks the extra step. A Self-realization book, tape, or class is designed to help the user attain spiritual attainment. It resembles a Recovery book designed to help the reader recover from emotional trauma more than it resembles a Recovery book designed to help the reader counsel another person to recover from such a condition. Thus, Self-realization is descriptive in the context of the books, tapes, and other products and services sold by SRF. 56
Products 57 Since SRF's marks were descriptive, they had to have secondary meaning to be valid. The basic element of secondary meaning is a mental recognition in buyers' and potential buyers' minds that products connected with the [mark] are associated with the same source. Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 632 F.2d 817, 820 (9th Cir.1980). Self-realization has secondary meaning if buyers and potential buyers automatically associate Self-realization literature, tapes, and services with SRF. 58 CSR introduced evidence from members of the American Hindu-Yoga community that Self-realization to them meant a spiritual state sought by all Yoga followers. This evidence established lack of secondary meaning by showing that a Hindu-Yoga adherent would not automatically associate a Self-realization product with SRF. There was no evidence in the record to the contrary, other than declarations, filed by SRF, of its own members and associates. As we concluded in the previous section, these declarations had little probative value. See Norm Thompson Outfitters, 448 F.2d at 1297. We affirm the district court's post-reconsideration grant of summary judgment to CSR on Self-realization as a trademark because the term is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning.