Opinion ID: 526552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: incontestability.

Text: 18 Dieter contends on appeal that the trial court imposed a requirement that it prove secondary meaning in a geographic area as a prerequisite to enforcing an incontestable registration against a junior user in the same geographic area, a rule that Dieter points out is not required by controlling law or case authority. Although this Court agrees with Dieter that such a requirement would be contrary to the law of this circuit, we do not find that the trial court imposed such a requirement. 19 Terms which may be registered as trademarks fall into four categories of strength: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, or (4) arbitrary. American Television v. American Communications, 810 F.2d 1546, 1548 (11th Cir.1987); University of Georgia Athletic Ass'n v. Laite, 756 F.2d 1535, 1540 (11th Cir.1985). Generic terms are those which name the genus or class of which an individual article or service is but a member. Vision Ctr. v. Optiks, 596 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1016, 100 S.Ct. 668, 62 L.Ed.2d 646 (1980). Descriptive terms identify a characteristic or quality of an article or service. Id. Suggestive terms suggest characteristics of the goods and services and require an effort of the imagination by the consumer in order to be understood as descriptive. Id. at 115, 116 (citing General Shoe Corp. v. Rosen, 111 F.2d 95, 98 (4th Cir.1940). Fanciful or arbitrary terms are words or phrases that bear no direct relationship to the product. Vision Ctr., 596 F.2d at 116. Generic terms represent the weaker end of the spectrum, and arbitrary terms represent the stronger. 20 Generic terms may never be registered as trademarks under the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1052(e). Descriptive terms may not be registered as trademarks under the Lanham Act, unless the holder shows that the mark has acquired secondary meaning. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1052(e)(1), (f); Citibank, N.A., v. Citibanc Group, Inc., 724 F.2d 1540, 1549 (11th Cir.1984); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 10 (2d Cir.1976). Proof of secondary meaning in a trademark requires a showing that the mark has become distinctive of the trademark holder's product. Five years after registering a mark, the holder may file the affidavit required by Sec. 1065 and have its mark declared incontestable. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1065(3). Once a mark has become incontestable, its validity is presumed, subject to certain enumerated defenses which are not applicable in this action. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1065. Once a mark has achieved incontestable status, its validity cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is merely descriptive, even if the challenger can show that the mark was improperly registered initially: 6 21 Thus, Sec. 33(a) [would allow challenge to a] mark as merely descriptive if the mark had not become incontestable. With respect to incontestable marks, however, Sec. 33(b) provides that registration is conclusive evidence of the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark, subject to the conditions of Sec. 15 and the seven defenses enumerated in Sec. 33(b) itself. Mere descriptiveness is not recognized by either Sec. 15 or 33(b) as a basis for challenging an incontestable mark. 22 Park'N'Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, 469 U.S. 189, 105 S.Ct. 658, 663, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985); See also Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 617 F.2d 1178, 1185 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 981, 101 S.Ct. 1516, 67 L.Ed.2d 816 (1981), (citing Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7 Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 830, 97 S.Ct. 91, 50 L.Ed.2d 94 (1976)). Dieter's mark is incontestable, and therefore valid. 23 As stated above, a plaintiff seeking to enjoin another's use of a trademark must show, first, that its mark was valid and, second, that defendant's use of the challenged mark created a likelihood of confusion. Burger King, 710 F.2d at 1491. The trial court noted that Dieter's mark was incontestable and that Dieter had established the first requirement. The second part of the test, likelihood of confusion, is determined by reference to the seven factor analysis discussed above. Analysis of the first of the seven factors requires the court to determine the type of mark for which the plaintiff seeks protection. In Park'N'Fly, the issue presented to the Supreme Court involved only the validity of the mark. Whether incontestable status affects the strength of the mark for purposes of likelihood of confusion determinations was left open to question by Park'N'Fly. This is an issue of first impression in this circuit. 24 In the instant action, the lower court evaluated the strength of Dieter's mark without reference to its incontestable status, and determined that Dieter's mark was merely descriptive. In doing so, the trial court relied on a district court case from Illinois which held that validity and likelihood of confusion are distinct and separate inquiries, and that the incontestable status of a plaintiff's mark has no bearing on the likelihood of confusion issue. Source Services Corp. v. Chicagoland Jobsource, Inc., 643 F.Supp. 1523, 1532 (N.D.Ill.1986) (relying on Union Carbide ). Application of this rule by the trial court in Dieter's case did not impose a requirement that Dieter prove secondary meaning in order to enforce its mark. Rather, the trial court, in the absence of controlling precedent, followed the decision of the Illinois district court and concluded that the incontestable status of Dieter's mark had no relevance to the likelihood of confusion analysis. After careful consideration of the district court's position, as well as the case law in this circuit, we decline to follow the Illinois district court. We hold that incontestable status is a factor to be taken into consideration in likelihood of confusion analysis. Because Dieter's mark is incontestable, then it is presumed to be at least descriptive with secondary meaning, and therefore a relatively strong mark. Accordingly, the district court's conclusion that Dieter's mark was merely descriptive, and not entitled to strong protection is REVERSED, and the action is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 25