Opinion ID: 67086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trademark Protection

Text: A trademark registration by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark. ... 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). However, if the mark is found to be either generic or descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, a court may cancel it. 15 U.S.C. § 1119; see Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1184 (holding that registration does not bar defenses to infringement). Because categorization is a question of fact, summary judgment is rarely appropriate. Soweco, 617 F.2d at 1183 n. 12; see also Union Nat'l Bank of Tex., Laredo, Tex. v. Union Nat'l Bank of Tex., Austin, Tex. ( Union Nat'l ), 909 F.2d 839, 845 n. 13 (5th Cir.1990) ([I]t will be the exceptional case which may be disposed of on these grounds.). Xtreme does not argue that EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY has secondary meaning. Consequently, the mark must be at least suggestive to be protectable. See Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 768-69, 112 S.Ct. 2753. Descriptiveness is construed broadly. See Zatarains, 698 F.2d at 792. Indicia include: (1) the mark's dictionary definition corresponds with its meaning and context; (2) upon hearing the mark, one need not use imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of goods; (3) competitors would be likely to need the terms used in the trademark in describing their products; and (4) others have used the term in marketing a similar service or product. Id. at 792-93 (quotations and citations omitted). We examine the context in which a term appears, and the audience to which it is directed, when determining eligibility for protection. Union Nat'l, 909 F.2d at 846-47. We also look at a multiword mark as a unitary whole in its given arrangement, and do not parse apart the constituent terms. Id. at 848 n. 25. Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we make all reasonable inferences in favor of Xtreme, the nonmoving party. See Int'l Shortstop, 939 F.2d at 1260. The district court held that EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY is descriptive as a matter of law. Xtended's expert, Dr. Frank, found that EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY is not used as a company name, nor as product name or trademark. Dr. Frank found that thirty companies had used the phrase in conjunction with hair care, eyelash, or personal grooming products and services. Dr. Frank also found that the phrase appears in non-trademark contexts. Xtreme insists that there is a question of fact whether EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY is suggestive. The fact that the PTO registered the mark, says Xtreme, alone precludes summary judgment. Xtreme next argues that others' use of extend your beauty in a textual sense or in conjunction with non-eyelash related beauty products should not weigh in favor of descriptiveness. Xtreme also says nearly every seller identified by Xtended in the eyelash extension industry is a client of Xtreme and is using the EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY trademark with its permission. Xtreme has the better argument. The tests posited in Zatarains mainly point to suggestiveness. See 698 F.2d at 792-93. Extend describes a function of the product, but nothing in the dictionary definitions of extend, your, or beauty relates to eyelash enhancements. Beauty is an abstract concept. One cannot literally extend it. The district court observed that beauty serves as a metaphor for eyelashes. We agree, but unlike the district court, we conclude that metaphorical usage means the mark is arguably suggestive. The mark's meaning and context have little to do with the dictionary definitions of its parts. The three-word mark, viewed as a whole, has no dictionary meaning or idiomatic resonance. Additionally, consumers must use imagination, thought and perception to conclude that an exhortation to extend your beauty markets eyelash extensions, as opposed to another cosmetically enhanced feature. See id. It is worth noting that EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY always appears in conjunction with XTREME LASHES. Use in this context may explain the nature of the product, weighing towards descriptiveness. However, this is a matter best weighed by a jury after a full presentment of the evidence. See Union Nat'l, 909 F.2d at 845 n. 13. As for other indicia of descriptiveness, nothing in the record shows that makers of eyelash extensions need the phrase extend your beauty in order to describe their products. See Zatarains, 698 F.2d at 792-93. Third-party use for unrelated products is not relevant when evaluating descriptiveness. See Union Nat'l, 909 F.2d at 848. Companies which have used EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY for eyelash products have done so mainly as licensees of Xtreme. A non-affiliated company called Luscious Lashes apparently has used the phrase to sell eyelash products or services, but this evidence alone does not entitle Xtended to judgment. A phrase is not descriptive merely because it is catchy. [3] See Smack Apparel, 550 F.3d at 488 ([T]he fact that a trademark is desirable does not, and should not, render it unprotectable.) (quotation omitted); Union Nat'l, 909 F.2d at 848 n. 22 (The need to use a term because it is generic or highly descriptive should be distinguished from the desire to use it because it is attractive.) (emphasis in original). Finally, words such as extend and beauty may be common in advertisements and trademarks. However, the ubiquity of constituent terms does not relegate a compound mark to the realm of the descriptive. Just, do, and it are very common, but Nike can still trademark Just Do It. In sum, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that EXTEND YOUR BEAUTY is descriptive and unprotectable. We reverse the district court's cancellation of the mark, and now consider likelihood of confusion with XTENDED BEAUTY.