Opinion ID: 2807681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Descriptiveȱfairȱuseȱ

Text: Theȱ districtȱ courtȱ foundȱ thatȱ noȱ reasonableȱ juryȱ couldȱ concludeȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱisȱliableȱforȱinfringingȱSorensen’sȱTHEȱ INHIBITORȱ wordȱ markȱ becauseȱ WDȬ40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱitsȱLongȬTermȱCorrosionȱInhibitorȱ isȱ aȱ descriptiveȱ fairȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ word.ȱ Underȱ 15ȱ U.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1115(b)(4),ȱaȱdefendantȱinȱaȱtrademarkȱinfringementȱactionȱ mayȱ invokeȱ theȱ fairȱ useȱ defenseȱ byȱ demonstratingȱ thatȱ theȱ allegedȱinfringementȱ“isȱaȱuse,ȱotherwiseȱthanȱasȱaȱmarkȱ…ȱ whichȱisȱdescriptiveȱofȱandȱusedȱfairlyȱandȱinȱgoodȱfaithȱonlyȱ toȱdescribeȱtheȱgoodsȱorȱservicesȱofȱsuchȱparty.”ȱThisȱdefenseȱ “isȱbasedȱonȱtheȱprincipleȱthatȱnoȱoneȱshouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱapȬ propriateȱ descriptiveȱ languageȱ throughȱ trademarkȱ registraȬ tion.”ȱPackmanȱv.ȱChi.ȱTribuneȱCo.,ȱ267ȱF.3dȱ628,ȱ639ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ 2001).ȱTheȱhypotheticalȱproducerȱofȱ“Crunchy”ȱbrandȱpotatoȱ chips,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ cannotȱ blockȱ itsȱ competitorsȱ fromȱ deȬ scribingȱ theirȱ chipsȱ asȱ crunchy.ȱ Itȱ may,ȱ though,ȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ blockȱ itsȱ competitorsȱ fromȱ sellingȱ chipsȱ thatȱ areȱ brandedȱ “Crunchy.”ȱȱ Toȱprevailȱonȱaȱfairȱuseȱdefense,ȱaȱdefendantȱmustȱshowȱ that:ȱ(1)ȱitȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱmarkȱasȱaȱtrademark;ȱ(2)ȱtheȱuseȱisȱ descriptiveȱofȱitsȱgoodsȱorȱservices;ȱandȱ(3)ȱitȱusedȱtheȱmarkȱ fairlyȱandȱinȱgoodȱfaith.ȱId.ȱTheȱfairȱuseȱdefenseȱisȱavailableȱ evenȱagainstȱfederallyȱregisteredȱtrademarksȱthatȱareȱinconȬ testable,ȱsuchȱasȱSorensen’sȱTHEȱINHIBITORȱmark.ȱSunmark,ȱ Inc.ȱ v.ȱ Oceanȱ Sprayȱ Cranberries,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 64ȱ F.3dȱ 1055,ȱ 1058ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ1995).ȱ
“Aȱ wordȱ orȱ phraseȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ trademarkȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ usedȱbyȱaȱsourceȱofȱaȱproductȱtoȱidentifyȱitselfȱtoȱtheȱpublicȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 13 asȱtheȱsourceȱofȱitsȱproductȱandȱ toȱ createȱ inȱtheȱpublicȱ conȬ sciousnessȱanȱawarenessȱofȱtheȱuniquenessȱofȱtheȱsourceȱandȱ ofȱitsȱproducts.”ȱSands,ȱTaylorȱ&ȱWoodȱCo.ȱv.ȱQuakerȱOatsȱCo.,ȱ 978ȱ F.2dȱ 947,ȱ 953ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 1992)ȱ (internalȱ quotationȱ marksȱ omitted).ȱȱ Inȱfindingȱthatȱthereȱwasȱnoȱgenuineȱfactualȱdisputeȱthatȱ WDȬ40’sȱuseȱofȱ“inhibitor”ȱwasȱaȱnonȬtrademarkȱuse,ȱtheȱdisȬ trictȱ courtȱ reasonedȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ couldȱ notȱ functionȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱindicatorȱbecauseȱtheȱLongȬTermȱCorrosionȱInhibitorȱ bottleȱ alsoȱ displaysȱ theȱ famousȱ WDȬ40ȱ shield,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ shieldȱthatȱservesȱasȱtheȱsourceȱindicatorȱforȱcustomers.ȱThatȱ reasoningȱisȱinȱsomeȱtensionȱwithȱourȱanalysisȱinȱSands,ȱTayȬ lorȱ &ȱ Woodȱ Co.ȱ There,ȱ theȱ defendant—theȱ producerȱ ofȱ GaȬ torade—arguedȱthatȱtheȱwordsȱ“ThirstȱAid”ȱcouldȱnotȱfuncȬ tionȱ asȱ aȱ trademarkȱ becauseȱ theyȱ wereȱ usedȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ theȱ wellȬknownȱ “Gatorade”ȱ mark.ȱ Id.ȱ Weȱ disagreed,ȱ notingȱthat,ȱinȱtheȱrelatedȱcontextȱofȱdeterminingȱlikelihoodȱ ofȱ confusion,ȱ “someȱ courtsȱ haveȱ observedȱ thatȱ theȱ conjuncȬ tionȱ ofȱ defendant’sȱ trademarkȱ andȱ theȱ allegedlyȱ infringedȱ termȱ‘mayȱactuallyȱincreaseȱtheȱmisappropriationȱbyȱlinkingȱ defendant’sȱnameȱtoȱplaintiff’sȱgoodwill.’”ȱId.ȱatȱ954ȱ(quotingȱ Banff,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱFederatedȱDep’tȱStores,ȱInc.,ȱ841ȱF.2dȱ486,ȱ492ȱ(2dȱ Cir.ȱ 1988)).ȱ “Clearly,ȱ then,”ȱ weȱ held,ȱ “theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ GaȬ toradeȱ trademarkȱ alwaysȱ appearsȱ inȱ Quaker’sȱ ‘Thirstȱ Aid’ȱ advertisementsȱdoesȱnotȱprecludeȱaȱfindingȱthatȱthoseȱadverȬ tisementsȱalsoȱuseȱ‘ThirstȱAid’ȱasȱaȱtrademark.”ȱId.ȱȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ districtȱ court’sȱ reasoningȱ restedȱ onȱ theȱ premiseȱthatȱaȱgivenȱproductȱcanȱonlyȱcontainȱoneȱindicatorȱ ofȱ source.ȱ That,ȱ weȱ know,ȱ isȱ incorrect—WDȬ40’sȱ Specialistȱ productsȱ containȱ atȱ leastȱ threeȱ registeredȱ trademarks:ȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ shield,ȱ theȱ wordȱ markȱ “Specialist,”ȱ andȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ 14ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ crosshairȱ mark.ȱ Theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ WDȬ40ȱ shieldȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱ indicator,ȱ therefore,ȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ doesȱ notȱ alsoȱ serveȱ toȱ indicateȱ theȱ product’sȱ source.ȱ Theȱdistrictȱcourtȱsupportedȱitsȱconclusionȱinȱthreeȱotherȱ waysȱ thatȱ weȱ thinkȱ areȱ worthȱ mentioning.ȱ First,ȱ itȱ pointedȱ outȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱwordsȱ“theȱinhibitor”ȱonȱitsȱ product,ȱbutȱratherȱjustȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibitor.”ȱThisȱfact,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱ goesȱ toȱ whetherȱ Sorensen’sȱ trademarkȱ wasȱ infringed,ȱ notȱ whetherȱ WDȬ40ȱ usedȱ theȱ wordȱ asȱ aȱ mark.ȱ Hadȱ WDȬ40ȱ calledȱitsȱproductȱ“Inhibitor”ȱandȱplacedȱthatȱwordȱinȱlarge,ȱ boldȱlettersȱonȱitsȱcan,ȱweȱthinkȱitȱprobableȱthatȱaȱjuryȱwouldȱ findȱ thatȱ toȱ beȱ trademarkȱ use,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “the.”ȱWhetherȱthatȱtrademarkȱuseȱinfringedȱuponȱSorensen’sȱ markȱwouldȱbeȱaȱseparateȱquestion.ȱNext,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt,ȱ citingȱ toȱ McCarthyȱ onȱ Trademarks,ȱ notedȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ comȬ petingȱproductsȱonȱtheȱmarketȱthatȱalsoȱuseȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibȬ itor”ȱ toȱ describeȱ theirȱ products.ȱ But,ȱ asȱ McCarthyȱ makesȱ clear,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱaȱtermȱbyȱotherȱsellersȱofȱsimilarȱgoodsȱisȱanȱ indiciaȱofȱtheȱdescriptivenessȱofȱtheȱterm,ȱnotȱofȱitsȱbeingȱusedȱ inȱ aȱ nonȬtrademarkȱ manner.ȱ Seeȱ 2ȱ McCarthyȱ onȱ Trademarksȱ andȱ Unfairȱ Competitionȱ §ȱ11:20ȱ (4thȱ ed.).ȱ Inȱ Sands,ȱ Taylorȱ &ȱ Woodȱ Co.,ȱ weȱ cautionedȱ againstȱ conflatingȱ theseȱ twoȱ eleȬ mentsȱ ofȱ theȱ fairȱ useȱ defense.ȱ 978ȱ F.2dȱ atȱ 954.ȱ Descriptiveȱ terms,ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ areȱ protectableȱ asȱ aȱ trademarkȱ ifȱ theyȱ haveȱ developedȱ secondaryȱ meaning.ȱ Seeȱ id.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱsaidȱthatȱtheȱfactȱthatȱWDȬ40ȱusesȱtheȱwordȱ“inhibitor”ȱ onȱonlyȱoneȱofȱitsȱSpecialistȱlineȱofȱproducts,ȱratherȱthanȱonȱ everyȱ productȱ inȱ theȱ line,ȱ isȱ anȱ indiciaȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ isȱ notȱ beingȱusedȱasȱaȱmark.ȱThatȱisȱpartiallyȱcorrect:ȱSorensen’sȱarȬ gumentȱwouldȱbeȱmuchȱstrongerȱifȱ“inhibitor”ȱappearedȱonȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ productsȱ inȱ theȱ Specialistȱ line.ȱ However,ȱ aȱ markȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 15 thatȱ isȱ usedȱ onȱ onlyȱ oneȱ productȱ withinȱ aȱ largerȱ lineȱ canȱ neverthelessȱbeȱaȱsourceȱindicator,ȱnotȱforȱtheȱwholeȱline,ȱbutȱ forȱthatȱproductȱinȱparticular.ȱForȱexample,ȱGatorade,ȱwhichȱ weȱmentionedȱabove,ȱhasȱaȱlineȱ ofȱ“GatoradeȱFrost”ȱenergyȱ drinks,ȱ inȱ fiveȱ differentȱ flavors.ȱ Theȱ namesȱ ofȱ twoȱ ofȱ thoseȱ flavors—“Glacierȱ Freeze”ȱ andȱ “Glacierȱ Cherry”—areȱ regisȬ teredȱasȱseparateȱtrademarks.ȱSeeȱGLACIERȱFREEZE,ȱRegisȬ trationȱ No.ȱ 2,098,324;ȱ GLACIERȱ CHERRY,ȱ Registrationȱ No.ȱ 4,401,610.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ weȱ agreeȱ withȱ theȱ districtȱ court’sȱ ultimateȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ WDȬ40’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ isȱ aȱ nonȬtrademarkȱuse.ȱSimplyȱput,ȱweȱbelieveȱthatȱnoȱreasonaȬ bleȱjurorȱlookingȱatȱaȱbottleȱofȱLongȬTermȱCorrosionȱInhibiȬ torȱ couldȱ concludeȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ isȱ usedȱ asȱ anȱ indicatorȱ ofȱ source.ȱComparedȱtoȱotherȱfeaturesȱinȱtheȱbottle’sȱdesign,ȱtheȱ wordȱ“inhibitor”ȱisȱmuchȱlessȱprominentȱorȱnoticeable.ȱItȱisȱ muchȱ smallerȱ thanȱ theȱ brightȱ andȱ eyeȬcatchingȱ WDȬ40ȱ shield.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱsmallerȱthanȱtheȱstylizedȱandȱcoloredȱwordȱ “Specialist”ȱ andȱ theȱ colorfulȱ crosshairȱ mark.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ wordȱ“inhibitor”—whichȱisȱwrittenȱinȱrelativelyȱsmall,ȱwhiteȱ type—isȱlessȱattentionȬgrabbingȱthanȱevenȱtheȱwordȱ“CorroȬ sion,”ȱ whichȱ isȱ largerȱ andȱ coloredȱ inȱ orange.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ theȱ word’sȱsmallȱsize,ȱplainȱcolor,ȱandȱnonȬprivilegedȱplacementȱ onȱ theȱ bottle,ȱ weȱ findȱ thatȱ “inhibitor”ȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ “attentionȬ gettingȱsymbol,”ȱandȱdoesȱnotȱfunctionȱasȱaȱsourceȱindicator.ȱ Seeȱ Sands,ȱ Taylorȱ &ȱ Woodȱ Co.,ȱ 978ȱ F.2dȱ atȱ 954ȱ (quotingȱ 1ȱ McCarthy,ȱsupraȱ§ȱ11:17,ȱatȱ476ȱ(1991ȱSupp.)).ȱ Sorensenȱ arguesȱ inȱ responseȱ thatȱ WDȬ40’sȱ communicaȬ tionsȱguideȱrequiresȱthatȱemployeesȱandȱadvertisementsȱonlyȱ referȱtoȱtheȱproductȱatȱissueȱasȱ“WDȬ40ȱSpecialistȱLongȬTermȱ Corrosionȱ Inhibitor;”ȱ noȱ shorterȱ nameȱ isȱ acceptable.ȱ Weȱ doȱ 16ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ notȱ agreeȱ withȱ Sorensenȱ thatȱ thisȱ factȱ isȱ relevant.ȱ Heȱ seemsȱ toȱ suggestȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ mustȱ beȱ inȬ cludedȱwheneverȱWDȬ40ȱmentionsȱtheȱproduct,ȱitȱmustȱbeȱaȱ trademark.ȱ Butȱ thoughȱ theȱ guideline’sȱ requirementȱ thatȱ theȱ fullȱnameȱbeȱusedȱmayȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱnameȱasȱaȱwholeȱisȱanȱ indicatorȱ ofȱ source,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ eachȱ individualȱ wordȱinȱtheȱnameȱservesȱasȱaȱmark.ȱWeȱdoubtȱthatȱSorensenȱ wouldȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “term”ȱ isȱ aȱ trademarkȱ forȱ WDȬ 40’sȱproduct.ȱȱ
Aȱdescriptiveȱtermȱordinarilyȱ namesȱaȱcharacteristicȱofȱaȱ productȱ orȱ service.ȱ HȬDȱ Mich.,ȱ Inc.ȱ v.ȱ Topȱ Qualityȱ Serv.,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 496ȱ F.3dȱ 755,ȱ 759ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2007).ȱ Thereȱ canȱ beȱ noȱ disputeȱ hereȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor,”ȱ followingȱ theȱ wordȱ “corroȬ sion,”ȱ describesȱ aȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ WDȬ40’sȱ product,ȱ whichȱ containsȱVCIȱandȱisȱmeantȱtoȱinhibitȱcorrosionȱforȱaȱlongȱpeȬ riodȱ ofȱ time.ȱ Multipleȱ competingȱ productsȱ madeȱ byȱ thirdȱ partiesȱ useȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ toȱ describeȱ theirȱ products,ȱ andȱ WDȬ40ȱ usesȱ theȱ wordȱ multipleȱ timesȱ onȱ itsȱ bottleȱ inȱ aȱ mannerȱthatȱisȱclearlyȱnonȬsourceȱidentifying.ȱȱ Sorensenȱ offersȱ littleȱ resistanceȱ toȱ thisȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ disȬ trictȱ court’sȱ opinion,ȱ thoughȱ heȱ doesȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “inhibitor”ȱ isȱ suggestiveȱ ratherȱ thanȱ merelyȱ descriptiveȱ beȬ causeȱ itȱ requiresȱ “someȱ operationȱ ofȱ theȱ imagination”ȱ toȱ makeȱtheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱtheȱtermȱ“inhibitor”ȱandȱaȱrustȱ preventativeȱ oilȱ product.ȱ G.ȱ Heilemanȱ Brewingȱ Co.ȱ v.ȱ AnȬ heuserȬBusch,ȱInc.,ȱ873ȱ F.2dȱ985,ȱ996ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1989).ȱWeȱdisaȬ gree,ȱ but,ȱ regardless,ȱ thisȱ framingȱ ofȱ theȱ issueȱ isȱ incorrect.ȱ TheȱWDȬ40ȱproductȱisȱcalledȱaȱ“CorrosionȱInhibitor,”ȱnotȱjustȱ anȱ “Inhibitor.”ȱ Itȱ takesȱ noȱ operationȱ ofȱ theȱ imaginationȱ toȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ3067ȱ 17 makeȱ aȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ termȱ “Corrosionȱ Inhibitor”ȱ andȱaȱproductȱthatȱinhibitsȱrustȱandȱotherȱformsȱofȱcorrosion.ȱȱ SorensenȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱcaseȱFortuneȱDynamic,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱVictoȬ ria’sȱ Secret,ȱ 618ȱ F.3dȱ 1025,ȱ 1035ȱ (9thȱ Cir.ȱ 2010),ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ