Opinion ID: 765770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Generic Marks

Text: 36 The plaintiff also contends that the district court erroneously ruled that Blastoff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact in support of its claim that the Rams mark was generic. Specifically, Blastoff claims that because the Colorado State Rams college football team uses the team name Rams, the mark has become generic and the defendants have lost their rights in the mark. In making the claim that the Rams mark is generic, Blastoff relies on 15 U.S.C. sec. 1064(3), which provides that a federal trademark registration that has been on the registry for more than five years can be canceled in circumstances where the mark has become the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered. The district court found Blastoff's argument on this point laughably deficient, ruling that the plaintiff failed to produce any facts supporting its challenge to [the] registration. 37 A term may be considered generic if it is one that is commonly used to name or designate a kind of goods, Mil-Mar Shoe Co. v. Shonac Corp., 75 F.3d 1153, 1157 (7th Cir. 1996), or it represents the common linguistic usage for such goods. See Gimix, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 699 F.2d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 1983). The defendants' mark registration specifies that the Rams name is to be used for entertainment services--namely, professional football exhibitions. Thus, the product denoted by the Rams registration is a professional football team, and the record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that any other professional football team is known as the Rams, with the exception of the now extinct Los Angeles Rams franchise. The plaintiff has also failed to adduce any evidence that the Rams mark has become a common term for professional football teams generally. See Henri's Food Prods. Co. v. Tasty Snacks, Inc., 817 F.2d 1303, 1305 (7th Cir. 1987). Contrary to the plaintiff's claim, use of the Rams mark by one, or even several, college athletic teams does not establish a genuine issue as to the mark having become generic as it is defined by the statute because none of the collegiate parties using the mark produces the same product: a professional football team. Furthermore, the record fails to demonstrate that Rams is the common linguistic term for a professional football team. See Gimix, 699 F.2d at 905. 38