Opinion ID: 738246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existence of similar third-party registrations

Text: 29 The District Court held that the Daddy's marks lack strength because defense counsel stated in an affidavit that a search of the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office revealed fifteen registered marks which use the phrase Daddy's, as well as three such marks pending for registration. See 913 F.Supp. at 1072. The District Court justified this decision by citing Homeowners Group, 931 F.2d at 1108, for the proposition that numerous third-party registrations of identical or similar marks undermine the strength of a mark. See 913 F.Supp. at 1072. The affidavit submitted by defense counsel, however, merely states that these registrations identified a variety of different goods and services; it does not explain whether any of these registrations specifically relate to the retail sale of musical instruments. As the Homeowners Group court itself stated, merely showing the existence of marks in the records of the Patent and Trademark Office will not materially affect the distinctiveness of another's mark which is actively used in commerce. In order to be accorded weight a defendant must show what actually happens in the marketplace. 931 F.2d at 1108. Although the Homeowners Group court found that numerous third-party registrations were entitled to some probative weight because they appeared to be current and in current use, the registrations included several real estate related firms, the very industry at issue in Homeowners Group. See id. 30 Consequently, it remains a genuine issue of fact whether the existence of fifteen other registered marks incorporating the phrase Daddy's weakens plaintiff's marks for the specific purpose of retail sales of musical instruments. See National Cable Television Assoc., Inc. v. American Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1579-80 (Fed.Cir.1991)(although frequent third-party registrations may reduce the strength of a common mark, they do not do so if they are [not] nearly as closely related to the activities of the parties as the virtually identical uses of [the marks by] the parties are to each other); cf. Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 260 (5th Cir.1980)(although mark for sugar and sugar-related products of plaintiff is distinctive and well-known, existence of seventy-two third-party registrations of same mark demonstrates that strength of mark is limited to particular use to which plaintiff already has put it). 31 The District Court likewise stated that the Daddy's marks lack strength because the phrase Daddy's, standing alone, is abundant in American nomenclature. See 913 F.Supp. at 1072. It is true that the more common a word or phrase is, the less inherent trademark strength it may have, even when the mark has an arbitrary relation to the good or service to which it applies. See Amstar Corp., 615 F.2d at 260 (although application of word Domino to sugar is arbitrary, mark enjoys only limited protection beyond sugar and related food products in part because the word Domino is extremely common). Again, however, a reduction in the strength of a mark due to its frequent registration or usage in the English language generally occurs only if the products and services of the parties are different. See National Cable, 937 F.2d at 1579-80; Amstar Corp., 615 F.2d at 260. Accordingly, the District Court also should reevaluate upon remand how the common nature of the phrase Daddy's affects the strength of plaintiff's marks.