Opinion ID: 775328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Strength of Mark -- Lapp Factor (2)

Text: Courts have recognized that 41 [a] strong trademark is... one that carries widespread, immediate recognition that one producer (even if unknown) is associated with the mark, and so with the product. If a second comer adopts a mark substantially identical to a strong mark, there is a correspondingly high likelihood that consumers will mistakenly associate the newcomer's product with the owner of the strong mark. 42 Versa Prods., 50 F.3d at 203. 43 The strength of a mark is determined by (1) the distinctiveness or conceptual strength of the mark and (2) its commercial strength or marketplace recognition. Fisons, 30 F.3d at 478-79. Under distinctiveness, we look at the inherent features of the mark. Trademarks protected under the Lanham Act are divided into four categories: 44 [1] arbitrary or fanciful marks [that] use terms that neither describe nor suggest anything about the product; they bear no logical or suggestive relation to the actual characteristics of the goods. [2] Suggestive marks [that] require consumer imagination, thought or perception to determine what the product is.[3] Descriptive terms [that] forthwith convey[ ] an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods [and] [4] generic marks... that function as the common descriptive name of a product class. 45 A&H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 221-22(quoting A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 296-97 (3d Cir. 1986)). 46 In Ford Motor Co., we further explained the categorization of marks stating, 47 Arbitrary marks are those words, symbols, pictures, etc., which are in common linguistic use but which, when used with the goods or services in issue, neither suggest nor describe any ingredient, quality or characteristic of those goods or services.... Suggestive marks are virtually indistinguishable from arbitrary marks, but have been defined as marks which suggest a quality or ingredient of goods.... A mark is considered descriptive if it describes the intended purpose, function, or use of the goods; of the size of the goods, of the class of users of the goods, or of the end effect upon the user. 48 930 F.2d at 292 n.18 (quoting 1 McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition at S11:3-5, 20). 49 While generic marks do not receive trademark protection, arbitrary, suggestive and descriptive marks with a demonstrated secondary meaning 10 are entitled to trademark protection. 11 50 The District Court found Checkpoint Systems's mark was either suggestive or descriptive with a secondary meaning within the electronic article surveillance market. We see no error. The mark is suggestive to the extent it requires consumer imagination to determine that Checkpoint Systems's security products serve as check points to prevent unauthorized access and theft of merchandise. But the mark is descriptive insofar as its products serve as checkpoints. That is, they occupy a point at which customers are checked for stolen merchandise or people are checked for authorization to access restricted areas. In either event, the mark has achieved a strong secondary meaning in the physical article security market. Checkpoint Systems has spent millions of dollars in advertising its physical article security systems and the mark has achieved high recognition among consumers in this market. The District Court was therefore correct in stating, Checkpoint [Systems] has used its name and mark in connection with its electronic article surveillance products for more than thirty years continuously, extensively, and in a substantially exclusive manner, and that long use renders the mark strong within the physical surveillance field. Checkpoint Sys., 104 F. Supp. 2d at 458. 51 The mark has not, however, attained a strong secondary meaning in other segments of the corporate security market, particularly in the information technology market. There is no evidence that Checkpoint Systems spent a substantial amount of resources in advertising in this market, nor is there any evidence that Checkpoint Systems has achieved mark recognition in this segment of the industry. 12 Because Checkpoint Systems's descriptive mark has not attained a secondary meaning within the information technology market, it is not conceptually strong within this sector of the corporate security market. The District Court found that Checkpoint Systems's mark may be strong, but that strength does not appear to extend beyond its own subfield of physical security with respect to electronic article surveillance. 104 F. Supp. 2d at 460. This finding is adequately supported in the record. Although Checkpoint Systems manufactured other products aside from physical article surveillance systems, the court found these products constituted a very small portion of its business. Its mark was not readily recognizable by consumers outside the electronic article surveillance market and there is no evidence that any witness from the information security field had ever heard of [Checkpoint Systems]. Id. 52 Plaintiffs claim the District Court erred in its commercial strength analysis because it undervalued the overwhelming strength of the Checkpoint Systems mark in the article surveillance market. But the District Court held, properly in our view, that courts must look at the strength of the mark in the industry in which infringement is alleged. See, e.g., Homeowners Group, Inc., 931 F.2d at 1107-08 ([A mark] may... have high recognition which is limited to a particular product or market segment.); Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 875 F.2d 1026, 1031 (2d Cir. 1989) (luxury car maker could not demonstrate that its powerful mark extended to the completely unrelated market of legal research tools); IDV N. Am., Inc. v. S&M Brands, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 815, 824 (E.D.Va. 1998) (A mark may be strong in the market in which it is used but weak in another market in which it is not used.). Here, the alleged infringement extends beyond the physical article security field into other, broader segments of the security industry, including computer security. The District Court did not clearly err in finding that Checkpoint Systems's mark's strength was limited to the physical article security market. Because the mark was not strong in the network access security market, it was not entitled to heightened protection within that market. 53