Opinion ID: 699269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the invalidity of the paramahansa yogananda marks

Text: 20 The district court granted summary judgment for CSR in its June 21, 1993, order on SRF's registered trademark for the term Paramahansa Yogananda. The court ruled that the mark was invalid under federal trademark law because SRF did not employ Yogananda's name for a trademark use--to identify SRF's products as distinctively SRF's. SRF appeals from this ruling. The district court also analyzed whether Paramahansa Yogananda was invalid under California law. This analysis was separate from its federal law analysis. Because SRF has not challenged the district court's state law analysis, we do not review it here. 21 Implicit in the concept of a trade mark is a requirement that there be direct association between the mark ... and the services specified in the application, i.e. that it be used in such a manner that it would be readily perceived as identifying such services. In re Moody's Investor Serv., Inc., 13 U.S.P.Q.2d 2043, 2047 (T.T.A.B.1989); see 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1127; In re Advertising & Marketing Dev., Inc., 821 F.2d 614, 620 (Fed.Cir.1987). The Paramahansa Yogananda mark was invalid if it did not create a direct association between SRF products bearing the mark and SRF. CSR, as the proponent of summary judgment, bore the burden to produce evidence showing that SRF could not establish in its prima facie case that Paramahansa Yogananda was a valid mark. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). 22 CSR satisfied its burden by presenting evidence showing that SRF did not use the term Paramahansa Yogananda in a service mark manner. CSR presented expert testimony that SRF did not use the term Paramahansa Yogananda with any of the traditional trademark indicia (e.g., use of the term with a TM sign next to it). An expert also testified that SRF usually used the phrase Paramahansa Yogananda, Founder, not the name alone. Most important, SRF labels many of its products with a warning that many other groups promote material with Yogananda's name on it. According to the label, these groups do not promote Yogananda's true teachings, and the only way to guarantee access to Yogananda's true teachings is to buy material with the Self-Realization Fellowship Church sign on it. In other words, SRF represents that Self-Realization Fellowship Church distinctively identifies its products and creates a direct association between it and its products, and a buyer who buys a product merely associating itself with Paramahansa Yogananda could lead the buyer to buy a product that is neither authentic nor made by SRF. 23 Since CSR met its burden, SRF bore the burden to produce evidence raising a genuine factual issue as to whether SRF used the term Paramahansa Yogananda to identify SRF products. Id. SRF argues it did so by introducing into evidence the specimens it submitted with its applications to register the term, but the specimens do not create a genuine issue of fact about trademark use. All the specimens mention Self-Realization Fellowship, but they do not use Yogananda's name in a manner consistent enough to be an identifying mark. The specimens' references to Yogananda vary, quoting what he said, describing his teachings, or saying that SRF was founded by him. Instead of raising a genuine factual issue about SRF's use of Yogananda's name in a service mark manner, SRF's evidence only supports the conclusion the district court drew from CSR's evidence: The terms Self-Realization Fellowship and Self-Realization Fellowship Church create a direct association between SRF and its products, and that Paramahansa Yogananda does not. 24 SRF argues that it could have used Yogananda's name both to identify its products as SRF products and to identify their association to the yoga. It argues that, even if CSR's proof showed that SRF uses Yogananda's name to associate its products and services to the guru, CSR's proof does not exclude the possibility that consumers identify Yogananda's name with SRF's products and services. SRF cites several cases for the proposition that a service mark may identify a source of services and perform another function for the source. See In re Wood, 217 U.S.P.Q. 1345, 1348 (T.T.A.B.1983); In re Carson, 197 U.S.P.Q. 554, 555 (T.T.A.B.1977); Ex parte Grandma Moses Properties, Inc., 117 U.S.P.Q. 366, 366 (Comm.Pat.1958). This argument does not help SRF. Even if Paramahansa Yogananda performs another function for SRF, SRF has not shown that it uses Yogananda's name in a service mark manner, to identify SRF products and services as coming from SRF. In fact, SRF's own product labels are evidence that SRF does not intend to use Yogananda's name in such a manner, the warning that many organizations produce products with Yogananda's name on them, but only the Self-Realization Fellowship name on a product label guarantees a genuine SRF product. We thus affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Paramahansa Yogananda mark. 25