Opinion ID: 719786
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Lanham Act to the United States

Text: 15 PRM argues that FEMA's use of the term Preferred Risk violates sections 1114 and 1125 of the Lanham Act. 7 Both provisions prohibit any person from actions infringing upon a registered trademark. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. Thus, the threshold question is whether the term person, as employed by the Lanham Act, contemplates the United States government. The Lanham Act defines person as natural persons and juristic persons, which includes a firm, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of being sued in a court of law. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (1994). Although in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it, Will v. Michigan Dep't of Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2308, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (quoting Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 99 S.Ct. 2529, 61 L.Ed.2d 153 (1979)), there is no hard and fast rule of exclusion. United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604-05, 61 S.Ct. 742, 743-44, 85 L.Ed. 1071 (1941). The purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state or nation within the scope of the law. Id. 16 PRM pins its conclusion that the Act's definition of person includes the federal government to the definitional language organization capable of being sued. PRM argues that federal agencies are capable of being sued and thus should be included within the scope of the Act. The language in question must be understood within its context: a catch-all term at the end of a list of private entities. The principle of ejusdem generis dictates that a general term following a list of particulars be interpreted as a reference to subjects akin to those specifically enumerated. See Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. American Train Dispatchers Ass'n, 499 U.S. 117, 129, 111 S.Ct. 1156, 1163-64, 113 L.Ed.2d 95 (1991). In this case, the list of particulars are all private entities. Thus, consideration of this rule of statutory construction would counsel against an interpretation that includes the federal government. 17 We are further persuaded by the recent amendment to the Lanham Act. In 1992, Congress amended the Lanham Act as follows: 18 The term person also includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. 19 Pub.L. No. 102-542, § 3(d), 106 Stat. 3568 (1992) (amending 15 U.S.C. § 1127). Sections 1114 and 1125 were also amended to provide that [a]s used in this subsection, the term 'any person' includes any State.... Id. § 3(a) & (c). Instances in which Congress has explicitly included states but not the federal government is conclusive evidence of congressional intent to exclude the federal government. See Department of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 617-18, 112 S.Ct. 1627, 1634, 118 L.Ed.2d 255 (1992) (Its omission has to be seen as a pointed one when so many other governmental entities are specified). This legislative intent is even more obvious when one considers the historical context: the amendment was enacted without any mention of the federal government against a legal backdrop of cases holding that the Lanham Act did not apply to state or federal governments. See Woelffer v. Happy States, 626 F.Supp. 499, 504 (N.D.Ill.1985) (holding that the Lanham Act did not waive states' sovereign immunity); Serra v. General Servs. Admin., 667 F.Supp. 1042, 1051 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (No statute of the United States contains a consent from the United States that it may be sued for trademark infringement.... [T]he trademark claim must be dismissed.), aff'd, 847 F.2d 1045 (2d Cir.1988). In this light, it seems clear that the congressional intent was limited to providing for the Lanham Act's application to the states. 20 Most important to this analysis is the fact that interpreting the Lanham Act to include the United States within the definition of person would create a right of action against the United States under the terms of that Act. Providing such a right of action against the United States requires an express and unequivocal waiver of its sovereign immunity. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1014, 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992). Thus, even were there some ambiguity, the statute must be construed so as not to waive the sovereign immunity of the United States. 21 The strongest argument that the Lanham Act does apply to the federal government is that despite the Lanham Act's statutory language limiting registration and protective actions of trademarks to persons, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1063-1064 (1994), agencies of the federal government have registered trademarks and protested the registration of trademarks by others. There are a number of Trademark Trial & Appeals Board decisions holding that state and federal government entities were juristic persons for the purposes of registering or protesting trademarks. See, e.g., In re Dep't of Interior, 142 U.S.P.Q. 506 (TTAB 1964); FBI v. Societe: M. Bril & Co., 172 U.S.P.Q. 310, 313 (TTAB 1971); New York State Office of Parks & Recreation v. Atlas Souvenir & Gift Co., 207 U.S.P.Q. 954, 958 (TTAB 1980). However, these decisions do not consider the liability of the United States under the Lanham Act. Instead, their analysis employed a broad construction to give the provisions their maximum effect. FBI, 172 U.S.P.Q. at 313. Such an approach is inappropriate when considering waiver of sovereign immunity. To the extent that the holdings of those courts conflict with the analysis here, the decisions are not binding on this court. 22 Although it must be conceded that this practice raises the potential problem of inconsistent interpretations of the word person within the Lanham Act, the issue before us is whether the federal government can be held liable under the Lanham Act. Given the unambiguous case law requiring explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, we are left with little choice on this issue. While the burden and the benefit of the Lanham Act have been separated in the past with respect to the states, cf. New York State Office of Parks & Recreation, 207 U.S.P.Q. at 958 and Woelffer v. Happy States, 626 F.Supp. at 504, we need not consider whether the administrative court decisions permitting the federal agencies to register trademarks were correct and leave that issue for future consideration or legislative clarification. 23 Finally, we address the policy concerns raised by PRM and International Trademark Association (INTA). It is suggested that our decision today will leave all trademark owners vulnerable to piracy by the federal government. INTA goes so far as to intimate that the federal government will proceed to exploit famous trademarks such as FEDERAL EXPRESS TM and EXXON TM. There is little evidence that such concerns with respect to the federal government are reasonably founded. Given the long-standing rule requiring an express waiver of sovereign immunity, this court must infer that Congress determined that such a threat did not outweigh the benefit of retaining sovereign immunity. If in the future, however, the legislative branch finds that such concerns must be addressed, it is free to amend the Lanham Act to expressly waive the sovereign immunity of the United States as it has done with states. 24 Therefore, we hold that the Lanham Act does not apply to the federal government. As such, there is no substantive statute or regulation that has been transgressed by FEMA's decision to use the term Preferred Risk in conjunction with its flood insurance policies. Thus, there is no basis for judicial review pursuant to the APA. Because we decide that the Lanham Act does not apply to the federal government, we do not consider whether the use of Preferred Risk constitutes trademark infringement. The district court's decision is therefore reversed and vacated.