Opinion ID: 150366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Strength of Mark ( Lapp Factor Two)

Text: To determine the strength of the mark, courts look to (1) the inherent features of the mark contributing to its distinctiveness or conceptual strength and (2) the factual evidence of the mark's commercial strength or of marketplace recognition of the mark. See A & H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 221. Courts classify the distinctiveness or conceptual strength of a mark as either (1) generic, like Diet Chocolate Fudge Soda; (2) descriptive, like Security Center; (3) suggestive, like Coppertone; or (4) arbitrary or fanciful, like Kodak. Id. Arbitrary or fanciful marks use terms that neither describe nor suggest anything about the product. Id. Suggestive marks require consumer imagination, thought, or perception to determine what the product is. Id. Descriptive marks forthwith convey[ ] an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods. Id. Generic marks function as the common descriptive name of a product class. Id. The District Court acknowledged that the Fors in ForsLean and Forsthin is apparently an abbreviation of the generic term of the product, Coleus forskohlii. It then concluded that [fors] is not a mere arbitrary term, but, rather, a prefix used by each party combined with either the word `lean' or `thin.' Never, however, did the court assign a classification for the ForsLean mark; rather, in evaluating the mark's strength, the court merely stated: Defendant argues that Plaintiff's mark is conceptually weak because it is highly suggestive. Sabinsa argues that its mark is commercially strong based on its advertising efforts, press mentions and its receipt of two industry awards regarding its product. However, testimony at trial reflected the parties' sophisticated target customers were aware of both parties' marks and that there is no confusion. This factor does not support Plaintiff's position. This analysis amounts to legal error, and it culminated in a clearly erroneous finding. First, it does not follow that because Sabinsa and then Creative Compounds used fors as an abbreviation for Coleus forskohlii, the term is conceptually weak. As Sabinsa points out, the V in V-8 stands for vegetable and the 8 stands for the fact that the juice has eight vegetables, but V-8 is still an arbitrary term. See Fisons Horticulture, 30 F.3d at 478 n. 17 (citing Standard Brands, Inc. v. Smidler, 151 F.2d 34, 36 (2d Cir.1945) (The letter V by itself no more signifies `vegetable' than it does any other word of which it is the initial letter.... As much is true of the figure 8....)). There was no evidence presented that fors is a generic term for forskohlin. Accordingly, to the extent that the District Court meant to imply that the parties' use of fors as an abbreviation makes ForsLean a generic or descriptive term, this is not the law. Second, beyond its brief discussion of the abbreviation fors, the District Court did not analyze either the conceptual or commercial strength of ForsLean. Instead, as set forth above, it described the parties' arguments and then reiterated its finding that there had been no confusion between the two companies among its sophisticated customers. Actual confusion and the sophistication of a party's customers, however, are different prongs of the Lapp test and were impermissibly conflated by the District Court. See Kos, 369 F.3d at 722. Creative Compounds argues that the District Court merely found that the lack of confusion among the parties' customers trump[ed] the parties' arguments concerning the conceptual and commercial strength of ForsLean and that the strength of the mark is a less significant `confusion' factor when the buyers know the actual source of each product. This argument mischaracterizes the court's analysis. If the court had meant to find that the strength factor was in Sabinsa's favor but less important than other factors, it could have said so. Instead, the District Court found that the strength of the ForsLean mark does not support Plaintiff's position. This was clear error. Once again, because the facts underlying the strength analysis are manifest and undisputed, we will review the facts and law to determine whether they compel a particular result. Sabinsa argues that ForsLean is arbitrary or suggestive, while Creative Compounds argues that it is a descriptive mark because it combines a description of the product (fors) with its intended application (lean). While lean is certainly a generic term, fors is not yet one. The parties to this case are the only two that use fors as an abbreviation for forskohlin, and while ForsLean is not a term that was created completely out of whole cloth, it certainly requires consumer imagination, thought, or perception to determine the nature of the product. See A & H Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 222. It would, thus, appear that ForsLean is a suggestive mark. Moreover, it was undisputed that the ForsLean mark is commercially strong. Accordingly, this factor favors Sabinsa as a matter of law.