Opinion ID: 1901473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Descriptive

Text: At the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court, in an apparent abundance of caution, undertook a broader inquiry seeking something more from appellant's argument. We do likewise here, but we cannot find any legal ground that would support a ruling in appellant's favor. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Ward One Democrats is descriptive and not merely generic, appellant has failed to establish that any secondary meaning has attached to the term. Proof of a secondary meaning requires direct or circumstantial evidence that the public's primary association is not with the product but with its producer or source. Direct evidence may include consumer testimony or scientific surveys of actual consumers. See KITCH & PERLMAN, supra note 7, at 184. A number of courts have emphasized that direct consumer testimony should not be given great weight; instead, they have relied on the greater objectivity typically found in scientific surveys or polls of consumers. Id.; see also U.S. Express, Inc. v. U.S. Express, Inc., 799 F.Supp. 1241, 1245-1246 (D.D.C.1992) (failure to produce any evidence of consumer association ... even in the form of current survey evidence, testimonials from customers and the like, fatally undermines plaintiff's claim). Appellant has not proffered any evidence of actual surveys or polls that might shed light on the public's perception of the term Ward One Democrats in the relevant marketplace of Ward One, or even in the broader community of the District of Columbia as a whole. The only evidence on which appellant relied to show secondary meaning was a pair of affidavits from Ms. Strange and Mr. Smith, two of the founders of WOD 1974, claiming that the organization was independent of the DSC. Even when considered in the light most favorable to appellant, these affidavits fail to establish that the term Ward One Democrats ever acquired a secondary meaning. See, e.g., U.S. Express, Inc., 799 F.Supp. at 1246 (holding that testimony of plaintiff's own president about consumer loyalties is not persuasive). Moreover, assertions of WOD 1974's independence from the DSC are dubious: appellant's own witness, Mr. Smith, testified in his deposition that WOD 1974 has viewed itself as the official party organization in Ward One since its inception. Here again, supposedly material facts involving historical questions about the organization's founding and operations have no bearing on the issue of whether the name has acquired a secondary meaning. Even assuming arguendo that the incorporating founders of WOD Inc. have used the name since 1974 and that appellees have used it only since 2002 (a dubious assumption on this record), those facts would still fail to establish a secondary meaning which would entitle the name to protection as a trademark or trade name.