Opinion ID: 1901473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Generic

Text: Courts have recognized that words which are generic when considered separately may become descriptive when combined. See Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366, 379 (7th Cir.1976). For this reason, we must look[ ] at the mark as a whole, not just its component parts ( i.e., Ward One and Democrats), to determine whether it is generic (and therefore unprotectable) or descriptive (potentially protectable if it has acquired a secondary meaning). See Blinded Veterans, 277 U.S.App. D.C. at 71, 872 F.2d at 1041 (citing authorities). When a mark is registered with the USPTO, it is presumed that the mark is not generic. Id. (citing Reese Publishing Co., 620 F.2d at 11). But when, as in the instant case, the mark is unregistered, this presumption does not apply, and the party seeking protection bears the burden of proving that its unregistered mark is not generic. Id. Appellant's arguments must fail because the record evidence cannot overcome the presumption that the name Ward One Democrats is generically used and understood. In its 2002 corporate filing, appellant described itself as a non-profit political organization to inform [and] educate Ward One Democrats on issue[s] that affect them. This usage, we conclude, suggests a distinction between appellant as an organization or corporate entity and Ward One Democrats as a group of persons with shared political views. That distinction was made explicit in a December 2003 deposition in which appellant's treasurer, Patrick Nelson, was asked whether this 2002 statement of purpose referred specifically to the organization known as Ward One Democrats (as opposed to all Democrats living in Ward One). He testified as follows: Q. When you say Ward One Democrats, are you referring to all Democrats living in Ward One? A. Any Democrat that's living within Ward One, technically, yes. Q. So you're not referring to Ward One Democrats technically, the organization, in that [sense], are you? A. No, I'm not. I'm using Ward One Democrats as individual people who live within the District, registered by themselves on the registered rolls as a Democrat. The fact that appellant's own treasurer understands Ward One Democrats to apply broadly to any Democrat that's living within Ward One reflects the impossibility of considering the name as anything other than one in generic use that must remain available to all. In Blinded Veterans the District of Columbia Circuit held that the disputed name, Blinded Veterans, was generic because it was difficult to imagine another term of reasonable conciseness and clarity by which the public refers to former members of the armed forces who have lost their vision. Blinded Veterans, 277 U.S.App. D.C. at 71, 872 F.2d at 1041 (footnote omitted). By the same reasoning, we conclude that Ward One Democrats is generic because its ordinary meaning describes the basic nature of what it denotes. Used in combination, the terms Ward One and Democrats refer to an identifiable class of individuals: members of a certain political party, Democrats, who reside within a governmentally recognized voting district commonly known as Ward One. It is difficult to imagine another term by which this class, Democrats living in Ward One, could refer to themselves. Thus the name Ward One Democrats cannot be appropriated  either by appellant or by any other group or organization  from the public domain. Appellant asserts nevertheless that very serious and material disputable facts are at issue in this case. But the factual disputes to which appellant refers  involving questions of who founded the organization known as Ward One Democrats, whether the organization was chartered by the DSC, and who has led and managed the organization through the years since 1974  are not material to the basic issue of whether the name is generic. Also pertinent here is the Lanham Act's instruction that terms descriptive of the geographic location of goods or services are generally not regarded as inherently distinctive and thus are not entitled to trademark protection. See Sociedad Anonima Vina Santa Rita v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 193 F.Supp.2d 6, 20-21 (D.D.C.2001).