Opinion ID: 699269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the possible validity of the composite

Text: 59 SELF-REALIZATION NAMES AND MARKS 60 The last set of trade names and marks for us to consider are SRF's trade names and marks for the terms Self-Realization Fellowship and Self-Realization Fellowship Church (the composite terms). SRF argues that the district court erroneously dissected the marks--that the district court should not have used evidence that Self-realization was invalid to prove that the composite terms were invalid. 61 Before we reach the merits of SRF's argument, we must address an appealability issue. SRF first raised its dissection argument in its motion for reconsideration of the district court's grant of summary judgment. A party does not properly preserve an issue for appeal by raising it for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. Intercontinental Travel Marketing, Inc. v. FDIC, 45 F.3d 1278, 1286 (9th Cir.1995). However, we may exercise discretion to consider a waived issue in certain cases, one such case being when the issue presented is a pure question of law. Telco Leasing, Inc. v. Transwestern Title Co., 630 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir.1980). SRF's argument presents a legal question, and we exercise our discretion to consider it. 62 We begin by observing that the district court did decide the composite terms were invalid because Self-realization was invalid. In its April 24, 1992, bench ruling, the district court determined that Self-realization was generic. It also found that Church and Fellowship were generic in connection with a spiritual organization's name. The court, having concluded Self-realization was generic, acknowledged that words that cannot be registered individually, may sometimes become a trademark when taken together.... But such is clearly not the case here. The court's later reconsideration of the terms' invalidity as service marks did not affect this conclusion about the terms' validity as trade names. 63 While the district court did reconsider its grant of summary judgment on the service marks Self-Realization Fellowship and Self-Realization Fellowship Church, it granted summary judgment for CSR on the marks on other grounds. The district court concluded after reconsideration that Self-realization is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning. The court then ruled that Self-Realization Fellowship and Self-Realization Fellowship Church were invalid as service marks because SRF had not shown these terms had secondary meaning, either. 64 In both rulings, the district court determined that the composite terms Self-Realization Fellowship and Self-Realization Fellowship Church were invalid because Self-realization was invalid, and because adding Fellowship or Fellowship Church could not make the composite terms valid. SRF argues that it was improper for the court to rule on the validity of the composite terms by ruling on the validity of their component parts. We agree. The district court erred by using the invalidity of Self-Realization as a trade name and trademark to determine the validity of Self-Realization Fellowship and Self-Realization Fellowship Church. [T]he validity and distinctiveness of a composite trademark is determined by viewing the trademark as a whole, as it appears in the marketplace. Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1392 (9th Cir.1993). A court may not review the validity of a composite-term trademark by dissecting the term and reviewing the validity of its component parts individually. See id. 65 CSR introduced no evidence in support of its motion for summary adjudication showing that Self-Realization Fellowship or Self-Realization Fellowship Church were invalid as complete terms. Instead, CSR argued that Self-realization was invalid, and words like Fellowship and Church could not make the term valid. Our case law precludes such proof--the composite marks' validity [are] not judged by an examination of [their] parts. California Cooler, Inc. v. Loretto Winery, Ltd., 774 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir.1985). The authority on which the district court relied to justify its conclusion, CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, Inc., 531 F.2d 11, 13-15 (2d Cir.1975), is not the law of this circuit on this issue. 66 Because CSR's proof for the composite names and marks could not establish the terms' invalidity, the district court erred by granting summary judgment for CSR on SRF's trade names and marks for the terms Self-Realization Fellowship and Self-Realization Fellowship Church. We reverse the grants of summary judgment for CSR and remand the infringement claims on the composite marks for further consideration. We do not reach SRF's other appeals from the district court's rulings on the composite names and marks.