Opinion ID: 699269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Separate Dispositions of the Self-realization Names and Marks

Text: 27 CSR filed a Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication asking the district court to rule that Self-realization, Self-Realization Fellowship, and Self-Realization Fellowship Church were all invalid trade names and marks. In its April 24, 1992, bench ruling, the district court ruled that all of these terms were generic and thus invalid. See Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol, Inc., 427 F.2d 823, 829, 57 CCPA 1173 (1970). SRF moved for the court to reconsider this ruling. One ground for reconsideration was evidence that these terms were suggestive, or perhaps descriptive, but not generic. A descriptive term is not necessarily invalid, and a suggestive term is automatically valid. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 1040 (2d Cir.1992). 28 In its June 21, 1993, ruling, the district court granted SRF's motion for reconsideration, but affirmed its grant of summary judgment on other grounds. The court did not change its April 24 ruling to the extent that it had found that SRF's trade names for the terms Self-realization, Self-Realization Fellowship, and Self-Realization Fellowship Church were invalid. In other words, the court still concluded that these terms were generic as used in SRF's organizational name. However, the district court changed its reason for deciding that SRF's trade marks for these terms were invalid. It concluded that these terms were invalid when used to name SRF's products and services because the terms were descriptive and without secondary meaning. See id. 29 SRF appeals from the district court's determination that SRF's trade names and trade marks fell in different use categories. This issue raises two questions: whether the district court had the legal authority to conduct separate analyses if necessary, and whether the facts indicated that separate analyses were necessary. We conclude that the district court correctly conducted separate analyses to determine, on one hand, whether Self-realization was generic in the name of a spiritual organization and, on the other hand, whether the term is descriptive and without secondary meaning as part of the title of a product of that organization. 30 The district court correctly recognized that the trade names and marks might require separate analyses. [A] term that is in one category for a particular product may be in quite a different one for another. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir.1976); accord Surgicenters of Am., Inc. v. Medical Dental Surgeries, Co., 601 F.2d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.1979). It is equally likely that a term may be in one category when used as a trade name but quite another for a trade mark. A trademark represents the mark holder on the vendible commodity to which it is affixed, while a trade name symbolizes a business and its goodwill. American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 269 U.S. 372, 380, 46 S.Ct. 160, 162, 70 L.Ed. 317 (1926). 31 The facts of Sunbeam Furniture Corp. v. Sunbeam Corp. offer an example of a case in which one term fell in different categories when used in a trade name and a trade mark. 191 F.2d 141 (9th Cir.1951). Sunbeam manufactured appliances, including lamps. Sunbeam Furniture sold an electric lamp made by Expert Lamps, Inc. with a label saying, This is a genuine SUNBEAM LAMP. Sunbeam sued Sunbeam Furniture for using the word Sunbeam in its name and its products. Id. at 143. We ruled that Sunbeam merited protection as a mark but not a name. Sunbeam deserved protection of the word as part of a service mark for its lamps, because it successfully showed that customers confused the two brands of lamps. Id. at 144. However, we also ruled that Sunbeam Furniture should not have been enjoined from using the word Sunbeam in its name because the word was common and the two companies were in separate lines of business. Id. at 144-45. 32 SRF cites Accuride International, Inc. v. Accuride Corp., 871 F.2d 1531, 1534 (9th Cir.1989), for the proposition that a trade name and mark holder may bring analogous actions for name and mark infringement. But the district court did allow SRF to bring an infringement suit to protect both its names and its marks. Accuride did not require the court to perform identical analyses of the three terms at issue even if the factual record indicated that the terms' meanings differed in the context of SRF's reputation and the context of SRF's products. 33 On the facts of this case, the trade names and marks at issue should have been considered separately. Self-realization has different contexts in the phrases Self-realization spiritual organization and Self-realization book. If Self-realization is invalid in the context of spiritual organizations, it is because a Self-realization spiritual organization is a generic concept--consumers of Hindu-Yoga organizations' products and services think a Self-realization spiritual organization does not mean SRF but instead describes a type of church, a church that follows Hindu-Yoga teachings. We discuss this possibility in the next section. 34 On the other hand, if Self-realization is invalid in the context of products and services, like a Self-realization book, the most likely reason is that the relevant consumer understands the phrase Self-realization book to mean a book designed to help me achieve spiritual attainment, not a book produced by SRF. The appropriate legal inquiry is whether Self-realization is descriptive. We discuss this possibility in section V.C. 35