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

Heading: The Genericness of Self-realization As a Trade Name

Text: 36 The district court ruled in its April 24, 1992, bench ruling--and declined to reconsider in its June 21 ruling--that Self-realization was a generic term when SRF used it in its name. This ruling meant that Self-realization was invalid as a trade name--[t]he terms 'generic' and 'trademark' are mutually exclusive. 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition Sec. 12.01, at 12-3 (3rd ed., Release # 3, 1994). A term is a generic name, not a trade name, if it merely identifies the genus of which the particular [business] is a species. Liquid Controls Corp. v. Liquid Control Corp., 802 F.2d 934, 936 (7th Cir.1986). 37 In this case, Self-realization is generic in the context of the name of a spiritual organization if the term identifies a general class of spiritual organizations, instead of a single, unique organization. CSR, the proponent of summary judgment, presented the declarations of officials in other Hindu-Yoga organizations that Self-realization is the goal of all religious practice, is a term used to describe the goal of Yoga, and is the systematic process of unfolding who we really are. See 1 McCarthy Sec. 12.02[b][i], at 12-23 to -24 (competitors' usage of a term is evidence of whether it is generic). CSR also presented SRF literature using Self-realization in a context applicable to all of Yoga. See 1 id. Sec. 12.02[b](2), at 12-24 (evidence that plaintiff uses a term in a generic manner is strong evidence that the term is generic). 38 This evidence suggests that a Self-realization organization is a class of organization dedicated to spiritual attainment in the manner taught by Yoga, not an organization that is part of the SRF chain of churches. The evidence shows that the term describes the class of Yoga spiritual organizations, not SRF's single organization. 39 SRF argues that CSR's evidence does not meet CSR's burden because it proves genericness in the wrong context. According to SRF, CSR's evidence shows that the general English-language meaning of Self-realization is generic, but not the meaning within the American Yoga community. We reject this argument. 40 SRF correctly argues that one term may have different meanings to different groups of listeners. See Surgicenters of Am., 601 F.2d at 1019; Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 537 F.2d at 9. SRF also correctly points out that the way to determine whether a term is generic is to determine whether consumers of Hindu-Yoga products and services think it is generic. See Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co., 750 F.2d 631, 638 (8th Cir.1984) (What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending.). However, the factual record does not support SRF's argument. First, most of the declarations in support of CSR's motion for partial summary adjudication were made by members of the America Yoga community--members of the group of buyers relevant to the genericness analysis. Second, even if this declarant testimony did not exist, the record also shows Self-realization has the same meaning among American Yoga followers and the general American public. CSR introduced evidence that the term Self-realization was not used in the United States until Hindu-Yoga teachers introduced it as a translation of a Hindu term. 41 Having concluded that CSR met its burden as the proponent of summary judgment, we now consider whether SRF's evidence in opposition to summary adjudication raised a genuine issue of material fact about genericness. The only evidence SRF offers are declarations by its employees and wholesalers that they think of SRF when they hear the term Self-realization. However, we agree with the district court that these declarations had little probative value regarding the assessment of consumer perception because they were from SRF's employees and wholesalers. Trademark law is skeptical of the ability of an associate of a trademark holder to transcend personal biases to give an impartial account of the value of the holder's mark.  'Attestations from person in close association and intimate contact with (the trademark claimant's) business do not reflect the views of the purchasing public.'  Norm Thompson Outfitters, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 448 F.2d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir.1971) (quoting 88cents Stores,Inc. v. Martinez, 227 Or. 147, 361 P.2d 809, 814 (1961)). As we discuss in the next section, the district court ruled that these declarations had little probative value to prove that Self-realization had secondary meaning when SRF used it in its registered marks, not to prove that the term was not generic as a part of SRF's trade names. Nevertheless, the declarations also have little value to prove that Self-realization is generic for the same reason that they cannot establish secondary meaning: SRF's declarants have too close an affiliation with SRF for their account of the association between Self-realization and SRF to reliably describe the perceptions of consumers in general. 42 We conclude that SRF failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact suggesting that Self-realization might not be generic as part of the name of a Hindu-Yoga spiritual organization. We affirm the district court's ruling that Self-realization was an invalid trade name as a matter of law. 43