Opinion ID: 2977743
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Third Party Use of the Mark

Text: The use of the mark throughout the state, country, and on the internet weakens the strength of the mark. See, e.g., CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. First Care, P.C., 434 F.3d 263, 269-270 (4th Cir. 2006); First Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. First Bank System, Inc., 101 F.3d 645, 654 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Daddy’s Junky Music, 109 F.3d at 281; Homeowners, 931 F.2d at 1108. The record indicates that three hundred banks nationwide use a Citizens mark, including five other banks and a credit union in Michigan. Additionally, the record made clear that many of those marks are in use–particularly those in Michigan.2 CBC argues that Ameritech, Inc. v. Am. Information Technologies Corp., 811 F.2d 960 (6th Cir. 1987), prohibits the district court’s reliance on national third party use of the mark. This is not so. Instead, Ameritech holds that a district court cannot ignore evidence of a mark’s local strength 2 Indeed, it appears that CBC chose the nine-county area at issue in this appeal to avoid other banks that actively use Citizens marks in Michigan. -8- No. 08-1773 Citizens Banking Corp. v. Citizens Fin. Group in assessing the strength of the mark. 811 F.2d at 967. The district court in this case considered evidence relating to the local strength of the Citizens mark as well as evidence of the mark’s use by others. Therefore, the district court appropriately assessed third party use of the Citizens mark. That third party evidence was particularly persuasive. As the Fifth Circuit noted, the use of Citizens in a bank name results in a “very weak” mark “which deserves little protection regardless of its classification [on the scale of distinctiveness]” where there are many other institutions using a Citizens mark in the state and hundreds more around the country. Citizens Nat. Bank of Meridian v. Citizens Bank of Philadelphia Miss., No. 01-60820, 2002 WL 761301, at  (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 2002); see also Citizens Nat. Bank of Meridian v. Citizens Bank of Philadelphia, 157 F. Supp. 2d 713, 719 (S.D. Miss. 2001). Other courts have similarly found evidence that other banks’ use of the same term in their marks is persuasive evidence that a mark using that term is weak. See, e.g., First Sav., 101 F.3d at 654; Freedom Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Way, 757 F.2d 1176, 1182 (11th Cir. 1985); Sun Banks of Fla., Inc. v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 651 F.2d 311, 315-17 (5th Cir. 1981). 2. Documents from CBC regarding the Strength of the Mark Evidence of consumer recognition of the mark is relevant to assessing the strength of the mark. Homeowners, 931 F.2d at 1107. The district court relied on evidence obtained from CBC that indicates its mark is weak. One report indicted that “differentiation [from other banks] will be difficult” because Citizens sounds “like every other bank.” Another internal discussion suggested that “CBC does not have the brand awareness that other brands in our footprint have.” A third document said that awareness of the CBC mark in Oakland County was “extremely low.” Additionally, internal discussions noted that Citizens was a “generic” name and that CBC lacked -9- No. 08-1773 Citizens Banking Corp. v. Citizens Fin. Group “name and business recognition” in the Detroit area. A CBC marketing vice-president also said that “I’ve lived in Michigan most of my life and until I began working for Citizens Bank a year ago, I had NEVER heard of it.” The district court did not clearly err in finding that these statements are persuasive evidence that the CBC mark is weak.3 3. Conclusion Regardless of the distinctiveness of the mark, the record is replete with evidence of the weakness of the Citizens mark. Given the ubiquity of Citizens as a mark in the local and national banking industry and the evidence from CBC that its mark was not strong, the district court did not clearly err in finding that CBC’s Citizens mark is weak.