Opinion ID: 765770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior Protectable Rights

Text: 13 Initially, the plaintiff contends that the district court erred in concluding that the NFL defendants had acquired protectable rights in the mark St. Louis Rams prior to Blastoff. In response, the defendants argue that they established prior and superior rights in the St. Louis Rams mark through the public use of the mark, third-party promotion and advertising, and the fact that the public associated the mark with the Rams NFL franchise. The trial court, reflecting the defendants' view, stated that by the time plaintiff filed its Wisconsin registration in February 1995, a substantial portion of the public associated the mark 'St. Louis Rams' with defendants' football club. 14 The determination of whether a party has established protectable rights in a trademark is made on a case by case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances. See New West Corp. v. NYM Co. of Cal., Inc., 595 F.2d 1194, 1200 (9th Cir. 1979). A party may acquire a protectable right in a trademark only through use of the mark in connection with its product. See Zazu Designs v. L'Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499, 503 (7th Cir. 1992). The party seeking to establish appropriation of a trademark must show first, adoption, and second, use in a way sufficiently public to identify or distinguish the marked goods in an appropriate segment of the public mind as those of [the adopter of the mark]. New West, 595 F.2d at 1200. The party who first appropriates the mark through use, and for whom the mark serves as a designation of source, acquires superior rights to it. See Zazu, 979 F.2d at 503-04. Evidence of actual sales is not necessary to establish ownership. See New West, 595 F.2d at 1200. Furthermore, current case law in the area of franchise relocation and expansion has created a strong presumption of franchise owner priority in their marks. In Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club Ltd., 34 F.3d 410, 413 (7th Cir. 1994), this Court held that the Indianapolis Colts mark may be viewed simply as Colts, independent of urban affiliation. While courts consistently define use as the public sale of a product, in some circumstances parties have been found to possess rights in an alteration of an existing mark that was used solely by third parties to designate its product. See Coca-Cola Co. v. Busch, 44 F.Supp. 405, 409-10 (D. Pa. 1942) (Coke protectable trademark for Coca-Cola). In addition, advertising and promotion surrounding the development of sports facilities have been found to establish rights in the mark. See Maryland Stadium Authority v. Becker, 806 F.Supp. 1236 (D. Md. 1992). 15 On January 17, 1995, Georgia Frontiere, the owner of the Rams, and St. Louis Mayor Freeman Bosley held a press conference at which they announced the Rams' intention to relocate from Los Angeles to St. Louis. The press conference story received extensive national and local press, including the St. Louis Dispatch's publication, on January 18, 1995, of a sixteen- page pullout section of the newspaper entitled St. Louis Rams. Vendors sold unlicensed St. Louis Rams merchandise in the St. Louis area in January of 1995, and by February of 1995, more than 72,000 personal seat licenses for the St. Louis Rams' home games had been received. By the time Blastoff registered the St. Louis Rams mark in Wisconsin in February of 1995, a significant portion of the public associated the mark with the Rams football club. However, Blastoff asserts that the defendants had not sufficiently used the mark St. Louis Rams to be given priority. Blastoff argues that at the January 17, 1995, press conference, none of the defendants used the words St. Louis Rams, and thus, this term was rendered an unarticulated idea for a team name, which is not protectable. Blastoff also states that newspaper and media coverage is insufficient to establish priority. Finally, Blastoff contends that the football club operated publicly and exclusively as [the] 'L.A. Rams' as late as February 8, 1995. 16 For the purpose of establishing public identification of a mark with a product or service, the fact-finder may rely on the use of the mark in advertising brochures, catalogs, newspaper ads, and articles in newspapers and trade publications, T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac, 77 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1996), as well as in media outlets such as television and radio. See In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, courts have recognized that abbreviations and nicknames of trademarks or names used only by the public give rise to protectable rights in the owners of the trade name or mark which the public modified. Nat'l Cable Television Assoc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Such public use of a mark is deemed to be on behalf of the mark's owners. See id. Blastoff has failed to demonstrate any equivalent use of the mark St. Louis Rams by February of 1995, when the defendants established, by use and public association, their priority in the mark. Blastoff's insignificant and very limited use of the mark prior to February of 1995, consisting of the development of the Tower City Rams design, along with the production of a swatch of material with St. Louis Rams embroidery, is insufficient to establish a link between the mark and its products. Furthermore, the owner's use of a trademark is relevant in establishing public identification of a mark with a product or service. Georgia Frontiere, owner of the Rams, in announcing her intention to move the franchise to St. Louis from Los Angeles, implicitly adopted the exact phrase St. Louis Rams on the date of her press conference. This Court's decision in Indianapolis Colts is strong support for the proposition that the Rams organization and the NFL had a long-established priority over the use of the Rams name in connection with the same professional football team, regardless of urban affiliation. Similar to the case under consideration, in Indianapolis Colts, 34 F.3d at 413, we held that the team's move from Baltimore to Indianapolis 17 neither broke the continuity of the team in its different locations--it was the same team, merely having a different home base and therefore a different geographical component in its name--nor entitled a third party to pick [the name] up and use it to confuse Colts fans . . . . When [the owner] transported his team, the Baltimore Colts, from Baltimore to Indianapolis in one night in 1984, the team remained, for a time anyway, completely intact: same players, same coaches, same front-office personnel. 18 Similarly, Blastoff's filing of federal trademark applications in March of 1995 fell short of establishing his priority in the marks, even though the Rams in fact did not file their trademark application until April of 1995, as a trademark application is always subject to previously established common law trademark rights of another party. See The Money Store v. Harriscorp Fin., Inc., 689 F.2d 666, 672 (7th Cir. 1982) (quoting McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition sec. 19:2, at 656). Furthermore, because a product or organization may be designated by more than one trademark, see Old Dutch Foods, Inc. v. Dan Dee Pretzel & Potato Chip Co., 477 F.2d 150, 154 (6th Cir. 1973), it is irrelevant, as the plaintiff suggests, that the official name of the Rams remained Los Angeles Rams until April of 1995. Thus, we agree with the district court's determination that the defendants-appellees had acquired protectable rights in the St. Louis Rams mark prior to Blastoff.