Opinion ID: 776502
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Strength of EMI's Mark

Text: 28 The scope of the trademark protection that we give marks depends upon the strength of the mark, with stronger marks receiving greater protection than weak ones. See Miss World (UK) Ltd. v. Mrs. America Pageants, Inc., 856 F.2d 1445, 1448 (9th Cir.1988). This is so because a strong mark is inherently distinctive, Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 349, and therefore it is more likely that consumers will be confused by another's use of the same or similar mark. Since we conclude on this record that EMI's mark is weak, this factor does not weigh in favor of a likelihood of consumer confusion. 29 The strength of a mark is determined by its placement on a continuum of marks. E. & J. Gallo, 967 F.2d at 1291 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The strongest marks — that is, those which receive the maximum trademark protection — are arbitrary or fanciful. Id. The weakest marks, entitled to no trademark protection, are generic. Id. In between lie suggestive and descriptive marks; suggestive marks have the greater strength of the two. Id. The issue here is whether EMI's mark ENTREPRENEUR falls within the suggestive or descriptive category. 2 30 Descriptive marks define qualities or characteristics of a product in a straightforward way that requires no exercise of the imagination to be understood. Kendall-Jackson Winery, 150 F.3d at 1047 n. 8 (emphasis omitted); see also Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1058 n. 19 (Descriptive terms directly describe the quality or features of the product.). A suggestive mark is one for which a consumer must use imagination or any type of multistage reasoning to understand the mark's significance, ... the mark does not describe the product's features, but suggests them. Kendall-Jackson Winery, 150 F.3d at 1047 n. 8 31 Whether a mark suggests or describes the goods or services of the trademark holder depends, of course, upon what those goods or services are. We therefore adjudge a mark's strength by reference to the goods or services that it identifies, Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1218, and as it appears in the marketplace. Official Airline Guides, 6 F.3d at 1392. 32 On the record before us, it is apparent that the mark ENTREPRENEUR as applied to EMI's magazine and to computer programs and manuals falls within the descriptive category. 3 The word entrepreneur describes both the subject matter and the intended audience of the magazine and programs; an entirely unimaginative, literal-minded person would understand the significance of the reference. As such, the word describes the qualities or characteristics of EMI's products, and is not merely suggestive. Park 'N Fly, 469 U.S. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 658; Kendall-Jackson Winery, 150 F.3d at 1047 n. 8; see also McGraw-Hill Publ'g Co. v. American Aviation Assocs., 117 F.2d 293, 295 (D.C.Cir.1940) (discussing the magazine  Aviation : It is difficult to conceive of a term that would be more descriptive of the contents of the plaintiff's magazine. The plaintiff suggests that a descriptive word designates some physical characteristic. But that magazines may be described by their subject matter is too clear to be doubted.) (citations omitted); Scholastic, Inc. v. Macmillan, Inc., 650 F.Supp. 866, 871 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (The Court finds that `Classroom' is no more than a descriptive trademark.... A consumer of ordinary intelligence would immediately and inevitably conclude that a magazine called `Classroom' dealt with the instruction of students.). 4 33 The need of others in the marketplace to use the term entrepreneur to describe their goods or services confirms that EMI's mark is descriptive. See Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1218. We note initially that if there are numerous synonyms for a common trademarked word, others will have less need to use the trademarked term. We are not aware of, nor has EMI suggested, any synonym for the word entrepreneur. 5 Furthermore, although English is a language rich in imagery, we need not belabor the point that some words, phrases or symbols better convey their intended meanings than others. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publ'g, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 306 (9th Cir.1992). In other words, while Smith could have used a phrase such as Small Business Innovator Illustrated, he would have lost both nuance and economy of language by doing so. 34 Widespread use of a word by others may serve as confirmation of the need to use that word. See Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 349 (commenting on the lack of evidence that others have used or desire to use Slickcraft [the trademarked word] in describing their goods); American Int'l Group, Inc. v. American Int'l Bank, 926 F.2d 829, 834 (9th Cir.1991) (Kozinski, J., dissenting) (listing the number of times the trademarked words occurred in various phone books as evidence of the mark's weakness). Smith's expert identified at least six other magazines in which the word entrepreneur makes up part of the title. 6 Numerous companies have registered marks that include the word entrepreneur. 7 Over one thousand Web site domain names contain the word entrepreneur. Smith's expert also provided extensive evidence of the frequent use of the word entrepreneur as a common noun. 8 35 Although the incontestable status of EMI's trademark ENTREPRENEUR gives EMI the exclusive right to use its trademark in printed publications pertaining to business opportunities, the common and necessary uses of the word entrepreneur provide strong evidence that EMI cannot have the exclusive right to use the word entrepreneur in any mark identifying a printed publication addressing subjects related to entrepreneurship. Moreover, that the marketplace is replete with products using a particular trademarked word indicates not only the difficulty in avoiding its use but also, and directly, the likelihood that consumers will not be confused by its use. The fact that the term... resides in the public domain lessens the possibility that a purchaser would be confused and think the mark came from a particular single source. Gruner + Jahr, 991 F.2d at 1078 (internal citation omitted); see also Miss World, 856 F.2d at 1449 (discussing a crowded field of marks and stating: In such a crowd, customers will not likely be confused between any two of the crowd and may have learned to carefully pick out one from the other.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 36 We recognize, however, that [a]lthough a suggestive or descriptive mark ... is inherently a weak mark, it `may be strengthened by such factors as extensive advertising, length of exclusive use, public recognition....' American Int'l Group, 926 F.2d at 832 (quoting Accuride Int'l, Inc. v. Accuride Corp., 871 F.2d 1531, 1536 (9th Cir.1989)). The record indicates that EMI has used the trademark ENTREPRENEUR to identify its magazine since 1978 and that EMI sells more than a half million copies of Entrepreneur magazine monthly, with the total number of readers over two million monthly. 37 Nonetheless, EMI has not demonstrated that it has so strengthened its mark as to weigh this factor in favor of finding likely confusion. At trial, EMI will have the opportunity to prove that its mark is stronger than it currently appears. For present purposes — that is, for assessing whether EMI was entitled to summary judgment as to the likelihood of confusion — we credit the ENTREPRENEUR mark with only descriptive strength, because on this record EMI has demonstrated no more. 38