Opinion ID: 437290
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Distinctiveness of the mark.

Text: 19 Hyatt Legal Services points out that Hyatt is a personal name and argues that therefore it cannot be distinctive. Hyatt Legal Services also contends that because a number of other businesses in the United States use Hyatt in their names, the Hyatt mark is not distinctive. 20 The district court found the name Hyatt to be reasonably common. Even if this is so, 4 it does not preclude a finding that the mark Hyatt is distinctive. The fact that a mark is coined or invented may make distinctiveness easier to show. Polaroid, 319 F.2d at 837. Other factors are also important, however, including the length of time the mark has been used, the scope of advertising and promotions, the nature and extent of the business, and the scope of the first user's reputation. See id. at 832; Instrumentalist Co. v. Marine Corps League, 509 F.Supp. 323, 332 (N.D.Ill.1981). 21 In this case, Hyatt Hotels has been using its mark for some twenty-five years. It has been registered for thirteen years. Over the past several years, Hyatt Hotels has conducted an extensive advertising campaign designed to expand recognition of its trade name. That advertising in no way implies that Hyatt is a particular person's name; rather Hyatt is used as a trade name to indicate the source of the service. The hotel business is one in which travelers consider the name of a hotel to indicate its quality, cost, services, etc. Hyatt Hotels' reputation in its field is, as the district court found, excellent. Except for the appellee, the record shows no other national or regional business which uses the name Hyatt to identify its services. In these circumstances, we have no difficulty in concluding that Hyatt Hotels' trade name Hyatt is distinctive. 22