Opinion ID: 2792301
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Design Mark

Text: We now analyze the distinctiveness of Haydel’s design mark, which the PTO defined as “a stylized dog wearing a beaded necklace, with the dog being 12 Case: 13-30918 Document: 00512998539 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 No. 13-30918 formed by a series of spheres designed to look like Mardi Gras style beads. The dog has two eyes and a nose, all formed by smaller beads.” While the Abercrombie test determines the inherent distinctiveness of word marks, we recently embraced the Seabrook Foods test to determine the inherent distinctiveness of a design mark, although we did not “go so far as to hold that the Abercrombie test is eclipsed every time a mark other than a word is at issue.” Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 243. To assess inherent distinctiveness, the Seabrook Foods test asks: [1] whether it was a “common” basic shape or design, [2] whether it was unique or unusual in a particular field, [3] whether it was a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted and well-known form of ornamentation for a particular class of goods viewed by the public as a dress or ornamentation for the goods, or [4] whether it was capable of creating a commercial impression distinct from the accompanying words. Id. at 232 (quoting Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1344 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). 4 We have noted that “[t]he first three of the Seabrook Foods ‘questions are merely different ways to ask whether the design, shape or combination of elements is so unique, unusual or unexpected in this market that one can assume without proof that it will automatically be perceived by customers as an indicator of origin—a trademark.’” Id. at 243–44 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 40 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting 1 McCarthy on Trademarks § 8:13)). If not, 4 This case does not require analysis of the fourth question in the Seabrook Foods test, which “by its terms applies only when a party seeks trademark protection for a background design typically accompanied by words.” Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 243 n.14. We further note that Nola Spice, in relying on the Seabrook Foods test, does not argue that the bead dog design in Haydel’s products is incapable of inherent distinctiveness as “product design” trade dress. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 207 (2000) (analyzing a claim of infringement of unregistered trade dress). 13 Case: 13-30918 Document: 00512998539 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 No. 13-30918 then the mark is not inherently distinctive and is protectable only upon a showing of secondary meaning. Id. at 247. We have also found useful the following language from the Restatement: “The manner in which a symbol or design is used . . . is relevant to the likelihood that it will be perceived as an indication of source. In some instances a design is likely to be viewed as mere ornamentation rather than as a symbol of identification.” Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 13 cmt. d; Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 246; see also 1 McCarthy on Trademarks § 3:3 (“Usually, if when viewed in context, it is not immediately obvious that a certain designation is being used as an indication of origin, then it probably is not. In that case, it is not a trademark.”). We measure the distinctiveness of a design mark with reference to the market in which the mark is used, although uses beyond that market are also relevant. See Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 245 n.18 (framing the inquiry as whether the design mark “identifies and distinguishes Amazing Spaces’s selfstorage services from others’ self-storage services,” while noting that “[t]his does not mean . . . that we must blind ourselves to uses beyond the self-storage services industry”). In evaluating distinctiveness, our circuit and other courts have considered evidence of third-party use of similar marks. See id. at 232 (noting that “the same or a similar five-pointed star was used in commerce in at least 63 different industries and businesses on buildings, property, and as part of logos and on the buildings of at least 28 other self-storage locations” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Seabrook Foods, 568 F.2d at 1345 (noting “evidence of third-party uses and registrations of similar marks on frozen foods, indicating that Seabrook’s ‘oval’ design is not unique in this field”); Wiley v. Am. Greetings Corp., 762 F.2d 139, 142 (1st Cir. 1985) (applying Seabrook Foods and affirming a grant of summary judgment on a common law trademark claim on the ground that the mark—a red heart affixed 14 Case: 13-30918 Document: 00512998539 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 No. 13-30918 to the left breast of a teddy bear—was not inherently distinctive, noting that “[t]he record contains pictures of, and references to, an abundance of plush animals, including many teddy bears, that sport heart designs on their chests or other parts of their anatomy”). To prevail on summary judgment, Nola Spice must offer sufficient evidence both to overcome the presumption of inherent distinctiveness that accompanies Haydel’s registration, and to compel the conclusion that Haydel’s design mark is not inherently distinctive as a matter of law. See Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 234. A first step is to define the relevant market. Haydel defines the relevant market as one for pastries, clothing, and jewelry, while Nola Spice argues that the market is one for “bead dogs.” We believe the market is appropriately defined as one for Mardi Gras-themed products. This definition is consistent with advertising of Haydel’s products, which makes clear that Haydel is selling Mardi Gras-themed merchandise to an audience familiar with Mardi Gras traditions. See generally A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 303 (3d Cir. 1986) (recognizing the importance of consumer understanding to determining the relevant product genus). Haydel describes its clothing as “Mardi Gras Bead Dog parade gear.” Haydel’s jewelry is advertised as a traditional bead dog cast in sterling silver, and as a way to “[s]how your Mardi Gras spirit year round.” As Haydel acknowledges, king cake is also a Mardi Gras tradition. We therefore must consider whether Haydel’s bead dog design is “so unique, unusual or unexpected” in the market for Mardi Gras-themed merchandise that it “will automatically be perceived by customers as an indicator of origin.” Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 243–44. We may also consider uses of bead dog designs beyond that market, given that a “[c]ommonplace . . . design[’s] . . . appearance on numerous products makes it unlikely that consumers will view [it] as distinctive of the goods or services 15 Case: 13-30918 Document: 00512998539 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 No. 13-30918 of a particular seller.” Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 13 cmt. d; Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 245 n.18. The record is replete with evidence that Haydel’s design is substantially similar to the traditional bead dog that parade-goers have long crafted from Mardi Gras beads. Haydel describes its design mark as “a rendering of the old time bead dog, jazzed up for the 21st century.” In its application for a copyright registration for its bead dog design, Haydel acknowledged that the image “brings to mind the traditional bead dog.” Indeed, David Haydel, Jr. testified that every bead dog that could be made would “look like” Haydel’s trademarked design. Ryan Haydel likewise testified that there was not “any other way to make a bead dog” besides Haydel’s bead dog design. An article published in the magazine Rally to Rescue describes Haydel’s design mark as taking “the form of an iconic Mardi Gras symbol: the bead dog.” In addition to these statements, the record contains various images of traditional bead dogs that are similar to Haydel’s design. These include a photograph of a bead dog trinket on an artist’s weblog; a photograph of a bead dog crafted by Duarte from Mardi Gras-style beads during her deposition, which Haydel acknowledges is a traditional bead dog trinket; and still shots from a YouTube.com video, titled Boudreaux the BeadDog, featuring a cartoon bead dog. Haydel argues that its design is distinct from a traditional bead dog because its design has eyes, a nose, a tail, and a necklace. However, the cartoon in Boudreaux the BeadDog also has eyes, a nose and a tail. Other images in the record depict dog trinkets made of beads and wearing a “necklace,” which may be described as a collar. At most, the eyes, nose, tail, and collar on Haydel’s design are a mere “refinement” of the traditional bead dog, which is a wellknown image to those who celebrate Mardi Gras. See Wiley, 762 F.2d at 142 (“The fact that Wiley’s alleged mark is a red heart, permanently affixed to the 16 Case: 13-30918 Document: 00512998539 Page: 17 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 No. 13-30918 left breast of a teddy bear does not . . . serve to distinguish [plaintiff’s] use of the design from others’ uses of hearts on other stuffed animals. These characteristics, even if they in combination could be deemed unique, are ‘mere refinement[s] of a commonly-adopted and well-known form of ornamentation . . . .’” (emphasis in original) (quoting Seabrook Foods, 568 F.2d at 1344)). Given the similarity between Haydel’s design mark and a traditional Mardi Gras bead dog, no reasonable juror could conclude that Haydel’s mark is “so unique, unusual or unexpected” when used in connection with Mardi Gras-themed merchandise that it would “automatically be perceived by customers as an indicator of origin.” Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 243–44. Hence, Haydel’s design mark, like its word mark, is not inherently distinctive and may be protected only if it has acquired secondary meaning.