Opinion ID: 560360
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Incontestability and Descriptive Trademarks

Text: 40 Plaintiff's third contention of error is that the district court erred by concluding that CURRENT CONTENTS was clearly descriptive because that determination is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Park 'N Fly v. Dollar Park 'N Fly, 469 U.S. 189, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985). 41 Although disposition of plaintiff's appeal does not require us to address this contention, we believe that this legal issue will arise again on remand. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, we consider plaintiff's contention that Park 'N Fly foreclosed the district court from determining that plaintiff's incontestable mark, CURRENT CONTENTS, is clearly descriptive. 42 In Park 'N Fly, the Supreme Court held that the holder of a registered trademark may rely on incontestability to enjoin infringement and that such action may not be defended on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive. Id. 469 U.S. at 205, 105 S.Ct. at 667 (emphasis added). The district court did not, however, conclude that plaintiff's mark was merely descriptive, and was not addressing the validity or incontestability of plaintiff's CURRENT CONTENTS mark. 43 The district court determined that CURRENT CONTENTS was clearly descriptive (App. at 391), as this was necessary before deciding whether defendants could avail themselves of the fair use defense. See 1 Trademarks, at 475 (the fair use defense presupposes that the mark is descriptive); see also Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey v. Celozzi-Ettelson Chevrolet, 855 F.2d 480, 484 (7th Cir.1988) (stating that the fair use defense requires that the defendant's use merely describe the goods or services offered); Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc., 717 F.Supp. 96, 133 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (fair use defense unavailable when mark was suggestive). That defense is one of the seven enumerated defenses in the Lanham Act explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court as exceptions to the registrant's exclusive right to use an incontestable mark. Park 'N Fly, 469 U.S. at 196, 199 n. 6, 105 S.Ct. at 662, 664 n. 6 (If one of the defenses is established, registration constitutes only prima facie and not conclusive evidence of owner's right to exclusive use of the mark.); see also Ringling Bros., 855 F.2d at 483; 1 Trademarks, Sec. 11:17 at 479. Thus, the district court's conclusion that CURRENT CONTENTS was clearly descriptive is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Park 'N Fly, and the district court did not commit legal error. 10