Court Opinion

ID: 9841224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:00:36.107078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:37.675900
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                ____________

                                      No. 22-2658
                                     ____________

                        VI CARNIVAL COMMITTEE INC.,
                                           Appellant

                                           v.

                         VI DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM;
                             JOSEPH BOSCHULTE;
                               IAN TURNBULL;
                                HALVOR HART
                                 ____________

               On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands
                            (D.C. No. 3:22-cv-0019-001)
               District Court Judge: The Honorable Robert A. Molloy
                                   ____________

                                Argued on May 22, 2023
                                    ____________

            BEFORE: RESTREPO, McKEE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

                               (Filed: September 21, 2023)

Terri Griffiths [ARGUED]
701 Market St., Suite 111
Box 1029
St. Augustine, FL 32095

      Attorney for Appellant

Michael R. Francisco, Esq. [ARGUED]
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
34-38 Kronprindsens Gade
GERS Bldg., 2nd Floor
St. Thomas, VI 00802

         Attorneys for Appellees
                                          _________

                                          OPINION*
                                          _________

RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.

         In an effort to maintain its leadership role in running the St. Thomas carnival, the

Virgin Island Carnival Committee (VICC) moved to enjoin government officials from

using the phrases “St. Thomas Carnival” and “Virgin Islands Carnival” by claiming

trademark infringement. The District Court, after finding the phrases to be generic and not

legally protectable, denied the motion. We agree with the District Court’s findings and

will affirm the order denying preliminary injunctive relief.

    I.   Facts and Procedural History
         The tradition of the St. Thomas Carnival festival dates as far back as 1912. In 1952,

the appellant VICC formed to revive the Carnival in St. Thomas. VICC, which was legally

incorporated in 1976, worked in partnership with the Government of the Virgin Islands

(GVI) to organize and run the festival. VICC acted as the primary organizer, but the

Carnival depended heavily on the GVI’s financial and logistical resources. The GVI

provided the Carnival with “venues, police support, free power and water supplies, EMT

services, and the lion’s share of the budget.” J.A.7.

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
                                               2
       The relationship between VICC and the GVI eventually soured. In 2004, VICC

filed a lawsuit to stop the V.I. Inspector General from conducting an audit of its financial

records at the behest of the V.I. legislature. In the proceedings that followed before a

territorial court, a member of VICC acknowledged that the Carnival was a program under

the purview of the GVI’s Department of Housing, Parks, and Recreation. The territorial

court ruled that VICC acted as a government program administrator and was therefore

required to cooperate with the government audit. See V.I. Carnival Comm. Inc. v.

Legislature of the V.I., 46 V.I. 33 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 2004).

       Two months after this ruling, VICC applied to register the service marks “Virgin

Islands Carnival” and “St. Thomas Carnival” with the United States Patent and Trademark

Office (USPTO). The USPTO initially denied the applications, finding that the marks were

unprotectable because “Carnival” is a generic term, and “Virgin Islands” and “St. Thomas”

are geographic descriptors of a generic term. VICC appealed the denials, attesting this time

that it had “substantially exclusive and continuous use” of the marks as trademarks for the

five years prior to filing the applications.      J.A.982.   Reversing course, the USPTO

registered both marks in 2007.

       In 2019, the Virgin Islands Legislature created a Division of Festivals within the

Department of Tourism. The new division was tasked with administrative duties related

to promotion and execution of the St. Thomas Carnival. In 2022, the Division of Festivals

promoted an event named “St. Thomas Carnival V.I.” and “St. Thomas Carnival Virgin

Islands.” In response, VICC filed a complaint in District Court alleging that the GVI

                                              3
committed trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.1 It then filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction, seeking to

enjoin the GVI officials from using the registered marks. The District Court denied the

motion for a restraining order but granted a preliminary injunction hearing.

          After a two-day hearing, the District Court denied VICC’s request for a preliminary

injunction, finding, inter alia, that the two marks—“St. Thomas Carnival” and “Virgin

Islands Carnival” —were generic and could not be trademarked. Even if the marks could

be deemed descriptive, and therefore potentially legally protectable, the Court ruled that

VICC did not establish they had a secondary meaning for the carnival consumers, whereby

the public associated VICC with the marks as their singular commercial source. Instead,

the District Court cited the “numerous witnesses” that testified that the St. Thomas Carnival

had been a “joint venture” between VICC and the GVI for as long as VICC had been

involved. J.A.13.

          VICC filed this timely appeal, contesting the denial of the preliminary injunction.

    II.   Discussion
          The District Court had jurisdiction over VICC’s trademark claim pursuant to 15

U.S.C. § 1121(a). Under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), a District Court has the power to grant an

injunction “to prevent the violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the

Patent and Trademark Office” or to protect an unregistered mark from dilution or false or

1
  The complaint also accused the individual government officials of an unconstitutional
taking under the Fifth Amendment. The District Court deemed this claim waived because
VICC “explicitly declined to proceed on its Takings theory in the preliminary injunction
hearing.” J.A.11 (citing J.A.33, lines 11-25). VICC does not contest this ruling, and we
will not address it on appeal.
                                                4
misleading use as per 15 U.S.C. § 1125. This Court has the jurisdiction to review the denial

of an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

       We review the denial of injunctive relief under the abuse of discretion standard.

Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003). We disturb a

district court’s act of discretion only if it is contrary to all reason, Ansell v. Green Acres

Contracting Co., 347 F.3d 515, 519 (3d Cir. 2003), or premised on an erroneous

application of the law. Kos Pharm. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004). We

review a district court’s factual findings, particularly the finding that the contested marks

are generic, for clear error. A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 307 n.24 (3d

Cir. 1986).

       To obtain a preliminary injunction, VICC needed to show: (1) the trademark

infringement claim had a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it would suffer

irreparable harm if the injunction were denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief would

not result in even greater harm to the named GVI officials; and (4) that the public interest

favors such relief. Kos Pharm., 360 F.3d at 708. Here, the District Court stopped its

analysis at factor one, finding that VICC’s trademark infringement claim did not have a

likelihood of success.

       To bring a successful trademark infringement claim, VICC would have had to

establish that: (1) the marks were valid and legally protectable; (2) that it owned the marks;

and (3) that the GVI officials’ use of the marks to identify goods or services caused a

likelihood of confusion. A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d

198, 210 (3d Cir. 2000). Again, the District Court did not need to look beyond factor one;
                                              5
it properly found that VICC did not meet its burden of proof that the marks “St. Thomas

Carnival” and “Virgin Island Carnival” are legally protectable. While it is undisputed that

the marks were registered with the USPTO, a registration may be canceled at any time if

the mark is deemed generic. Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189,

194 (1985) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1052, § 1064(c)). Here, the District Court’s finding that the

marks were generic was proper.

       It is undisputed by the parties that the term “Carnival” has long been used to describe

a type of festival that is “deeply ingrained in Caribbean culture.” J.A.4. Both parties also

recognize that the Virgin Islands hosted its own version of a carnival, beginning as far back

as 1912. Rather than indicate a distinctive event, the use of “carnival” in VICC’s marks

denotes an event that belongs to a “species” of festival. Thus, the term “carnival” is generic

because it is a common descriptor for a genus of festivals that occur throughout the

Caribbean (and elsewhere). Park ‘N Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. at 194. The terms “St. Thomas”

and “Virgin Islands” are generic because they are common geographical descriptors,

attributed here to a general type of festival. A & H Sportswear, Inc., 237 F.3d at 222 (3d

Cir. 2000). See also 3 Callmann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies §

18.59, 4th ed. (1989) (stating that generally “no one is entitled to the exclusive right to the

use of a geographical term in common use”). Accordingly, we hold the District Court did

                                              6
not abuse its discretion in finding that the marks were “a combination of generic terms”

and not entitled to protection. J.A.14.2

       Even if the marks could be deemed descriptive, rather than generic, VICC did not

establish a viable trademark infringement claim. A mark categorized as descriptive is

protectable only if it has acquired a secondary meaning in the minds of the consuming

public. Commerce Nat’l Ins. Services., Inc. v. Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc., 214 F.3d 432,

438 (3d Cir. 2000). To plead a viable claim, VICC needed to establish that the carnival

attendees associate VICC as the single source of the terms “St. Thomas Carnival” or

“Virgin Islands Carnival.” Further, VICC would have had to show that this association

existed at the time that the GVI began to use the marks to promote the festival. Id. at 438.

Such a showing would seem impossible given VICC’s acknowledgment that it always

worked in partnership with GVI officials to promote, organize and host the event. See

Beasley v. Howard, 14 F.4th 226, 237 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1065) (holding

that trademark enforcement cannot infringe on parties’ valid right to use mark “continuing

from a date prior to the date of registration”). Given VICC’s failure to allege a potentially

successful trademark infringement claim, the District Court’s ruling was entirely proper.

2 VICC alleges that the District Court improperly applied the anti-dissection rule by
considering the different parts of the marks separately rather than assessing the terms as a
whole. We disagree. It is appropriate when applying the anti-dissection rule for courts to
first consider the important or “dominant” parts of a composite mark. See McCarthy on
Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Fifth Edition § 23:42 (2023). Here, the District Court
properly first addressed the protectability of the word “Carnival,” which is the most
dominant feature of the mark given that “St. Thomas” and “Virgin Islands” are common
geographical terms. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(holding that courts “may weigh the individual components of the mark” to assess its
overall distinctiveness). We find no error in the District Court’s analysis.
                                             7
III.   Conclusion

       For the reasons stated above, we will affirm the denial of VICC’s motion for a

preliminary injunction.

                                          8