While I fully endorse Eric
Goldman’s comments on the correct result here that TM owners aren’t
required to threaten other people for mere keyword buys, I also think this case
is interesting as a matter of meaning-making.
(For a full discussion, see
the TTABlog post.) The most common
generic name used in the opinion for the product at issue is “headache racks,”
because by protecting the back window of a pickup truck from having things come
crashing through it they supposedly prevent some serious headaches. By contrast, “backrack” apparently isn’t generic
for a rack on the back of a truck. So
the “natural” generic name of a product can be allusive and playful—something worth
remembering when we talk about the Abercrombie
spectrum.
On the other hand, other parts of the decision are not quite
as sensitive to the realities of communication: “In 2007, Armor Deck learned
that a trademark should be used as an adjective to describe a product, not as a
noun. Thus, Armor Deck’s improper use of
the BACKRACK trademark [as a noun] may stem from its unfamiliarity with proper
trademark usage, rather than indicating the genericness of the term BACKRACK.”
Sigh. A few pages later:
Customers looking for a BACKRACK
brand product will undoubtedly use the term “Backrack” as a noun:
The fact that buyers or users
often call for or order a product by a term does not necessarily prove that a
term is a “generic name.” The person who
orders for lunch a “BIG MAC and a COKE” undoubtedly has brand knowledge and
brand loyalty. The generic names
“hamburger” and “cola” are understood by all precisely because BIG MAC and COKE
are such strong trademarks identifying source.
Since everyone knows the generic names, they are dropped in ordinary
usage.
J. Thomas McCarthy, 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition
§ 12:27 (4th ed.).
So why can’t TM owners comport with this reality? Here’s a Hanna Andersson catalog touting the
availability of “hannas,” the store’s dresses: can anyone seriously think the
mark is at risk here?
Nouning adjectives or verbing them, in today’s environment,
is not very probative of anything absent other information about usage—which there
was here; apparently there was a split between customers who sought a thing
they called a backrack, sometimes rejecting the Backrack brand as not what they
wanted, and customers who sought a thing they called a backrack where they
wanted or at least accepted the leading brand, Backrack.
1 comment:
An interesting critique of the INTA take on this issue:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000943.html
-mike
Post a Comment