Genericness Surveys in Trademark Disputes: Under the Gavel

• Author: E. Deborah Jay
• Pages: 101-143

101

6

Genericness Surveys in

Trademark Disputes:

Under the Gavel

By E. Deborah Jay

INTRODUCTION

In the seminal Bayer aspirin casein1921, Judge Learned Hand applied

the following test in deciding thatASPIRIN had become generic: “What

do the buyers understand bythe wordforwhoseusethe partiesare

contending?”1Thistest became codified in the TrademarkClarification

Actof 1984, which stated, “The primary significance of the registered

marktothe relevantpublic ...shall be the test fordetermining whether

the registered markhasbecome the generic name of goodsorservices

on orin connection withwhich ithasbeen used.”2

1. BayerCo., Inc. v.United DrugCo., 272 F. 505, 509(S.D.N.Y. 1921) (“The single

question, asIviewit,inall cases,ismerelyone of fact:Whatdothe buyers understand

bythe wordforwhoseusethe partiesarecontending?If theyunderstand byitonly

the kind of goodssold, then, Itake it,itmakesno difference whateverwhatefforts the

plaintiff hasmade togetthem tounderstand more. He hasfailed,and he cannotsaythat,

when the defendantusesthe word, he istaking awaycustomers who wanted todeal with

him, howevercloselydisguised he maybe allowed tokeep hisidentity.”).

2.Pub. L. No. 98-620 §102,98Stat.3335(1984)(codified at15 U.S.C. §1064(3));

see also KelloggCo. v.Nat’lBiscuitCo., 305U.S. 111, 118 (1938) (“But toestablisha

Thischapterrepresents an updateofGenericness Surveys in TrademarkDisputes:

Evolution of Species,99TR. 1118 (2009). Dr.Jaywould like tothank

Hugh AnthonyLevine, Esq.,forhisassistance and invaluable contribution tothis

chapter.

Section III

102

Manytypesof evidence maybe proffered in trademarkdisputeson the issueof

whetheramarkisorhasbecome generic.3However,surveys thatmeasurethe “primary

significance”of amarktoconsumers are“almost de rigueur” in such inquiries.4

Although anyparty mayproffersurveyevidence, when the disputeinvolves

an unregistered mark, the ownerof the asserted markoften will submitasurveyto

demonstratetrademarksignificance5(e.g., toshowthatthe markanswers the question,

“Who am I?,”ratherthan, “Whatam I?”6). When the disputeinvolvesaregistered

mark, the party alleging thatamarkhasbecome generic (alsoknownas“genericide”)

must overcome a“strong presumption”thatthe markisnot generic.7In such disputes

the defendantwill be moreapttotenderaconsumersurveythan the trademarkowner,

provided the surveysupports the argumentthatthe markhasbecome acommon name

(e.g., toprovethe markdoesnotdistinguishthe goodsof one producerfrom the

trade name in the term‘shredded wheat’ the plaintiff must showmorethan asubordinatemeaning which

appliestoit.Itmust showthatthe primary significance of the terminthe mindsof the consuming public

isnotthe productbut the producer.”).

3.2J. TMC,MC T UC §12:13(4thed.

2011) [hereinafterMC]. According toMcCarthy,the following typesof evidence maybe used to

provegenericness:genericusebythe proponentof the trademark, uncontested generic usebycompetitors,

dictionary definitions,media usage, testimonyof personsin the trade, and consumersurveys; see also In

re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner,and Smith, Inc., 828F.2d1567,1570 (Fed. Cir.1987)(“Evidence of

the public’s understanding of the termmaybe obtained from anycompetentsource, such aspurchaser

testimony,consumersurveys,listingsin dictionaries,trade journals,newspapers,andotherpublications.”).

4. 2MC,supra note3,§12:14 (“Consumersurveys havebecome almost de rigueur in

litigation overgenericness.Judgesarenowused tosurveyevidence and often expecttoreceiveevidentiary

assistance bysurveys in resolving generic disputes.”);Schering Corp. v.PfizerInc., 189 F.3d218, 225

(2dCir.1999) (“Surveys are, forexample, routinelyadmitted in trademarkand falseadvertising casesto

showactual confusion, genericness of aname orsecondary meaning, all of which depend on establishing

thatcertain associationshavebeen drawninthe public mind.”);BernerInt’lCorp.v.MarsSalesCo., 987

F.2d975, 982(3dCir.1993)(“However,directconsumerevidence, e.g., consumersurveys and testimony

ispreferable toindirectformsof evidence.”);Nestlé Co. v.Chester’s Market,Inc., 571F.Supp. 763,773

(D. Conn. 1983)(“The useofconsumerperception oropinion surveys is...ofundeniableimportance in a

caseofthiskind asitisthe most practical and usefulwayof assessing public opinion.”), motion to vacate

denied,596F. Supp. 1445 (D. Conn. 1985), rev’d,756F.2d280(2dCir.1985).

One authorclaimsthatsurveys aremoresuccessfulatproving secondary meaning and genericness than

likelihood of confusion. PeterWeiss,The Use of Survey Evidence in Trademark Litigation: Science, Art,

or Confidence Game? 80TR. 71, 85 (1990)(“Usesurveysmoretoprovesecondarymeaning

orgenericness ( vel non)than likelihood of confusion. Youaremorelikelytosucceed in the formertype

of case.”). However,anotherauthorcontendsthat,although directtestimonyof consumers ispotentially

“the most weighty” evidence in agenericness dispute, othertypesofevidence ( e.g., listingsin dictionaries,

various publications,and databases)arejust asimportant.RitaM.Irani, The Importance of Record

Evidence to Categorize Marks as Generic, Descriptive, or Suggestive,83TR. 607 (1993).

5. MC,supra note3,§12:12(“If the termisnotfederallyregistered, once defendantraisesthe

defense, the burden ison plaintiff toprovetrademarkstatus:thatis,lackof genericness.”). Foradiscussion

of differenttypesof generic terms,see VincentN. Palladino, Assessing Trademark Significance:

Genericness, Secondary Meaning and Surveys,92TR. 857,860 (2002)[hereinafter

Palladino]. According toPalladino, “[S]ome generic termshaveaninitial non-trademarkmeaning, while

othergeneric termswereinitiallytrademarks.Still others werechosenastrademarks,but werechallenged

asgeneric beforeitwasclearwhetherornottheywereregarded bythe public astrademarks.”

6.2MC,supra note3,§12:1 (“Amarkanswers the buyer’s questions‘Who areyou?’ ‘Where

do youcome from?’ ‘Who vouchesforyou?’ But the [generic] name of the productanswers the question

‘Whatareyou?’”).

7.Id. §12:12(“If the plaintiff hasafederal registration, itconstitutesastrong presumption thatthe

termisnotgeneric and defendantbears the burden of overcoming the presumption.”)

Genericness Surveys in Trademark Disputes 103

goodsof otherproducers8). In fact,foraparty who isalleging thatamarkhasbecome

generic, the failuretoconductasurveymayresultin anegativeinference,9although

markshavebeen held generic despitethe lack of surveyevidence.10

Aswithanysurvey,questionsin genericness surveys should be reliable and valid.11

Forquestionsin agenericness surveytobereliable, respondents need tobeable to

understand them (e.g., the questionsshould notbe vague, be unnecessarilycomplex,

usedouble negatives,orbe compound). To be valid, thesequestionsmaynotbe

suggestiveorleading, and theyoughttoelicitrelevantinformation unambiguously.12

8. KeeblerCo. v.RoviraBiscuitCorp., 624F.2d366,373-374(1st Cir.1980)(“Ageneric termisone

thatdoesnotdistinguishthe goodsof one producerfrom the goodsof others.Instead, itisone thateither

bydefinition orthrough common use‘hascome tobeunderstood asreferring tothe genus of which the

particularproductisaspecies.’”).

9. CreativeGifts,Inc. v.UFO, 235F.3d540,546atn.5 (10thCir.2000)(“Itisworthremarking [on]

all of the customarily-offered typesof evidence astoclaimed genericness thatSherlocksdid not produce.

Theyelicited no consumertestimonyorconsumersurveys.”);March Madness Athletic Ass’n, L.L.C.

v.Netfire, Inc., 310F. Supp. 2d786,804(N.D. Tex.2003)(“Defendants havenotoffered anysurvey

evidence.”), aff’d,120 Fed. Appx.540(5thCir.2005). The failureofthe ownerof aclaimed markto

conductasurveytodemonstratethe disputed name’s trademarksignificance alsomayresultin anegative

inference: Eagle Snacks,Inc. v.Nabisco Brands,Inc., 625F.Supp. 571, 583(D.N.J. 1985) (“Failureofa

trademarkownertorunasurveytosupport its claimsof brand significance and/orlikelihood of confusion,

whereithasthe financial meansof doing so, maygiverisetothe inference thatthecontents of the survey

would be unfavorable, and mayresultin the court denying relief.”). Foradiscussion of the history and

appropriateness of attaching significance tothe absence of surveyevidence (mostlyin connection with

trademarkconfusion), see SandraEdelman, Failure to Conduct aSurveyin Trademark Cases: ACritique

of the Adverse Inference,90TR. 746(2000).

10.ColtDefenseLLC v.BushmasterFirearms,Inc., 486F.3d701, 706 atn.4 (1st Cir.2007)(“Bushmaster

did notsubmitaconsumersurveytosupport its claim but such evidence, while ‘desirable’toestablish

genericness,isnotrequired.”);NartronCorp. v.STMicroelectronics,Inc., 305F.3d397,407 (6thCir.2002)

(“Thus,the overwhelming evidence in thiscaseobviatesthe need forST tohaveconducted aconsumer

survey”);Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v.Wine of Japan Import,Inc., 7Fed. Appx.112,115 (2dCir.2001) (“Our

previous decision in thismatterdid notrequirethatthe inquiry intogenericnessprivilege certain categories

of evidence, such asconsumer-based surveys,dictionary definitions,orliteratureusage.”);Keebler, 624

F.2dat375(“Whileweagreethatevidence such asaconsumersurveywould be desirable in acasesuch as

this[citation omitted], indirectevidence can establishthe genericness of amark. ...”).

11. FloydJ.Fowler,Jr . ,Improving SurveyQuestions4(1995) (“Akeydifference between art and

science isthatin art,goodness isin the eyeofthe beholder.Inscience, thereareconsistentstandardsfor

‘goodness.’In thiscase, the ultimatestandardsforgoodness arethe validity and reliability withwhich

aquestion producesanswers thatmeasuresomething.”);Gregory G. Holyk, Questionnaire Design in

Encyclopedia of SurveyResearch Methods,656,657(PaulJ.Lavrakased., 2008) (“Unclearconcepts,

poorlyworded questions,and difficultorunclearresponsechoicesmaymake the questionnairedifficult

forbothrespondents and interviewers.Questionnairesshouldcontain itemsthatarebothreliable and valid.

Reliability isthe consistencyof the measurement; thatis,the question isinterpreted and responded to

similarlyoverrepeated trials.Constructvalidity iswhetherornotthe measurement,asworded, properly

reflects the underlying constructof interest.”).

12.Zippo Mfg. Co. v.Rogers Imports,Inc., 216F. Supp. 670,684 (S.D.N.Y. 1963)(“If questions

areunfairlyworded tosuggest answers favorable tothe party sponsoring the survey,the elementof

trustworthiness in the poll would be lacking.”);ShariS.Diamond, Reference Guide on Survey Research

in R M  S E 359, 388 (3ded. 2011) [hereinafterDiamond] (“When

unclearquestionsareincluded in asurvey,theymaythreaten the validity of the surveybysystematically

distorting responsesif respondents aremisled in aparticulardirection, orbyinflating random errorif

respondents guess becausetheydo notunderstand the question.”);Federal Judicial Center,Annotated

Manual forComplexLitigation §11.493(4thed. 2011) [hereinafterFJC, Annotated Manual forComplex

Litigation] (“In addition, in assessing the validity of asurvey,the judge should take intoaccountthe

following factors:whetherthe questionsasked wereclearand notleading ...”).