T.M.E.P. § 1210.01
Elements

Executive summary:

This document contains one section of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (the "TMEP"), Fourth Edition (April 2005). This page was last updated in June 2007. You may return to one either the section index, or to the key word index. If you wish to search the TMEP, simply use the search box that appears on the bottom of every page of BitLaw--be sure to restrict your search to the TMEP in the pop-up list.

For more information on trademark law, please see the Trademark Section of BitLaw.

Previous Section (§1210) | Next Section (§1210.02)

1210.01 Elements

1210.01(a) Geographically Descriptive Marks - Test

To establish a prima facie case for refusal to register a mark as primarily geographically descriptive, the examining attorney must show that:

(1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location (see TMEP §§1210.02 et seq.);

(2) the goods or services originate in the place identified in the mark (see TMEP §1210.03) ; and

(3) purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark (see TMEP §§1210.04 et seq.). Note: If the mark is remote or obscure, the public is unlikely to make a goods/place or services/place association (see TMEP §1210.04(c)).

1210.01(b) Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive Marks - Test

To support a refusal to register a mark as primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, the examining attorney must show that:

(1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location (see TMEP §§1210.02 et seq.);

(2) the goods or services do not originate in the place identified in the mark (see TMEP §1210.03) ;

(3) purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark (see TMEP §§1210.04 et seq.). Note: If the mark is remote or obscure, the public is unlikely to make a goods/place or services/place association (see TMEP §1210.04(c)) ; and

(4) the misrepresentation is a material factor in the consumer's decision to buy the goods or use the services (see TMEP §§1210.05(b) et seq.).

In re Les Halles De Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371, 67 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re California Innovations Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 66 USPQ2d 1853 (Fed. Cir. 2003), reh'g denied, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18883 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2003).

Prior to the amendment of the Trademark Act by the NAFTA Implementation Act, it was not necessary to show that the misrepresentation was likely to be a material factor in the consumer's decision to buy the goods or use the services in order to establish that a mark was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive. However, in California Innovations, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that in view of the NAFTA amendments, a showing of public deception is required to establish that a mark is unregistrable under §2(e)(3).

See TMEP §1210.05(a) for further information regarding the distinction between marks comprising deceptive matter under §2(a) and marks comprising primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive matter under §2(e)(3), and TMEP §§1210.05(b) et seq. regarding the showing that a misrepresentation of the origin of the goods or services is likely to affect the purchaser's decision to buy the goods or use the services.

1210.01(c) Geographically Deceptive Marks - Test

As noted in TMEP §1210.05(a) , the test for determining whether a mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3) is now the same as the test for determining whether a mark is deceptive under §2(a). To support a refusal of registration on the ground that a geographic term is deceptive under §2(a), the examining attorney must show that:

(1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location (see TMEP §§1210.02 et seq.);

(2) the goods or services do not originate in the place named in the mark (see TMEP §1210.03) ;

(3) purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark (see TMEP §§1210.04 et seq.). Note: If the mark is remote or obscure, the public is unlikely to make a goods/place or services/place association (see TMEP §1210.04(c)) ; and

(4) the misrepresentation is a material factor in the consumer's decision to buy the goods or use the services (see TMEP §§1210.05(b) et seq.).

Institut National des Appellations D'Origine v. Vintners Int'l Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 1574, 1580, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re House of Windsor, Inc., 221 USPQ 53 (TTAB 1983), recon. denied, 223 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1984). See also In re California Innovations Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 66 USPQ2d 1853 (Fed. Cir. 2003), reh'g denied, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18883 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2003).

See TMEP §1210.05(a) for further information regarding the distinction between marks comprising deceptive matter under §2(a) and marks comprising primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive matter under §2(e)(3), and TMEP §§1210.05(b) et seq. regarding the showing that a misrepresentation of the origin of the goods or services is likely to affect the purchaser's decision to buy the goods or use the services.