T.M.E.P. § 1212.06
Establishing Distinctiveness by Actual Evidence

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 (§1212.05) | Next Section (§1212.07)

1212.06 Establishing Distinctiveness by Actual Evidence

Under Trademark Rule 2.41(a), 37 C.F.R. 2.41(a), an applicant may, in support of registrability, submit affidavits, declarations under 37 C.F.R. 2.20, depositions or other appropriate evidence showing the duration, extent and nature of the applicant's use of a mark in commerce that may lawfully be regulated by Congress, advertising expenditures in connection with such use, letters or statements from the trade and/or public, or other appropriate evidence tending to show that the mark distinguishes the goods or services.

Establishing acquired distinctiveness by actual evidence was explained as follows in In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 1125, 227 USPQ 417, 422 (Fed. Cir. 1985):

An evidentiary showing of secondary meaning, adequate to show that a mark has acquired distinctiveness indicating the origin of the goods, includes evidence of the trademark owner's method of using the mark, supplemented by evidence of the effectiveness of such use to cause the purchasing public to identify the mark with the source of the product.

The kind and amount of evidence necessary to establish that a mark has acquired distinctiveness in relation to goods or services depends on the nature of the mark and the circumstances surrounding the use of the mark in each case. Yamaha Int'l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co. Ltd., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427 F.2d 823, 166 USPQ 34 (C.C.P.A. 1970); In re Hehr Mfg. Co., 279 F.2d 526, 126 USPQ 381 (C.C.P.A. 1960); In re Capital Formation Counselors, 219 USPQ 916 (TTAB 1983).

In considering a claim of acquired distinctiveness, the issue is whether acquired distinctiveness of the mark in relation to the goods or services has in fact been established in the minds of the purchasing public, not whether the mark is capable of becoming distinctive. In re Redken Laboratories, Inc., 170 USPQ 526 (TTAB 1971); In re Fleet-Wing Corp., 122 USPQ 335 (TTAB 1959).

The following are some examples of different types of evidence that have been used, alone or in combination, to establish acquired distinctiveness. No single evidentiary factor is determinative. The value of a specific type of evidence and the amount necessary to establish acquired distinctiveness will vary according to the facts of the specific case.

1212.06(a) Long Use of the Mark

Long use of the mark is one relevant factor to consider in determining whether a mark has acquired distinctiveness. See In re Uncle Sam Chemical Co., Inc., 229 USPQ 233 (TTAB 1986) (§2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness of SPRAYZON for "cleaning preparations and degreasers for industrial and institutional use" found persuasive where applicant had submitted declaration of its president supporting sales figures and attesting to over eighteen years of substantially exclusive and continuous use); In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 USPQ 917, 920 (TTAB 1984) (evidence submitted by applicant held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness of PACKAGING SPECIALISTS, INC., for contract packaging services, notwithstanding, inter alia, continuous and substantially exclusive use for sixteen years, deemed "a substantial period but not necessarily conclusive or persuasive").

1212.06(b) Advertising Expenditures

Large scale expenditures in promoting and advertising goods and services under a particular mark are significant to indicate the extent to which a mark has been used. However, proof of an expensive and successful advertising campaign is not in itself enough to prove secondary meaning. In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim based on annual sales under the mark of approximately eighty-five million dollars, and annual advertising expenditures in excess of ten million dollars -- two million of which were spent on promotions and promotional items which included the phrase THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA -- found insufficient to establish distinctiveness, in view of the highly descriptive nature of the proposed mark); Mattel, Inc. v. Azrak-Hamway International, Inc., 724 F.2d 357, 221 USPQ 302, 305 n. 2 (2d Cir. 1983). The ultimate test in determining whether a designation has acquired distinctiveness is applicant's success, rather than its efforts, in educating the public to associate the proposed mark with a single source. The examining attorney must examine the advertising material to determine how the term is being used, the commercial impression created by such use, and what the use would mean to purchasers. In re Redken Laboratories, Inc., 170 USPQ 526, 529 (TTAB 1971) (evidence adduced by applicant pursuant to §2(f) held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness of THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, for lectures concerning hair and skin treatment, notwithstanding ten years of use, over $500,000 in promotion and sponsorship expenses, and the staging of over 300 shows per year). See also In re E.I. Kane, Inc., 221 USPQ 1203, 1206 (TTAB 1984) (refusal to register OFFICE MOVERS, INC., for moving services, affirmed notwithstanding §2(f) claim based on, inter alia, evidence of substantial advertising expenditures. "There is no evidence that any of the advertising activity was directed to creating secondary meaning in applicant's highly descriptive trade name."); In re Kwik Lok Corp., 217 USPQ 1245 (TTAB 1983) (evidence held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness for configuration of bag closures made of plastic, notwithstanding applicant's statement that advertising of the closures involved several hundred thousands of dollars, where there was no evidence that the advertising had any impact on purchasers in perceiving the configuration as a mark). Cf. In re Haggar Co., 217 USPQ 81, 84 (TTAB 1982) (background design of a black swatch held registrable pursuant to §2(f) for clothing where applicant had submitted, inter alia, evidence of "very substantial advertising and sales," the Board finding the design to be, "because of its serrated left edge, something more than a common geometric shape or design").

If the applicant prefers not to specify the extent of its expenditures in promoting and advertising goods and services under the mark because this information is confidential, the applicant may indicate the types of media through which the goods and services have been advertised (e.g., national television) and how frequently the advertisements have appeared.

1212.06(c) Affidavits or Declarations Asserting Recognition of Mark as Source Indicator

Affidavits or declarations that assert recognition of the mark as a source indicator are relevant in establishing acquired distinctiveness. The value of the affidavits or declarations depends on the statements made and the identity of the affiant or declarant. In re Chemical Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 5 USPQ2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (conclusionary declaration from applicant's vice-president held insufficient without the factual basis for the declarant's belief that the design had become distinctive). Proof of distinctiveness requires more than proof of the existence of a relatively small number of people who associate a mark with the applicant. In re The Paint Products Co., 8 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 1988) ("Because these affidavits were sought and collected by applicant from ten customers who have dealt with applicant for many years, the evidence is not altogether persuasive on the issue of how the average customer for paints perceives the words 'PAINT PRODUCTS CO.' in conjunction with paints and coatings."). See also In re Gray Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1558, 1560 (TTAB 1987) (affidavit of applicant's counsel expressing his belief that the mark has acquired secondary meaning accorded "no probative value whatsoever" because, among other reasons, the statement is subject to bias); In re Petersen Mfg. Co., 2 USPQ2d 2032 (TTAB 1987) (declarations from customers which stated that designs used by applicant indicate to the declarant that the applicant is the source of the goods, but which did not refer to or identify the designs with any specificity, not considered persuasive); In re Bose Corp., 216 USPQ 1001, 1005 (TTAB 1983), aff'd, 772 F.2d 866, 227 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (retailer's statement that he has been in contact with many purchasers of loudspeaker systems of whom a substantial number would recognize depicted design as originating with applicant deemed competent evidence of secondary meaning); In re Flex-O-Glass, Inc., 194 USPQ 203, 206 (TTAB 1977) ("[T]he fact that the affidavits may be similar in format and expression is of no particular significance ... since the affiants have sworn to the statements contained therein.").

1212.06(d) Survey Evidence, Market Research and Consumer Reaction Studies

Survey evidence, market research and consumer reaction studies are relevant in establishing acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning. Yankee Candle Co., Inc. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., LLC, 259 F.3d 25, 37, 59 USPQ2d 1720, 1730 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Although survey evidence is not required, 'it is a valuable method of showing secondary meaning,'" citing I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 41, 49 USPQ2d 1225, 1235 (1st Cir. 1998)).

To show secondary meaning, the survey must show that the public views the proposed mark as an indication of the source of the product or service. Boston Beer Co. L.P. v. Slesar Bros. Brewing Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 175, 28 USPQ2d 1778 (1st Cir. 1993) (survey found insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness where survey demonstrates product-place association rather than product-source association). The applicant must document the procedural and statistical accuracy of this type of evidence and carefully frame the questions contained therein. See In re E.I. Kane, Inc., 221 USPQ 1203, 1206 (TTAB 1984) ("[T]he survey asked the wrong question. The issue is not whether the term 'Office Movers' identifies a specific company. Rather, it is whether the term 'OFFICE MOVERS, INC.' identifies services which emanate from a single source."); General Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990, 994 n.7 (TTAB 1984) ("[W]here ... [reports of market research, consumer reaction studies] have been conducted for marketing reasons rather than directly to assist in resolving the issues in proceedings before us, their value will almost always depend on interpretations of their significance by witnesses or other evidence."); Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Spiceseas, Inc., 220 USPQ 73, 74 n.4 (TTAB 1983) (testimony concerning survey results, unsupported by documentation, considered unreliable hearsay).

1212.06(e) Miscellaneous Considerations Regarding Evidence Submitted to Establish Distinctiveness

1212.06(e)(i) First or Only User

When the applicant is the only source of the goods or services, use alone does not automatically represent trademark recognition and acquired distinctiveness. See, e.g., J. Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx & Co., Inc., 280 F.2d 437, 126 USPQ 362 (C.C.P.A. 1960); In re Mortgage Bankers Association of America, 226 USPQ 954 (TTAB 1985); In re National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1018 (TTAB 1983); In re Meier's Wine Cellars, Inc., 150 USPQ 475 (TTAB 1966); In re G. D. Searle & Co., 143 USPQ 220 (TTAB 1964), aff'd, 360 F.2d 650, 149 USPQ 619 (C.C.P.A. 1966).

1212.06(e)(ii) State Trademark Registrations

State trademark registrations are of relatively little probative value. See, e.g., In re Vico Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 229 USPQ 364, 370 (TTAB 1985), recon. denied, 229 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1986) ("While applicant's design may be registrable under the provisions of California trademark law, it is the federal trademark statute and the cases interpreting it by which we must evaluate the registrability of applicant's asserted mark."); In re Craigmyle, 224 USPQ 791, 794 (TTAB 1984).

1212.06(e)(iii) Design Patent

The fact that a device is the subject of a design patent does not, without more, mean that it functions as a mark or has acquired distinctiveness. See, e.g., In re Vico Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 229 USPQ 364, 370 (TTAB 1985), recon. denied, 229 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1986).

1212.06(e)(iv) Acquiescence to Demands of Competitors

Acquiescence to demands of competitors to cease use of a term can be equally viewed as simply a desire to avoid litigation. See, e.g., In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 144 n.2, 196 USPQ 7, 8 n.2 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Consolidated Cigar Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1481 (TTAB 1989).