In re Morgan Brown Case Brief: Key Takeaways on Trademark Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinctiveness

Case Brief: In re Morgan Brown, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1350 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd. 2016)

Facts: Morgan Brown applied to register a trademark for her brand under the Lanham Act. The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration on the grounds that the mark was merely descriptive of the services provided. Brown appealed this decision to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), arguing that her mark had acquired distinctiveness and thus was registrable.

Procedural History: Morgan Brown's application for trademark registration was initially refused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). She subsequently appealed this refusal to the TTAB, seeking a reversal of the Examining Attorney's decision.

Issues:

1. Whether Morgan Brown's mark is merely descriptive of the services offered.
2. Whether the mark has acquired distinctiveness, making it eligible for registration despite its descriptiveness.

Holding: The TTAB affirmed the refusal to register the trademark. The Board held that the mark was merely descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness to the extent necessary for registration.

Reasoning:

1. Descriptiveness: The Board found that Morgan Brown's mark directly described a feature or characteristic of the services provided, making it ineligible for registration under §2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act. The mark was considered merely descriptive because it conveyed an immediate idea of the qualities or characteristics of the services.

2. Acquired Distinctiveness: The Board examined the evidence provided by Brown to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness, such as advertising, sales figures, and consumer recognition. The evidence was insufficient to show that the mark had acquired secondary meaning. The TTAB emphasized that acquired distinctiveness must be established through substantial and continuous use, which Brown failed to demonstrate convincingly.

Cited Cases:

1. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007) – Discussing the standard for determining whether a mark is merely descriptive.
2. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) – Addressing the issue of acquired distinctiveness for descriptive marks.
3. In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) – Outlining the requirements for proving acquired distinctiveness.

Similar Cases:

1. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987) – Providing guidance on the analysis of merely descriptive marks.
2. In re Ennco Display Systems Inc., 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1279 (TTAB 2000) – Examining evidence needed to establish acquired distinctiveness.
3. In re Beds & Bars Limited, 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1546 (TTAB 2017) – Evaluating the descriptiveness and distinctiveness of a mark in the hospitality industry.

Importance for Law School: In re Morgan Brown is an essential case for students of intellectual property law, particularly those focusing on trademark law. It provides a detailed analysis of the criteria for determining whether a mark is merely descriptive and the evidentiary burden required to prove acquired distinctiveness. This case underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of trademark registration and the challenges of securing protection for descriptive marks.

Please leave a comment below to discuss this case or to leave feedback.