Precedential No. 2: "BURNS NIGHT" Whiskey Opposition Survives Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
Section 2(a): ASW argued that the Board erred in allowing opposer's claim under the more general deceptiveness provision of Section 2(a) because, it asserted, only the portion that specifically pertains to wines and spirits should apply here, and the Association failed to satisfy that portion. Section 2(a), in pertinent part, reads as follows:
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises … deceptive … matter; … or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after [January 1, 1996].
The Board disagreed. First, it observed that "the plain language of the general deceptiveness provision does not exclude wines and spirits, and that provision has previously been held to apply to spirits." See In re Spirits Int'l, N.V., 562 F.3d 1347, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1489 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As to ASW's argument that the addition of the "wine and spirits" provision in 1996 made the general provision inapplicable, the Board pointed out that this language was added as a result of the implementation of TRIPS in order to provide "[a]dditional [p]rotection" for wines and spirits. Congress did not say that this addition rendered the general portion of the Section 2(a) descriptiveness provision inapplicable. Nor did Congress overrule the decision in Scotch Whiskey Ass’n v. U.S. Distilled Prods. Co., 952 F.2d 1317, 21 .U.S.P.Q2d 1145, 1146-7 (Fed. Cir. 1991), which applied the general provision in a case involving the mark MACADAMS for whisky.
The Board agreed, however, that opposer failed to state a claim under the "wines and spirits" portion of Section 2(a), which specifically refers to a "geographical indication" that "identifies a place."
The Notice of Opposition alleges only that the involved mark BURNS NIGHT “is highly evocative of Scotland when used on a whisky product” because the mark refers to celebration of Scottish poet Robert Burns’ birthday (1 TTABVUE 5, paragraph 7). While Opposer, in the ESTTA cover form of the notice of opposition, alleges that the mark is a “[g]eographic indication which, if used on or in connection with wine or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods” (1 TTABVUE 1), the mere general mention of a claim in the ESTTA cover form for a complaint is insufficient to plead that claim. See Embarcadero Techs. Inc. v. RStudio Inc., 105 U.S.P.Q.2d 1825, 1827 n.2 (T.T.A.B. 2013).
The Board nevertheless found these allegations sufficient to plead a claim under the general deceptiveness provision of Section 2(a).
Section 2(e)(3): A mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive when (1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location, (2) the goods or services do not originate in the place identified in the mark, and (3) purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark, and the misrepresentation is a material factor in a significant portion of the relevant consumer’s decision to buy the goods or use the services. See In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d 1339, 1343, 104 U.S.P.Q.2d 1330, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
ASW contended that a required element for a Section 2(e)(3) claim is missing from the Notice of Opposition: that the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location. The Board agreed, and so it dismissed this claim.
Conclusion: The Board granted the request for reconsideration as to the "wines and spirits" and the Section 2(e)(3) claim but denied it otherwise. The association was allowed twenty days "to file an amended notice of opposition" to cure the deficiencies its claims. [Presumably meaning that the Association may add the required geographical language to its rejected claims].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: Do you think BURNS NIGHT has a geographical connotation? I never even heard of it.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021.
posted by John L. Welch @ 2/19/2021
3 comments
3 Comments:
Geographical? No. Burns Nights are held all over the world. Scotch whisky drinkers--at least the most hopelessly devotes ones, like me, an admitted malt-head--do know the term and don't regard it as denoting Scotland, though Burns was of course a Scot. It is recognized as a tradition that originated in Scotland, but I don't think that makes it geographically descriptive. Would TET be geographically descriptive of Vietnam? Apparently merely "calling to mind" is not enough to make a term geographically descriptive, and I say that's a good thing.
I went through this issue years ago when the GI provision was added to the Lanham Act. The Office over-reacted and every alcohol beverage term that had a geographic component was refused registration. Fortunately, I was the INTA President Elect and I went to DC and met with Mary and her team, explained the problem, and they fixed it. The geographic indication language is for GI's only; it is an absolute bar to registration. But, it does not and was not intended to override the general language regarding registration of geographic terms.
It would seem that the Board justified its ruling on the fact that the TRIPS language included "additional protection" for wines and spirits, suggesting that after 1996 marks applied to "wines and spirits" are subject to both the general deceptiveness standard and the geographic deceptiveness standards. Yet, before the so-called "additional" protection of the wines and spirits provision of 2(a) was implemented by Congress, geographically descriptive marks on wines and spirits were already considered deceptive in violation of the general deceptiveness standard, no? So, what's additional about the TRIPS language? See Scotch Whiskey Ass’n v. U.S. Distilled Prods. Co., 952 F.2d 1317, 21 .U.S.P.Q2d 1145, 1146-7 (Fed. Cir. 1991), which applied the general provision in a case involving the mark MACADAMS for whisky -- in that case, the Association was arguing that MACADAMS was geographically descriptive. And so, the question begs as to how the Board can reason that the "wines and spirits" provision added any additional protection when geographic descriptiveness was already captured under general deceptiveness before TRIPS. The more logical interpretation might be that the test for deceptiveness changed in 1996 with regards to wines and spirits. Then again, I suppose that there might be marks used on wines and spirits that are just plain deceptive without being geographic in the least (I just can't think of a hypothetical), so I don't *think* that I'm suggesting that the general deceptiveness standard is per se inapplicable to wine and spirits. With all that said, the Association has been slinging around "geographically weak" 2(a) and 2(e)(3) oppositions and lawsuits since the 80s while they themselves sell whiskies distilled in places like India under marks like BAGPIPER -- thank you to this Applicant for pushing back on that nonsense.
Post a Comment
<< Home