March 30, 2020
Authored and Edited by Morgan E. Smith; Margaret A. Esquenet
The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the mark J HUTTON for eyeglasses and sunglasses on the ground that the mark is primarily merely a surname.
In general, a mark that is “primarily merely a surname” cannot be registered on the Principal Register absent a showing of acquired distinctiveness, i.e., a showing that consumers understand the proposed mark as a trademark and not just a surname. The test for determining whether a mark is primarily merely a surname is very fact specific and ultimately depends on the primary significance of the mark to the purchasing public. In this case, the Examining Attorney presented evidence that Hutton was the 1925th and 1836th most common name in the U.S. in 1999 and 2000, that the name appeared 26,379 times in the LEXIS ADVANCED® surname database, and that Applicant’s founder and CEO is named Sanford Hutton. In response, the applicant submitted evidence of third-party trademarks consisting of surnames preceded by one or more initials that had been registered without first proving acquired distinctiveness. The applicant also admitted that Hutton was the surname of its Chief Creative Officer, Jade Hutton, but presented no evidence that Ms. Hutton also goes by or is known as “J Hutton.”
The TTAB analyzed various factors in upholding the refusal, such as: (1) the degree of the surname’s rareness, (2) whether anyone connected with the applicant has the surname, (3) whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname, and (4) whether the term has the “structure and pronunciation” of a surname. For the first factor, the TTAB found that the Examining Attorney’s evidence showed that the Hutton surname was “not rare” in the U.S. On the second factor, the TTAB noted that the applicant conceded that Hutton is the surname of Jade Hutton and other evidence showed that the Hutton name was also associated with the applicant’s founder, Sanford Hutton. On the third and fourth factors, the TTAB noted there was no evidence in the record of other meanings of the word Hutton, and the applicant did not contend that Hutton lacks the structure and pronunciation of a surname.
Instead, the applicant argued that the J HUTTON mark as a whole refers to and identifies an individual, Jade Hutton. In rejecting this argument, the TTAB noted that “the question is not what J HUTTON means” to the applicant, “[t]he question is what it means to relevant consumers.” The TTAB then compared this case to In re J.J. Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150 (TTAB 2007), in which the TTAB found that the mark J.J. YELEY was not primarily merely a surname. In that case, Mr. Yeley (a well-known NASCAR driver) submitted a declaration explaining how the J.J. YELEY mark was used, noting that many other NASCAR drives used their names as trademarks for various goods. Given this, and Mr. Yeley’s popularity, the TTAB found that J.J. YELEY had a recognized meaning as a trademark. The Board also found that Yeley was a rare surname and that J.J. YELEY had the “look and sound” of a personal name because it included two initials. In contrast, the applicant in this case did not submit a similar declaration, just a consent from Jade Hutton to use J HUTTON. There also was no evidence that consumers identified Ms. Hutton as J Hutton. On the record before it, the TTAB therefore found that the J HUTTON mark was primarily merely a surname and upheld the refusal to register.
The case is In re Color in Optics, Ltd., Serial No. 87558653 (TTAB Feb. 7, 2020).
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Conference
2024 Corporate Counsel Women of Color: Career Strategies Conference
October 2-5, 2024
Las Vegas
Seminar
Intellectual Property in the Age of AI: What Do You Own and How Do You Balance Risks?
September 25, 2024
Boston
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.