Filewrapper®

First Circuit: District court's determination that "duck tour" is nongeneric doesn't hold water

June 24, 2008
Post by Blog Staff

In a lengthy decision last week, the First Circuit held a district court erred in finding the term "duck tour" nongeneric in the context of sightseeing tours on amphibious vehicles. The district court, based largely on the nongenericness of this aspect of the parties' marks, found the plaintiff was likely to succeed in its infringement claims, and entered a preliminary injunction. The defendant appealed.The First Circuit vacated the injunction. The district court's erroneous holding regarding the generic nature of "duck tour" caused the district court to give too much weight to those terms in the composite marks in its likelihood of confusion analysis. As a result, the district court also erred in finding both a likelihood of confusion and a likelihood of success on the merits for both the word marks and design marks at issue. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's preliminary injunction.More concerning Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC after the jump.Boston Duck and Super Duck are in the business of offering sightseeing tours via land and water in the Boston area using amphibious vehicles commonly referred to as "ducks." Boston Duck started offering its services in 1994, and offers sightseeing tours of the Boston area and Charles River, using renovated DUKWs (pronounced "ducks") from World War II. Boston Duck owns a federal trademark registration for the composite word mark BOSTON DUCK TOURS and a composite design mark consisting of the name in combination with a logo of a cartoon duck. The logo is depicted below:Boston Duck logoBoth of the marks are subject to disclaimers for the terms "duck" and "tours." Boston Duck also has registrations for BOSTON DUCK TOURS and its logo for various goods.Super Duck began using custom-made amphibious vehicles (Hydra-Terras) in 2001 to provide sightseeing tours by land and water in Portland, Maine. Because the Hydra-Terras are larger and more modern than DUKWs, the company decided to use the name SUPER DUCK TOURS, and adopted generally a "super" theme. Super Duck began operating its business in Boston in May 2007. Super Duck owns one federal registration for the word mark SUPER DUCK TOURS on the Supplemental Register, with "duck tours" disclaimed. Super Duck also uses a logo with a cartoon duck, depicted below:Super Duck logoOn July 2, 2007, Boston Duck filed a complaint against Super Duck, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, "and a flock of other state and federal claims" (always good to see a court with a sense of humor). Boston Duck also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Super Duck from using its trademark or logo. In granting the preliminary injunction, the district court held the term "duck tours" was nongeneric for amphibious sightseeing tours. The district court then used the First Circuit's likelihood of confusion analysis, the eight "Pignons factors," and held Boston Duck had established a likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark claims. The district court enjoined Super Duck from using "duck tours" or a cartoon duck in its trademark, and from using the term "duck" in a two-word or three-word trademark in conjunction with either "Boston" or "tours." Super Duck appealed.The First Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded. A key aspect of the likelihood of confusion analysis is the similarity of the marks, which was directly affected by the conclusion that "duck tours" was nongeneric. As this was a key aspect of the district court's conclusion, this was the key issue on appeal.A phrase is generic if its "primary significance . . . to the relevant public is as an identifier of the nature of a good, rather than its source." One convenient analytical framework mentioned by the court is that a trademark answers the question "where do you come from?" whereas a generic term answers the question "what are you?" When answering these questions, there are several factors courts consider:

  1. Consumer surveys
  2. Use of the term by the media
  3. Use of the term by others in the industry
  4. Purchaser testimony regarding use of the term
  5. Plaintiff's use of the term
Here, there was evidence relevant to factors 2, 3, and 5. Specifically, news articles described the types of tours offered by Boston Duck as "duck tours." Also, there was widespread use of the phrase by other companies offering such tours: 32 of the 36 companies use "duck" in their name, and more than 10 use "duck" and "tours" in their trade name. Many of the companies use the phrase to characterize the nature of their services as "duck tours." Finally, Boston Duck itself referred to its services as "duck tours." Interestingly, much of the evidence of Boston Duck's use of the phrase was supplied by Boston Duck itself in seeking to show its mark was famous. These three sources of evidence, combined with the lack of an acceptable alternative generic term, led the court to conclude the district court clearly erred in finding the phrase "duck tours" nongeneric.This conclusion was not affected by the fact that Super Duck had argued to the USPTO in the course of prosecution of its trademark application that the phrase was nongeneric. This was simply another piece of evidence to weigh. The court also dismissed Boston Duck's evidence of actual confusion, attributing it to the fact that Boston Duck has operated without competition for over 10 years, as trademark law is not intended to prevent confusion over the use of generic terms. Because the court found "duck tours" to be generic, that aspect of the word and design marks were given less weight in the likelihood of confusion analysis.Turning to the issue of likelihood of confusion, the court held Boston Duck was not likely to prevail on the issue. The court evaluated the eight Pignons factors in turn.

1. Strength of the mark

Even with the finding that "duck tours" was generic, the court held the composite mark BOSTON DUCK TOURS to be "reasonably strong overall." There was strong evidence of secondary meaning, so even though the mark was simply a combination of a descriptive term with a generic phrase, this factor favored Boston Duck.2. Similarity of the MarksThe court noted that because "duck tours" is generic, that portion of the mark is given less weight. That left "Boston" and "Super," the remaining pieces, which were different in look and sound, leading the court to determine the marks were dissimilar.3-6. Similarity of the Goods, Relationship Between the Parties' Channels of Trade, Relationship Between the Parties' Advertising, and Classes of Prospective PurchasersFor these four factors, the court held they were similar for both parties, and therefore weighed in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.7. Evidence of Actual ConfusionWhile there was evidence of actual confusion by prospective customers, as noted previously, the court held this was likely due to the fact that Boston Duck was the only company offering duck tours in the Boston area for over 10 years, and a new competitor would almost guarantee confusion if using the generic "duck tours" phrase. As a result, this factor was given little weight.8. Defendant's Intent in Adopting its MarkThe court held the district court erred in concluding it was likely that Super Duck intentionally adopted its mark to piggy-back off Boston Duck's success. Super Duck had been using the mark in Portland, Maine for many years before moving to the Boston area, and as a result, bad intent could not be inferred.Considering all the factors in the Pignons analysis, the court concluded that the district court's finding that Boston Duck was likely to succeed on the merits in the context of its word mark was clearly erroneous.Turning to the design marks, the court noted that the analysis was the same regarding five of the eight factors, specifically those that focus on the parties rather than the marks themselves. The court then examined whether the image of a duck splashing in water


Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment



Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.