美國聯邦巡回法院擴大通用性商標名稱測試后，飲料巨頭對“零度”商標之爭發回TTAB重新審理

#本文僅代表作者觀點，文章不代表IPRdaily立場#

發布：IPRdaily中文網（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Jeffery A. Handelman 律師 及Virginia Wolk Marino律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

原標題：美國聯邦巡回法院擴大通用性商標名稱測試后，飲料巨頭對“零度”商標之爭發回TTAB重新審理

本文案件中，飲料巨頭Coca-Cola Co. 欲將“零度（Zero）”名稱作為其品牌一部分進行專有注冊，TTAB認為“零度（Zero）”名稱不屬于通用性商標，但在競爭對手上訴后，聯邦巡回法院基于三點原因認為TTAB運用了不正確的法律標準并將該案發回TTAB重新審理：第一、TTAB在調查名稱的通用性時提出錯誤問題；第二、TTAB未能評估名稱描述性的程度；第三、TTAB未能采用嚴格角度審核證據。

一家公司是否可以擁有對無卡路里軟飲料使用“零度（Zero）”名稱的排他權？美國聯邦巡回上訴法院將該問題發回至商標審理與上訴委員會（Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ，“TTAB”）重審，法院認為TTAB在最初解決該問題時既使用了錯誤的法律框架。

Coca-Cola Co.（簡稱“Coca-Cola”）欲將“零度（Zero）”名稱作為其品牌一部分進行注冊，由此引起Royal Crown Company, Inc. 和 Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. (簡稱“Royal Crown”) 產生與其就該注冊名稱長達十幾年之久的爭議。Royal Crown與Coca-Cola均在飲料市場中競爭，并且雙方都使用“零度（Zero）”名稱與旗下多種飲料產品聯系在一起。例如，Royal Crown使用DIET RITE PURE ZERO與其商標聯系；Coca-Cola使用COCA-COLA ZERO 和SPRITE ZERO與其商標聯系。在實踐中，兩家公司的商標均與最低或無卡路里飲料一起使用。倆家公司均對各自的“零度（Zero）”品牌飲料產品遞交了美國聯邦商標申請。Royal Crown在申請中放棄對“零度（Zero）”名稱的權利（注：簽署免責聲明并不意味著移除標記中的主題，而僅是商標權人對這一主題不主張擁有排他權的聲明。）Coca-Cola在申請中沒有放棄對“零度（Zero）”名稱的權利，相反，其遞交了該名稱獲得顯著性（Distinctiveness）的聲明，并得到USPTO認可。

拓展：15 U.S.C.  §1052(f) 商標獲得顯著性（Distinctiveness） 或第二含義（ Secondary Meaning）

如申請注冊的商標或服務標識名稱本身不具有固有顯著性（inherently distinctive），如描述性商標（descriptive mark，指僅僅描述了其使用商品的功能、質量、成份等特點的商標）、地名商標（geographic mark）和姓氏商標（family names，surname），該類商標只有在商標權人證明其商標在商業上已獲得顯著性或第二含義后，方可獲得在主注冊簿（Principal Register）上的注冊。

自2007年起，Royal Crown對Coca-Cola含有“零度（Zero）”構詞要素的19項申請提出異議（Oppositions），辯稱當“零度（Zero）”一詞的使用與Coca-Cola產品相聯系時，該詞僅具有描述性（Merely descriptive）或是通用名稱（Generic）。Royal Crown要求Coca-Cola必須放棄該詞的排他權，整體與Coca-Cola商標分離。多項異議被合并后，TTAB對Royal Crown的異議部分支持部分駁回。相關部分中，TTAB認為Royal Crown并未證實普通消費者在主要使用或理解“零度（Zero）”一詞時會聯系到商品種類中的軟飲料、運動飲料或能量飲料，反而僅與Coca-Cola的ZERO系列飲料進行聯系，因此這一詞語并非通用名稱。TTAB進一步認為Coca-Cola證實了當描述性詞匯“零度（Zero）”作為商標的一部分用于軟飲料、糖漿、濃縮液和制作軟飲料的粉末時，該描述性詞匯獲得了顯著性?；诖薚TAB駁回了Royal Crown對Coca-Cola申請的異議。

上訴中，聯邦巡回法院撤銷了TTAB的駁回裁決，法院認為TTAB在制定“通用性商標測試（Test for genericness）”的構架中出現錯誤，未能確定Coca-Cola的“零度（Zero）”一詞是否具有高度描述性（Highly descriptive）。特別是，聯邦巡回法院發現TTAB在評估“零度（Zero）”名稱的通用性時提出了錯誤的問題，TTAB未能考慮到如果相關公眾理解一個詞語指的是某類產品或服務的關鍵要素（Key aspect），這個詞語對于該種類的產品或服務可以是通用性名稱。聯邦巡回法院進一步解釋：如果公眾對“零度（Zero）”一詞的理解是當其與指定飲料名稱結合時，指一種具有特定特征的子類別（Sub-group）或飲料類型，這足以使該詞成為通用性名稱。法院還提示TTAB沒有考慮到相關消費者是否會將“零度（Zero）”一詞視為軟飲料、運動飲料或能量飲料子類別的通用性名稱。發回重審中，聯邦巡回法院指示TTAB檢測：“零度（Zero）”一詞是否因其指向至少一個子類別或類型飲料的關鍵要素而成為通用性名稱。

在評論聯邦巡回法院的意見時，Thomas J. McCarthy教授指出法院可能曲解了“蘭哈姆法案（the Lanham Act）”所定義的通用性測試。例如，蘭哈姆法案規定用于決定一項注冊商標是否成為通用性商標的測試為：“對于相關公眾而言注冊商標的首要意義（Primary significance）……變成了商品或服務的通用性名稱或與之相關的使用”15 U.S.C. § 1064(3)。值得注意的是，蘭哈姆法案并不考慮商標是否指向產品或服務的“關鍵要素”，法案只是檢測商標的首要意義是否為產品或服務的通用性名稱。對通用性商標名稱測試進行擴大，聯邦巡回法院顯然模糊了通用性名稱和描述性名稱的界限。如果一項名稱描述了成分、質量、性質、功能、特征、目的或其使用的產品或服務，該名稱則被考慮為僅具有描述性，TMEP 1209.01(b)。聯邦巡回法院對“零度（Zero）”的通用性測試，既“指向產品的關鍵要素”與描述性商標測試中的“描述質量/特征等”非常接近。因此，法院這一決定可能造成商標權人及法院更難對描述性名稱和通用性名稱進行區分。

描述性名稱和通用性名稱間的區別在商標法中至關重要。一名標識所有人在展示描述性名稱獲得顯著性后是可能獲得商標權的，但通用性名稱無法獲得顯著性。潛在地擴大通用性名稱的目錄，對于獲得顯著性的描述性名稱而言，聯邦巡回法院的做法會對其商標權造成危害。

聯邦巡回法院還發現TTAB在分析“零度（Zero）”一詞的描述性時出現錯誤。雖然TTAB確實陳述了普遍的觀點，既高度的描述性要求更多實質證明其獲得顯著性，法院指責TTAB沒有就“零度（Zero）”一詞的描述程度做出正式調查，并且沒有通過“嚴格角度（Exacting lens）”來評估Coca-Cola的證據。法院撤銷了TTAB關于“零度（Zero）”獲得顯著性的裁決，法院解釋TTAB必須對“名稱的描述程度作出調查，在“通用性”至“僅具有描述性”的范圍內，并且必須解釋是如何評估證據記錄以得出結論的?！?商標從業者在尋求確立高度描述性名稱已獲得顯著性時，應注意聯邦巡回法院的“嚴格角度”證據標準。

附：英文全文

Fight Over ZERO Trademark Remanded Back to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board After Federal Circuit Broadens Test for Generic Trademarks

Should one company have exclusive rights to use the term “Zero” in connection with no-calorie soft drinks?  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has remanded that question back to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), finding that the TTAB erred in its first attempt to resolve that issue.

Royal Crown Company, Inc. and Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. (“Royal Crown”) and The Coca-Cola Co. (“Coca-Cola”) have been involved in a dispute for over a decade concerning Coca-Cola’s attempt to register the term ZERO as part of a brand.  Both Royal Crown and Coca-Cola compete in the beverage market, and both companies use the term ZERO in connection with various beverage products.  For example, Royal Crown uses ZERO in connection with trademarks such as DIET RITE PURE ZERO, while Coca-Cola uses ZERO in connection with trademarks such as COCA-COLA ZERO and SPRITE ZERO.  In practice, both Royal Crown’s and Coca-Cola’s marks are used with minimal or no-calorie drinks.  Both Royal Crown and Coca-Cola filed U.S. federal trademark applications for their respective ZERO brand marks for beverage products.  Royal Crown disclaimed the term ZERO in its applications.  (The entry of a disclaimer does not remove matter from a mark, but is just a statement that the trademark owner does not claim exclusive rights to the matter.)  Coca-Cola did not disclaim ZERO from its applications; rather, it submitted claims of acquired distinctiveness with respect to the term, which were accepted by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Royal Crown filed oppositions against nineteen of Coca-Cola’s ZERO-formative applications beginning in 2007, arguing that the term ZERO is merely descriptive or generic when used in connection with Coca-Cola’s goods.  In essence, Royal Crown was requesting that Coca-Cola be required to disclaim the term apart from Coca-Cola’s marks as a whole.  The oppositions were consolidated, and the TTAB sustained Royal Crown’s opposition in part and dismissed it in part.  In relevant part, the TTAB found that Royal Crown did not establish that ordinary consumers primarily use or understand the term ZERO to refer to the genus of soft drinks, sports drinks, or energy drinks and, therefore, the term was not generic.  Royal Crown Co., Inc. and Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 234, at *37-39 (TTAB May 23, 2016).  The TTAB further found that Coca-Cola established that the descriptive term ZERO had acquired distinctiveness when used as part of a mark for soft drinks, and for syrups, concentrates, and powders for making soft drinks.  The TTAB dismissed Royal Crown’s oppositions to Coca-Cola’s applications on these bases.  Id. at 48, 50.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the TTAB’s dismissal, concluding that the TTAB erred in framing the test for genericness and failed to determine whether Coca-Cola’s ZERO marks were highly descriptive.  Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018).  Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the TTAB asked the wrong question in assessing the alleged genericness of the term ZERO, in that it failed to consider that “a term can be generic for a genus of goods or services if the relevant public . . . understands the term to refer to a key aspect of that genus.” Id. at 1367 (quoting In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 603 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (emphasis in original).  The Federal Circuit went on to explain that “if the public understands ZERO when used in combination with a designated beverage name to refer to a sub-group or type of beverage that carries specific characteristics, that would be enough to render the term generic.” Id. at 1368.  The Federal Circuit also noted that the TTAB did not take into account whether the relevant consuming public would consider the term ZERO to be generic for a subcategory of soft drinks, sports drinks, or energy drinks.  Id.  In its remand, the Federal Circuit instructed that that the TTAB examine “whether ZERO is generic because it refers to a key aspect of at least a sub-group or type” of the class of beverages.  Id.

In commenting upon the Federal Circuit’s opinion, Professor Thomas J. McCarthy noted that the court may have mischaracterized the test for genericness as defined by the Lanham Act.  See, John L. Welch, Professor McCarthy Critiques the CAFC’s ZERO Decision, THE TTABLOG (June 27, 2018) (http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2018/06/professor-mccarthy-critiques-cafcs-zero.html). For example, the Lanham Act states that the test for determining if a registered mark has become generic is whether “[t]he primary significance of the registered to mark to the relevant public . . . has become the generic name of the goods or services on or in connection with which it has been used.”  15 U.S.C. § 1064(3).  Notably, the Lanham Act test does not consider whether the trademark “refers to a key aspect” of the goods or services, it simply examines whether the mark’s primary significance is the generic name of the goods or services.  By broadening the test for genericness, the Federal Circuit appears to blur the line between generic and descriptive marks.  A mark is considered to be merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of the goods or services with which it is used.  See, e.g., TMEP 1209.01(b) (Oct. 2017).  The Federal Circuit’s genericness test for the term ZERO, namely, whether the term “refers to a key aspect” of the goods comes very close to the “describes a quality/feature/etc.” test for descriptive marks.  As a result, this decision may make it more difficult for trademark owners and courts to distinguish between descriptive and generic terms.

The distinction between descriptive and generic terms is of paramount importance in trademark law.  It is possible for a mark owner to obtain trademark rights in a descriptive mark upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness, while generic terms are incapable of acquiring distinctiveness.  By potentially expanding the category of generic terms, the Federal Circuit may be inadvertently endangering trademark rights in descriptive marks that have acquired distinctiveness.

The Federal Circuit also found that the TTAB erred in its analysis of the descriptiveness of the term ZERO.  While the TTAB did describe the general proposition that higher levels of descriptiveness require a more substantial showing of acquired distinctiveness, the Federal Circuit chided the TTAB for its failure to make a formal finding as to the degree to which the term ZERO is descriptive and its failure to assess Coca-Cola’s evidence through an “exacting lens.” Royal Crown Co., 892 F.3d at 1369.  The Federal Circuit vacated the TTAB’s finding on acquired distinctiveness, explaining that the TTAB must make “an express finding regarding the degree of the mark's descriptiveness on the scale ranging from generic to merely descriptive, and it must explain how its assessment of the evidentiary record reflects that finding.”  Id.  Trademark practitioners should take note of the Federal Circuit’s “exacting lens” evidentiary standard when seeking to establish that a highly descriptive term has acquired distinctiveness.

發布：IPRdaily中文網（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Jeffery A. Handelman 律師 及Virginia Wolk Marino律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產權媒體+產業服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產權人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區的高科技公司、成長型科技企業IP高管、研發人員、法務、政府機構、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產業用戶（國內25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質量的技術資源+專利資源，通過媒體構建全球知識產權資產信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網：iprdaily.com  中文官網：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自IPRdaily.cn 中文網并經IPRdaily.cn中文網編輯。轉載此文章須經權利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉載，請注明出處：“http://www.meihaolucy.com/”