Ausable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Solutions, Inc.

Citation902 F.3d 567
Decision Date29 August 2018
Docket NumberNo. 18-1368,18-1368
Parties AUSABLE RIVER TRADING POST, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOVETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC.; Tawas Area Chamber of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

ON BRIEF: Ronald R. Tyler, TYLER & TYLER, P.C., East Tawas, Michigan, for Appellant. Robert G. Kamenec, TAWAS AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellee Tawas Area Chamber of Commerce.

Before: SUTTON, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge.

Every winter for the last sixty years or so, Tawas, Michigan has become the home of the "Perchville" festival, replete with a polar bear swim and a fishing contest. The Tawas Area Chamber of Commerce organizes the annual February event and has registered the name Perchville as a trademark. A local company—the AuSable River Trading Post—wants to make Perchville-branded tee-shirts, and sued the Chamber to invalidate its mark. The district court declined. Because "Perchville" is a distinctive term eligible for protection under the Lanham Act, we affirm.

I.

Tawas rests on the shores of Lake Huron, about an hour south (by car) from Alpena. Like many towns, it has a chamber of commerce. The Tawas Area Chamber of Commerce has organized the Perchville festival for many decades. In 2002, the organization decided to register "Perchville" as a trademark for apparel and other goods. It has kept the registration ever since, with one exception. The registration accidentally expired in 2013, after which the Chamber reapplied and obtained a new registration in February 2015. While dues-paying members of the Chamber of Commerce may use the Perchville mark, non-members must pay a licensing fee to use it.

The Trading Post operates a two-part business. It prints words or images onto goods that it sells wholesale to retailers, and it sells some merchandise in its own retail store. In October 2015, the Trading Post’s owner asked about using the Perchville mark. After learning that the Trading Post would have to pay a $750 fee to use the mark, the owner decided to produce Perchville-branded tee-shirts without the Chamber’s permission.

When the Chamber learned what was going on, it obtained a state court injunction against one of the Trading Post’s employees. The Trading Post in response filed this separate action in state court against the Chamber and its third-party management company, Dovetail Solutions, seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating the Perchville mark under federal law. The Chamber removed the action to federal court.

The district court granted the Chamber’s motion for summary judgment and concluded that the prior state court injunction against the Trading Post employee prevented his employer from relitigating the dispute. On appeal, this court reversed, holding that the injunction against the employee did not apply to the Trading Post. See AuSable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Sols., Inc. , 874 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 2017).

On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the Chamber of Commerce, holding that "Perchville" is an inherently distinctive mark suitable for trademark protection. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Trading Post’s remaining state law claims and remanded them to state court. The Trading Post appealed.

II.

The Lanham Act protects trademarks, defined as "any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof" that a person uses "to identify and distinguish his or her goods" in the marketplace. 15 U.S.C. § 1127.

Case law refines all of this in several ways. On the unprotected side of things, a generic term, such as "light beer," or a purely descriptive word, such as "tasty," does not receive trademark protection. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. , 505 U.S. 763, 768–69, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) ; 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§ 11:18, 12:18 (5th ed. 2018). On the protected side of things, two types of distinctive marks receive protection: (1) inherently distinctive marks; and (2) descriptive marks that become distinctive when they become associated with a particular good over time. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc. , 529 U.S. 205, 210–11, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 146 L.Ed.2d 182 (2000) ; Two Pesos , 505 U.S. at 768–69, 112 S.Ct. 2753.

Refining things further, case law divides inherently distinctive marks into three types: (1) arbitrary, (2) fanciful, and (3) suggestive. Arbitrary marks consist of real words that possess a meaning unrelated to the product. Think Camel cigarettes or Apple computers. Champions Golf Club, Inc. v. The Champions Golf Club, Inc. , 78 F.3d 1111, 1117 (6th Cir. 1996). Fanciful marks are made-up words. Think Kodak film. Id. Suggestive marks are words or phrases that require "imagination and perception to determine the nature of the goods." Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc. , 694 F.3d 723, 730 (6th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). Think "Old Spice" products, which require a consumer to imagine how "old spices" smell. All three types of marks share this attribute: "[T]heir intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product." Two Pesos , 505 U.S. at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753.

We can illustrate these concepts by reference to trademarks with respect to places and events—the context of today’s case. As a general rule, the Lanham Act makes it difficult to trademark a geographic name, such as Manhattan, New York or Tawas, Michigan. The Act also makes it difficult to trademark purely descriptive terms, such as "Boston Beer." Boston Beer Co. Ltd. P’ship v. Slesar Bros. Brewing Co. , 9 F.3d 175, 181 (1st Cir. 1993) ; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2) (prohibiting the registration of "primarily geographically descriptive" marks). But exceptions exist. A geographic name may acquire a secondary meaning among consumers that ties the name to a product. 2 McCarthy § 14:1. Think of "Poland Spring" bottled water, which in part comes from a spring in Poland, Maine but today refers to a single company’s bottled water.

Events that occur in a specific place, such as a festival, differ. A festival might feature just the name of the area that hosts it, say a concert in Woodstock, New York in 1969, making it more difficult to trademark. But a festival also can bear an arbitrary, fanciful, or suggestive name. Think of the "Sundance Film Festival." When that happens, the festival’s name earns trademark protection as an inherently distinctive mark.

An entity may register a mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Once registered, a mark becomes presumptively valid, see Wal-Mart , 529 U.S. at 209, 120 S.Ct. 1339, placing the burden of proof and production on anyone challenging the mark, see Fuji Kogyo Co. v. Pac. Bay Int’l, Inc. , 461 F.3d 675, 683 (6th Cir. 2006).

The Trading Post has not rebutted that presumption. No matter how you slice it, the term "Perchville" is inherently distinctive. The name does not refer to a place. It serves only "to identify a particular" event, namely the annual winter festival in Tawas. Two Pesos , 505 U.S. at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753. The word almost certainly counts as fanciful, and at the very least is sufficiently suggestive to qualify as an inherently distinctive trademark.

"Perchville" bears a classic feature of a fanciful mark. Someone made up the name "for the sole purpose of serving as a trademark." 2 McCarthy § 11:5. According to a longtime Tawas-area journalist and business owner, Perchville’s founders coined the name in 1949. The word bears no independent meaning. You cannot find "Perchville" in a dictionary or use it outside of Tawas in everyday conversation. Even the Trading Post admits that "Perchville" refers only to "the annual winter festival in Tawas." Appellant’s Br. 11.

Unlike a typical fanciful word, Perchville is not nonsense and so also qualifies as a suggestive mark. The name "Perchville" consists of a mash-up of two otherwise real expressions: the fish "perch" plus the suffix "-ville," used to signify "the names of fictitious places or concepts denoting a particular quality." The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 826 (R.W. Burchfield ed., 3d rev. ed. 1998). The meaning of the innovation is not intuitive. Astute listeners, as the district court observed, might wonder whether the "term refers to something like a gathering of fishermen." R. 36 at 11. But even that requires "imagination and perception," making Perchville the type of inherently distinctive name that the Lanham Act protects. Innovation Ventures , 694 F.3d at 730.

The Trading Post advances four arguments for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 2 Noviembre 2018
    ...more difficult to trademark a brand of goods and services based around the rally and the area. Cf. AuSable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Sols., Inc. , 902 F.3d 567, 570 (6th Cir. 2018). We thus conclude that the jury could not possibly infer from those uses of the word "Sturgis"—by wh......
  • Cernelle v. Graminex
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 4 Febrero 2020
    ...to resume such use,’ or that the mark has become a ‘generic name for the goods or services.’ " Ausable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Sols., Inc. , 902 F.3d 567, 571-72 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1127 ). The injunction provides the plaintiff with global protection, so the ext......
  • Bunkley v. City of Detroit
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 29 Agosto 2018
    ...... were too old; and Bunkley’s Facebook-post alibi. Penney testified that he relied on ...Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d ......
  • Tailgate Beer, LLC v. Boulevard Brewing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 16 Octubre 2019
    ...suggestive, arbitrary[,] and fanciful terms are regarded as being inherently distinctive."). Accord Ausable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Sols., Inc., 902 F.3d 567, 570 (6th Cir. 2018) (noting, as to arbitrary and fanciful, as well as descriptive, have an intrinsic nature that serves ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • AGAINST SECONDARY MEANING.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 98 No. 1, November 2022
    • 1 Noviembre 2022
    ...https://www.dictionary.com/browse/segue [https://perma.cc/Y354-4RDM]. (158) Ausable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Sols., Inc., 902 F.3d 567, 571 (6th Cir. 2018) (acknowledging, however, that the mark might thus be suggestive). (159) A & H Sportswear Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Store......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT