1212.06(e)   Miscellaneous Considerations Regarding Evidence Submitted to Establish Distinctiveness

1212.06(e)(i)   First or Only User

When the applicant is the only source of the goods or services, use alone does not automatically represent trademark recognition and acquired distinctiveness. See, e.g., J. Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx & Co., 280 F.2d 437, 440, 126 USPQ 362, 364 (C.C.P.A. 1960); In re Mortg. Bankers Ass’n of Am., 226 USPQ 954, 956 (TTAB 1985); In re Nat'l Shooting Sports Found., Inc., 219 USPQ 1018, 1020 (TTAB 1983); In re Meier’s Wine Cellars, Inc., 150 USPQ 475, 475 (TTAB 1966); In re G. D. Searle & Co., 143 USPQ 220, 223 (TTAB 1964), aff’d, 360 F.2d 650, 149 USPQ 619 (C.C.P.A. 1966).

Similarly, evidence of intentional copying of a product design is not probative of acquired distinctiveness. "Where the proposed mark is a product design, the copier may be attempting to exploit a desirable product feature, rather than seeking to confuse customers as to the source of the product." In re Van Valkenburgh, 97 USPQ2d 1757, 1768 (TTAB 2011).

1212.06(e)(ii)   State Trademark Registrations

State trademark registrations are of relatively little probative value. See, e.g., In re Vico Prods. Mfg. Co., 229 USPQ 364, 370 (TTAB 1985), recon. denied, 229 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1986) ("While applicant’s design may be registrable under the provisions of California trademark law, it is the federal trademark statute and the cases interpreting it by which we must evaluate the registrability of applicant’s asserted mark."); In re Craigmyle, 224 USPQ 791, 794 (TTAB 1984) (finding California trademark registration not controlling with respect to federal registrability).

1212.06(e)(iii)    Design Patent

The fact that a device is the subject of a design patent does not, without more, mean that it functions as a mark or has acquired distinctiveness. In re Vico Prods. Mfg. Co., 229 USPQ 364, 370 (TTAB 1985), recon. denied, 229 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1986) (citing In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1485, 222 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

1212.06(e)(iv)   Acquiescence to Demands of Competitors

Acquiescence to demands of competitors to cease use of a term can be equally viewed as simply a desire to avoid litigation. See, e.g., In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 144 n.2, 196 USPQ 7, 8 n.2 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Consol. Cigar Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (TTAB 1989).