Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

injunctionappealtrademarknonprofit
trademark

Related Cases

Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1, 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385
View Case »
Marketquest Group, Inc. v. BIC Corp., 862 F.3d 927, 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1500, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6686, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6694
View Case »
Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1840
View Case »
M.Z. Berger & Co., Inc. v. Swatch AG, 787 F.3d 1368, 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1892
View Case »
VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., 953 F.3d 1170, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2820, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2895
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Blinded Veterans Ass’n v. Blinded American Veterans Foundation, 872 F.2d 1035, 277 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 57 USLW 2628, 57 USLW 2644, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1432

Facts

The Blinded Veterans Association (BVA), a nonprofit organization founded to support blinded veterans, sought to prevent the Blinded American Veterans Foundation (BAVF) from using a similar name. BVA argued that BAVF's name was confusingly similar and would mislead the public into thinking BAVF was affiliated with BVA. The district court initially ruled in favor of BVA, finding trademark infringement and issuing an injunction against BAVF. However, on appeal, the court determined that the term 'blinded veterans' was generic and not entitled to trademark protection, leading to a remand for further proceedings regarding potential passing off by BAVF.

The Blinded Veterans Association (BVA) sought to enjoin the Blinded American Veterans Foundation (BAVF) from using the words 'blinded' and 'veterans' in its name and from using the initials 'BAV' as an acronym.

Issue

Whether the term 'blinded veterans' is a generic term not entitled to trademark protection and whether BAVF's use of the name constitutes passing off.

Whether the term 'blinded veterans' is a generic term not entitled to trademark protection and whether BAVF's use of the name constitutes passing off.

Rule

Analysis

The court analyzed the term 'blinded veterans' and concluded that it is generic, as it is commonly used to refer to former service members who have lost their sight. The court noted that BVA's own evidence demonstrated the generic nature of the term. While BVA's name could not be protected as a trademark, the court acknowledged that BAVF could still be liable for passing off if it misled the public into believing it was BVA. The case was remanded to determine if BAVF's actions constituted passing off.

The first category consists of 'generic' terms. A generic term is one commonly used to denote a product or other item or entity, one that indicates the thing itself, rather than any particular feature or exemplification of it. See Liquid Controls Corp. v. Liquid Control Corp., 802 F.2d 934, 936 (7th Cir.1986); accord Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir.1976).

Conclusion

The appellate court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to assess whether BAVF was passing itself off as BVA.

We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for consideration of BVA's 'passing off' claim.

Who won?

The appellate court ruled in favor of BAVF by vacating the district court's injunction against it. The court found that the term 'blinded veterans' was generic and thus not entitled to trademark protection, which meant BAVF could not be enjoined from using the name. However, the court left open the possibility for BVA to pursue a claim of passing off, indicating that while BAVF could use the term, it must not mislead the public into thinking it was BVA.

You must be