A mark is primarily geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2) if:
- (1) The mark is the name of a place known generally to the public;
- (2) The goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and
- (3) Purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.
Considering all the evidence, the Board conluded that “Smithfield” is a generally known place (i.e., the name of a town in Virginia). Excerpts from the Columbia Gazetteer, Oxford Dictionaries, Wikipedia, applicant’s website, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica indicated that the town is known as the “ham capital of the world.” Moreover, applicant’s prior Section 2(f) claims for the word SMITHFIELD were admissions that the term is not inherently distinctive.
Applicant argued that the legal and factual circumstances have changed since it last claimed acquired distinctiveness for “SMITHFIELD,” However, applicant made such a claim as recently as 2016, and it should have focused on evidence subsequent to that date. Moreover, in the subject application, applicant did not make a Section 2(f) claim but rather relied on the argument that the primary significance of “SMITHFIELD” is applicant itself, not a geographic location. Therefore the evidence of applicant’s renown as the “largest pork processor and hog producer in the world” cannot serve as a basis for allowing registration under Section 2(f).
The Board noted that, although there are larger cities named “Smithfield,” in the context of the subject goods the public is likely to make a goods/place association with Smithfield, Virginia.
Smithfield is a generally known geographic location where well known, if not famous, Smithfield hams are processed. Further, Applicant previously has obtained registrations for SMITHFIELD under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act thereby conceding that SMITHFIELD was not inherently distinctive at least at the time those registrations issued. Applicant has not provided a sufficient explanation for what has changed since the last time Applicant registered SMITHFIELD under Section 2(f) so as to obviate its effective admissions that SMITHFIELD is not inherently distinctive.
The Board accordingly found that “SMITHFIELD” is the name of a place generally known to the public.
Applicant did not dispute that its goods originate in Smithfield, Virginia, Therefore, the Board may presume that the public will make a goods/place association between the mark and the goods. In any case, the Board found it undisputed that Smithfield, Virginia is known for specialty hams, and consumers are likely to believe that other products such as meat, lard, and offal are an expansion from applicant’s traditional product line. Concluding that there is a “reasonable predicate or basis to find that the public will believe that meat (other than Smithfield ham), lard and offal originate in Smithfield, Virginia,” the Board found that there is a goods/place association as required by Section 2(e)(2).
Therefore, the Board affirmed the refusal.
In a concurring opinion Judge Dunn would find the goods/place association not only on the evidence of the renown of Smithfield Ham, but also on the evidence that “ties Smithfield to pork products and byproducts, and so there is a direct goods/place association between Smithfield and meat, lard, and offals.”
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: I’m a bit confused. “Smithfield Ham” seems to be a generic term. How, then, does this applicant own a registration for SMITHFIELD for hams?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.