71:("TMEP") states the test for applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents is "whether, to those American buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would denote its English equivalent". With respect to descriptive or generic marks, the TMEP specifies that in determining whether a foreign term is entitled to registration, "he test is whether, to those American buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would have a descriptive or generic connotation". However, "foreign words from dead or obscure languages may be so unfamiliar to the American buying public that they should not be translated into English for descriptiveness purposes." This test is also applied by courts to determine "whether that foreign word would be descriptive of the product to that segment of the purchasing public which is familiar with that language."
78:. The Federal Circuit has recently clarified the applicability of the doctrine of foreign equivalents in likelihood of confusion cases, stating that "When it is unlikely that an American buyer will translate the foreign mark and will take it as it is, then the doctrine of foreign equivalents will not be applied". The court noted that "the doctrine of foreign equivalents is not an absolute rule and should be viewed merely as a guideline". Instead "he doctrine should be applied only when it is likely that the ordinary American purchaser would "stop and translate into its English equivalent". The Federal Circuit specifically found that "it is improbable that the average American purchaser would stop and translate '
31:
172:, a court rejected as irrelevant the generic use of the term "Greengrocer" in Britain for a retailer of fruit. The defendant argued that the trademark "Greengrocer", which is a generic term in Britain for a retailer of fruits and vegetables, was not entitled to protection as a trademark in the United States. The court rejected this argument on the ground that it is irrelevant how a term is used outside the United States: "The parties agree that the term is generic in Britain. Since we deal here with American trademark law, and thus American consumers, neither British usage nor the dictionary definition indicating such usage are determinative."
181:
purchasing public which is familiar with that language.'" General Cigar Co. v. G.D.M. Inc., 988 F. Supp. 647, 660 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (quoting 1 McCarthy § 11.14, p. 464-65). In that case, the court found that the strength of the Cohiba mark was not diminished by the fact that Cohiba is the Taino Indian word for tobacco, because the Taino language was an obscure language. The court noted:
230:". Green Spot argued that its senior Chinese character mark was the equivalent of Vitamilk, and that Green Spot's ownership of the senior mark gave it the right to own the equivalent English mark. The TTAB refused to apply the doctrine of foreign equivalents, because the transliterations of "vi" and "ta" had no actual translation from Chinese to English.
180:
TMEP § 1209.03(g) expresses the caveat that "foreign words from dead or obscure languages may be so unfamiliar to the
American buying public that they should not be translated into English for descriptiveness purposes." Emphasis added. "Descriptiveness is evaluated according to 'that segment of the
118:
and held that the ordinary
American purchaser includes only purchasers "familiar with the foreign language." This narrow definition of "ordinary American purchaser" effectively guaranteed that the doctrine would be applied in nearly every case involving a foreign word since "those proficient in a
50:
to translate foreign words in determining whether they are registrable as trademarks, or confusingly similar with existing marks. The doctrine is intended to protect consumers within the United States from confusion or deception caused by the use of terms in different languages. In some cases, a
93:
case suggests that it is the same test stating "nder the doctrine of foreign equivalents, foreign words from common languages are translated into
English to determine genericness, descriptiveness, as well as similarity of connotation in order to ascertain confusing similarity with English word
325:, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (finding a likelihood of confusion between the marks, and noting that "iven large number of people fluent in Spanish in the South Florida area, the Spanish translation is likely to be recognized as the equivalent by South Florida consumers").
185:
A word which is not in general or common use, and is unintelligible and non-descriptive to the general public, although it may be known to linguists and scientist, may be properly regarded as arbitrary and fanciful and capable of being used as a trademark or
165:, the court stated that "hile plaintiff has sought to show that Seiko is a generic term in Japanese, it is not so recognized in this country. Accordingly, the mark must still be regarded as arbitrary and fanciful in the United States."
293:
103:
238:
The doctrine has been criticized in recent years. Commentators have noted that courts have "reached irreconcilable holdings" in applying the doctrine. It has also been suggested that the doctrine be abolished.
222:, which was the owner of a senior registration. Green Spot also owned a mark in Chinese characters for which the first sets of characters were transliterations of "vi" and "ta" with no meaning in
106:, the Federal Circuit held that the doctrine of foreign equivalents only applies when the "ordinary American purchaser" is likely to translate the foreign mark into English. A short time after
21:
This article discusses the trademark doctrine regarding translation of foreign words. For the patent doctrine regarding equivalent means to practice an invention, see
30:
190:
Nevertheless, cases exist where trademark registration has been rejected for a word that was generic or descriptive when translated from a language such as
519:
68:
157:
Cases have noted that the status accorded to words in foreign countries has no bearing on the registration of marks in the U.S. For example, in
514:
141:
court limited its ruling to the doctrine's application with respect to the geographic deceptiveness bar, the Board currently applies the
210:
of an
English mark, the TTAB has held that there is nothing to translate, and the doctrine of foreign equivalents is not invoked. In
111:
398:
59:
of the goods in a foreign language, or which shares the same meaning as an existing mark to speakers of that foreign language.
43:
161:, the court rejected as irrelevant the generic usage of the phrase "L.A. beer" in Australia for low alcohol beer. In
483:
Lost in
Translation: A Critical Examination of Conflicting Decisions Applying the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents
127:
168:
Furthermore, " number of cases hold that a term may be generic in one country and suggestive in another". In
75:
22:
215:
372:
349:
130:, a geographic deceptiveness case, the Federal Circuit held that the ordinary American purchaser "
145:
definition of ordinary
American purchaser in cases of geographic deceptiveness refusals and the
334:
482:
223:
207:
119:
non-English language . . . would ordinarily be expected to translate words into
English."
56:
361:
508:
195:
52:
298:
313:, citing In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 U.S.P.Q. 109, 110 (T.T.A.B. 1976).
294:
Palm Bay
Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772
219:
79:
495:
385:
419:
Seiko
Sporting Goods USA, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten
163:
Seiko
Sporting Goods USA, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten
191:
83:
227:
122:
At its next opportunity, however, the Federal Circuit abrogated
47:
74:
It is unclear whether the test differs for asserted cases of
214:, the TTAB considered the application of the doctrine where
29:
345:
343:
470:
Green Spot (Thailand) Ltd. v. Vitasoy Int'l Holdings Ltd.
212:
Green Spot (Thailand) Ltd. v. Vitasoy Int'l Holdings Ltd.
134:, including those proficient in a non-English language."
226:, while the third, 奶 (nai) was the Chinese word for "
496:
The Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents at Death's Door
386:
The Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents at Death's Door
218:sought to register "Vitamilk", and was opposed by
51:party will use a word as a mark which is either
183:
388:, 12 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 159, 185-87 (2010)
114:interpreted "ordinary American purchaser" in
8:
472:Opposition No. 91165010 (February 21, 2008).
444:, 205 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1075 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
375:, 563 F.3d 1347, 1356 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
288:
286:
284:
282:
430:Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co.
399:Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co.
337:, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1021, 1024 (T.T.A.B. 2006)
159:Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co.
421:, 545 F. Supp. 221, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
402:, 750 F.2d 631, 641-42 (8th Cir. 1984).
352:, 563 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
248:
69:Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure
323:See also Popular Bank v. Banco Popular
276:, 747 F.2d 1522, 1531 (4th Cir. 1984).
498:, 12 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 159 (2010)
7:
432:, 750 F.2d 631, 642 (8th Cir. 1984).
202:Transliterations versus translations
153:Status of words in foreign countries
458:quoting Le Blume Import co. v. Coty
460:, 293 F. 344, 358 (2d Cir. 1923)).
14:
442:Carcione v. The Greengrocer, Inc.
170:Carcione v. The Greengrocer, Inc.
132:includes all American purchasers
485:, 96 Trademark Rep. 1211 (2006)
98:The Ordinary American Purchaser
40:doctrine of foreign equivalents
520:Legal doctrines and principles
149:definition to all other bars.
46:which requires courts and the
1:
274:Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple
515:United States trademark law
362:TMEP 1210.01(b); 1210.01(c)
128:In re Spirits International
44:United States trademark law
536:
206:Where a word is a foreign
176:Dead and obscure languages
34:Official seal of the USPTO
373:In re Spirits Int’l, N.V.
350:In re Spirits Int’l, N.V.
456:, 988 F. Supp. at 660 (
297:, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (
76:likelihood of confusion
23:Doctrine of equivalents
188:
35:
255:TMEP § 1207.01(b)(vi)
137:However, because the
42:is a rule applied in
33:
16:Rule in trademark law
481:Elizabeth J. Rest,
102:As noted above, in
57:merely descriptive
36:
264:TMEP § 1209.03(g)
110:was decided, the
527:
499:
492:
486:
479:
473:
467:
461:
451:
445:
439:
433:
427:
417:
412:
403:
395:
389:
382:
376:
370:
364:
359:
353:
347:
338:
332:
326:
320:
314:
311:Palm Bay Imports
308:
302:
290:
277:
271:
265:
262:
256:
253:
91:Palm Bay Imports
535:
534:
530:
529:
528:
526:
525:
524:
505:
504:
503:
502:
494:Serge Krimnus,
493:
489:
480:
476:
468:
464:
452:
448:
440:
436:
428:
424:
415:
406:
396:
392:
384:Serge Krimnus,
383:
379:
371:
367:
360:
356:
348:
341:
333:
329:
321:
317:
309:
305:
291:
280:
272:
268:
263:
259:
254:
250:
245:
236:
208:transliteration
204:
178:
155:
100:
65:
17:
12:
11:
5:
533:
531:
523:
522:
517:
507:
506:
501:
500:
487:
474:
462:
446:
434:
422:
404:
390:
377:
365:
354:
339:
327:
315:
303:
278:
266:
257:
247:
246:
244:
241:
235:
232:
203:
200:
177:
174:
154:
151:
99:
96:
64:
61:
28:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
532:
521:
518:
516:
513:
512:
510:
497:
491:
488:
484:
478:
475:
471:
466:
463:
459:
455:
454:General Cigar
450:
447:
443:
438:
435:
431:
426:
423:
420:
418:
411:
410:
405:
401:
400:
394:
391:
387:
381:
378:
374:
369:
366:
363:
358:
355:
351:
346:
344:
340:
336:
331:
328:
324:
319:
316:
312:
307:
304:
300:
296:
295:
289:
287:
285:
283:
279:
275:
270:
267:
261:
258:
252:
249:
242:
240:
233:
231:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
201:
199:
197:
196:Ancient Greek
193:
187:
182:
175:
173:
171:
166:
164:
160:
152:
150:
148:
144:
140:
135:
133:
129:
126:in part. In
125:
120:
117:
113:
109:
105:
97:
95:
92:
87:
85:
81:
77:
72:
70:
62:
60:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
32:
26:
24:
19:
18:
490:
477:
469:
465:
457:
453:
449:
441:
437:
429:
425:
414:
413:
409:
408:
397:
393:
380:
368:
357:
335:In re Thomas
330:
322:
318:
310:
306:
292:
273:
269:
260:
251:
237:
211:
205:
189:
184:
179:
169:
167:
162:
158:
156:
146:
142:
138:
136:
131:
123:
121:
116:In re Thomas
115:
107:
101:
90:
88:
73:
66:
63:Test applied
39:
37:
20:
186:trade-name.
509:Categories
243:References
216:Green Spot
299:Fed. Cir.
234:Criticism
112:T.T.A.B.
108:Palm Bay
104:Palm Bay
94:marks."
82:' into '
224:Chinese
220:Vitasoy
143:Spirits
139:Spirits
53:generic
147:Thomas
124:Thomas
301:2005)
192:Latin
84:widow
80:VEUVE
228:milk
89:The
86:'".
67:The
48:TTAB
38:The
194:or
55:or
511::
342:^
281:^
198:.
416:'
407:'
25:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
