Search the Archives           Subscribe           About this News Service           Reader Comments


Archived updates for Thursday, August 10, 2006

MOHAWK for Tribe Member's Cigarettes Suggests False Connection

Thanks to John Welch at the TTABlog for uncovering In re White, Serial No. 78146926 (TTAB July 20, 2006) where the Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark MOHAWK in connection with cigarettes by a tribe member, finding that it falsely suggests a connection with the federally-recognized St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York.


Section 2(a) of the U.S. Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark if it "consists of or comprises … matter which may … falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols. It is intended to protect the name of an individual or institution which is not a ‘technical’ trademark or ‘trade name’ upon which an objection could be made under Section 2(d). It also embraces the concepts of the right of privacy and the related right of publicity. To support a refusal under the "falsely suggests a connection" clause of Section 2(a), it is the examining attorney’s burden to show:
  1. that the mark is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity previously used by another person or institution;
  2. the mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution;
  3. the person or institution named by the mark is not connected with the activities performed by applicant under the mark; and
  4. the fame or reputation of the person or institution is such that, when the mark is used with the applicant’s goods or services, a connection with the person or institution would be presumed.
On the third factor, the Applicant argued that she is a member of the Mohawk tribe, that the Mohawk tribe issued a certificate to applicant’s employer, Native American Trading Associates, to manufacture and sell cigarettes, and that she has in turn licensed use of her MOHAWK mark to Native American Trading Associates.

However, according to the opinion by Administrative Trademark Judge Hairston:

. . . applicant is but one member of the tribe, and more than one individual can correctly claim a connection to the Mohawk tribe. To overcome a Section 2(a) refusal in such a situation, a general commercial connection between the applicant and the institution is insufficient. Rather, the commercial connection must be specific and relate to the particular goods and services. In other words, there must be a specific endorsement, sponsorship or the like of the particular goods and services, whether written or implied.

On the facts of this case, we find that a specific commercial connection between applicant and the Mohawk tribe has not been proven. The license and d/b/a certificate issued by the Mohawk tribe to Native American Trading Associates is not evidence that the tribe endorses or is a sponsor of the cigarettes applicant intends to sell. We note that the license is general in nature and simply states that Native American Trading Associates has agreed to the rules and regulations regarding the manufacturing of tobacco products on the Mohawk tribe’s reservation. The d/b/a certificate also is general in nature and states that Native American Trading Associates has requested and been approved to operate a tobacco manufacturing business on the reservation. Neither of these documents, however, is a specific endorsement or sponsorship of Native American Trading Associates’ activities, and in turn, the cigarettes applicant intends to sell. Thus, we find that these documents do not evidence a specific commercial connection between applicant and the Mohawk tribe.

Further, this is not a situation where we can imply a specific commercial connection between applicant and the Mohawk tribe. While the tribe is undoubtedly aware of Native American Trading Associates’ tobacco manufacturing activities, there is no evidence of a long-standing mutual relationship between Native American Trading Associates and the tribe. On the contrary, both the license and d/b/a certificate were issued in 2004 and both are for relatively short periods of time. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Mohawk tribe has openly advanced Native American Trading Associates’ tobacco manufacturing activities. In short, this is not a situation where we can imply that the Mohawk tribe has specifically endorsed Native American Trading Associates’ tobacco manufacturing activities, and in turn, the cigarettes applicant intends to sell.

The awarding of a federal registration to applicant individually for the mark MOHAWK for cigarettes would amount to the awarding of the tribe’s "imprimatur" to the mark. In the absence of a specific commercial connection between the Mohawk tribe and applicant with respect to the goods involved herein, namely, cigarettes, we are unable to find the kind of commercial connection contemplated by Section 2(a).

    (1)comment(s)     translate     More Updates     Send    

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^Thanks!!

婚前徵信婚姻感情大陸抓姦外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚工商徵信婚前徵信外遇抓姦感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦離婚家暴工商徵信法律諮詢跟蹤工商徵信婚前徵信感情挽回外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴尋人大陸抓姦離婚大陸抓姦外遇尋人家暴工商徵信法律諮詢家暴感情挽回大陸抓姦外遇婚前徵信離婚尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信大陸抓姦尋人感情挽回外遇抓姦婚前徵信感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦工商徵信法律諮詢離婚家暴工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢離婚感情挽回婚前徵信外遇抓姦家暴尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回">徵大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢

April 07, 2009 2:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home