广东省贸易摩擦应对综合服务平台
（海外知识产权）

Not All Trademarks Are Created Equal

并非所有商标都一样

More than two decades ago I litigated a case that came to mind immediately upon reading the Westmont Living decision. The case was Commerce Bancorp, Inc. v. Bankatlantic, 285 F. Supp. 2d 475 (D.N.J. 2003) (I represented the defendant). The plaintiff, Commerce (which is now TD Bank), had banking operations in the four-state territory of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware, where it had been using the service mark AMERICA’S MOST CONVENIENT BANK since 1996.  The defendant, Bankatlantic, operated banks only in Florida, where it began using the accused service mark FLORIDA’S MOST CONVENIENT BANK in April 2002.

二十多年前，我参加了一个案件的诉讼，在读到Westmont Living案的判决后，我立刻想到了这个案件。该案是 Commerce Bancorp, Inc. v. Bankatlantic, 285 F. Supp. 2d 475 (D.N.J. 2003)（我代表被告）。原告商业公司（现为道明银行）在新泽西州、纽约州、宾夕法尼亚州和特拉华州四个州境内经营银行业务，自 1996 年以来一直使用 “美国最方便银行 ”服务商标。 被告大西洋银行只在佛罗里达州经营银行，并于 2002 年 4 月开始使用被诉服务商标 “佛罗里达最方便银行”。

But as in Westmont Living, the physical assets did not tell the entire story. As of 2002, Bankatlantic held over $80 million in deposits from customers located in Commerce’s four-state territory. Commerce had run internet promotions for its website, commerceonline.com. Commerce also had run advertisements in the New York Times, which were said to have achieved almost 650,000 gross impressions in Florida in 2002.

但与 Westmont Living 案一样，有形资产并不能说明全部问题。截至 2002 年，大西洋银行持有来自商业银行四州地区客户的 8000 多万美元存款。商业公司为其网站 commerceonline.com 开展了互联网促销活动。商业公司还在《纽约时报》上刊登广告，据说 2002 年在佛罗里达州的广告总印数达到近 65 万次。

Is this starting to sound familiar? Well, the outcome was quite different. The district court granted summary judgment against plaintiff Commerce. (There was no appeal.) What went wrong?

听起来是不是很熟悉？结果却截然不同。地区法院作出了不利于原告商业公司的简易判决（没有上诉。）出了什么问题？

The basic problem for Commerce was that the mark AMERICA’S MOST CONVENIENT BANK was merely descriptive. The court viewed the mark as a laudatory phrase that described Commerce’s banking services. It is axiomatic that a mark which is merely descriptive does not become enforceable unless and until it has acquired secondary meaning. That typically results from significant sales and advertising for a meaningful period of time.

商业公司的基本问题在于 “美国最方便银行 ”商标仅仅是描述性的。法院认为该商标是一个描述商业银行服务的赞美性短语。不言而喻的是，一个仅仅是描述性的商标除非获得了第二含义，否则就不能强制执行。这通常需要在相当长的一段时间内进行大量的销售和广告宣传。

And this is where the geographic distance between the parties did Commerce in. It may well have been true that Commerce’s mark had achieved secondary meaning within Commerce’s four-state territory. But the burden was on Commerce to establish that its mark AMERICA’S MOST CONVENIENT BANK had acquired secondary within Bankatlantic’s Florida territory and that it had been achieved before Bankatlantic began using its accused mark FLORIDA’S MOST CONVENIENT BANK in April 2002. This was a burden Commerce could not and did not meet.

而这正是双方之间的地理距离对 Commerce 造成的影响。商业公司的商标在商业公司的四个州的领土范围内获得了次要含义，这很可能是事实。但是，商业公司有责任证明其商标 “美国最便利银行 ”在大西洋银行的佛罗里达州领土内获得了二级含义，并且是在大西洋银行于2002年4月开始使用其被诉商标 “佛罗里达州最便利银行 ”之前获得的。这是商业公司无法也没有履行的责任。

Commerce, like Westmont Living, did have a federal registration. But Commerce’s registration was on the Supplemental Register, which meant that it enjoyed no presumption of validity or any other benefit of registration on the Principal Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1094. In contrast, in Westmont Living, there was no descriptiveness issue; Westmont Living had incontestable registrations on the Principal Register.

与Westmont Living公司一样，Commerce公司也在联邦注册了商标。但商业公司的注册是在补充注册簿上，这意味着它不享有在主注册簿上注册的有效性推定或任何其他好处。参见 15 U.S.C. §1094。相比之下，在 Westmont Living 案中，不存在描述性问题；Westmont Living 在主注册簿上拥有无可争议的注册。

Where to Now?

何去何从？

In the end, the Westmont Living decision should give some added comfort to trademark owners who are contemplating a suit against a distant competitor. If the parties compete—at least in part—online, the distance between their facilities should not necessarily scuttle the contemplated lawsuit.

归根结底，Westmont Living 案的判决应该给那些考虑对远方竞争对手提起诉讼的商标所有人带来一些安慰。如果双方至少有一部分是在线竞争，那么双方设施之间的距离不一定会影响诉讼。

But such plaintiffs need to be sure that the mark they are asserting is not merely descriptive or another category of marks which requires secondary meaning, such as a surname. And if it has acquired secondary meaning, one should take a careful look at where and when such secondary meaning has been established.

但这些原告需要确定，他们所主张的商标并非仅仅是描述性的，或者是另一种需要第二含义的商标，如姓氏。如果该商标已具有第二含义，则应仔细研究这种第二含义是在何时何地确立的。