Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit • 1963

King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Incorporated

321 F.2d 577 | 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4660

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, a trademark’s primary meaning to consumers controls: once it names the product rather than its maker, competitors may use it, subject to safeguards against confusion.

Background

King-Seeley owned trademark registrations for “Thermos” and sued to stop Aladdin from selling vacuum-insulated containers as “thermos bottles.” Aladdin argued that “thermos” had become the public’s generic name for the product.

The district court held that King-Seeley’s registrations remained valid but that the word’s predominant public meaning was generic. It allowed Aladdin to use “thermos” under restrictions designed to prevent confusion. King-Seeley appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether King-Seeley could prevent a competitor from using “thermos” when most consumers understood it as the name of a kind of container rather than its source.

Holding

No. The word’s primary significance to the public was generic, so King-Seeley could not claim exclusive use of it to describe vacuum-insulated containers.

Reasoning

The controlling question is what buyers understand the word to mean. A word becomes generic when its principal significance is the kind of product, rather than the product’s source. Some continuing recognition as a trademark does not preserve exclusive rights if the generic meaning predominates.

The evidence showed that people commonly called vacuum-insulated containers “thermoses.” A survey found that about 75% of adults familiar with such containers used that term, while only a minority recognized its trademark significance. The record supported the district court’s finding that the word’s primary meaning was generic.

The availability of “vacuum bottle” as another name did not change what consumers meant by “thermos.” Nor did the court need to decide whether King-Seeley was at fault for the change in meaning: despite its efforts to protect the mark, the public had adopted the word as a generic term.

Issue #2

Whether Aladdin’s use of the generic word “thermos” could be restricted to protect consumers who still recognized it as a trademark.

Holding

Yes. Aladdin could use the word, but only under conditions designed to distinguish its products from King-Seeley’s.

Reasoning

Although the generic meaning predominated, a minority of consumers and a substantial part of the trade still understood “Thermos” as a trademark. That continuing association justified measures to reduce confusion, even though it could not give King-Seeley a monopoly over the word.

The decree required Aladdin to use a lowercase “thermos” preceded by the possessive “Aladdin’s,” and barred it from calling its product “original” or “genuine.” King-Seeley retained exclusive use of its existing trademark forms. The court held that these limits fairly balanced competition against the risk of deceiving buyers.