Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me! "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Abercrombie & Fitch v Hunting World, 537 F.2d 4 (2nd Cir 1976) PLAINTIFF: Abercrombie & Fitch's (A&F) motto was "The Greatest Sporting Goods Store in the World". The owner of well-known stores at Madison Avenue and 45th Street in New York City and seven places in other states in 1976. A&F had spent large sums of money in advertising and promoting products identified with its mark 'Safari' and in policing its right in the mark, including the successful conduct of trademark infringement suits. DEFENDANT : Hunting World, Incorporated, operated a competing store on East 53rd Street. HW was engaged in the retail marketing of sporting apparel including hats and shoes, some identified by use of 'Safari' alone or by expressions such as 'Minisafari' and 'Safariland'. HW filed an answer and counterclaim. This alleged, inter alia, that "the word 'safari' is an ordinary, common, descriptive, geographic, and generic word" which "is commonly used and understood by the public to mean and refer to a journey or expedition, especially for hunting or exploring in East Africa, and to the hunters, guides, men, animals, and equipment forming such an expedition" and is not subject to exclusive appropriation as a trademark. HW sought cancellation of all of A&F's registrations using the word 'Safari' on the ground that A&F had fraudulently failed to disclose the true nature of the term to the Patent Office. Judge Ryan, before whom the action was tried on remand, ruled broadly in HW's favor. He found there was frequent use of the word 'Safari' in connection with wearing apparel, that A&F's policing efforts thus had evidently been unsuccessful, and that A&F had itself used the term in a descriptive sense not covered by its registration. He found the mark to be invalid. 'Safari,' the court held, "is merely descriptive and does not serve to distinguish plaintiff's goods as listed on the registration from anybody else's"; while such terms are afforded protection by the Lanham Act if they come to identify the company merchandising the product, rather than the product itself, A&F had failed to establish that this had become the situation with respect to 'Safari'. The court entered a judgment which dismissed the complaint and canceled not only the four registered trademarks in suit but all A&F's other registered 'Safari' trademarks. A&F appealed.. The court of appeals held that the district court was correct in dismissing the complaint. However, the court of appeals restored most of the A&F trademarks that were cancelled because they were deemed incontestable and HW had failed to prove otherwise. In addition, A&F was not using those trademarks descriptively.