United States: Federal Circuit Repairs 'Cracked' Pretzel Logic

Last Updated: July 17 2015
Article by Scott J. Slavick

Vacates TTAB decision on pretzel crisps, remands under Marvin Ginn

A fundamental precept in trademark law is that an applicant cannot receive registration if an applied-for mark is simply descriptive of the goods or services in connection with which it is to be used. A mark must be inherently distinctive, allowing the user to distinguish its goods and services from others' similar ones. 

This precludes registration for generic marks. In its precedential holding in the trademark touchstone Marvin Ginn case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained: "Determining whether a mark is generic ... involves a two-step inquiry: First, what is the genus of goods or services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be registered or retained on the register understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?" See H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 

In a recent precedential decision, a unanimous Federal Circuit panel vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) decision holding the mark Pretzel Crisps to be generic for "pretzel crackers," and remanded the case to the TTAB for application of the legal standard set forth in Marvin Ginn. The court concluded that the board had failed to consider evidence of the relevant public's understanding of the term pretzel crisps in its entirety. See Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Appeal No. 14-1517 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2015). 

The critical issue in cases that seek to establish if the word or words used in a trademark sought to be registered for a commercial product or service are to be considered generic is whether members of the relevant public primarily use or understand that mark to refer to the genus of the applied-for goods or services in question. 

In this case, the parties did not disagree that the genus of goods at issue was pretzel crackers and the relevant public were ordinary consumers who purchase and eat these types of crackers. Both the appellant and the respondent had conducted and entered as evidence their own experts' surveys of consumers to defend their respective positions. 

The TTAB had held that to determine if an applied-for mark was generic, it had to determine whether the applied-for trademark is generic as a whole. But the board went on to cite a different case, In re Gould, for the holding that when the applied-for mark is a "compound term"— that is, a trademark made up of a combination of two or more words in ordinary grammatical construction — then the board only has to consider the meanings of the words that make up the compound term. If the applied-for mark is a phrase, however, the board's previous holding in American Fertility requires the board to examine the meaning of the disputed phrase in its entirety. 

Compound term? Phrase? The Court of Appeals held that there was no such dichotomy. It explained that the error in the board's analysis was that there is only one legal test to determine if a trademark is generic, namely, the two-part test articulated in Marvin Ginn. Regardless of whether the applied-for mark is a compound term or a phrase, the right test to determine if it is generic is to consider the evidence of the public's understanding of the mark as a whole. See Am. Fertility, 188 F.3d at 1348-49. 

The court also explained that its decision in In re Gould was meant to assist in assessing the genericness of compound terms where evidence shows that the relevant public understands the individual terms to be generic and that putting those terms together to create a compound term does not create any new meaning. The analysis in In re Gould, it said, was not meant to be seen as a shortcut or as a correction of the two-part test in Marvin Ginn

The panel ruling also explained that while analyzing the public's understanding of the constituent words of a compound term may be a useful first step in determining whether a mark is generic, it is only the first step. The board should go on and consider the recorded evidence regarding the public's understanding as to whether joining the words together creates any additional meaning. 

In contrast, in Vanguard, the board had held pretzel crisps to be a compound term, not a phrase, and evaluated the individual terms under the In re Gould standard. The Court of Appeals stated in its discussion that it did not understand why the board analyzed pretzel and crisps separately when the evidence before the board was full of evidence of the public's perception of the term pretzel crisps as a whole.

The Federal Circuit was also troubled that after analyzing the constituent words under In re Gould, the board did not go into any detail into how it also analyzed pretzel crisps as a phrase. The board had simply held that if it had analyzed pretzel crisps as a phrase, then it still would have held it generic because the relevant public would have understood it to be so for pretzel crackers. The Federal Circuit, however, found no evidence that the board had conducted the required step of comparing the board's findings with respect to the individual words to the recorded evidence demonstrating the public's understanding of the combined term.

In sum, therefore, the Federal Circuit panel found that the TTAB had applied the incorrect legal standard and ordered on remand that the board must consider the evidence concerning the relevant public's understanding of pretzel crisps in its entirety. The court's opinion was that the evidentiary record before the board provide significant evidence for it to consider, in the form of declarations, survey evidence, and evidence of use of the phrase in the snack food industry and by the media.

The court also explained that though the board is not required to discuss every piece of evidence put before it, the TTAB cannot simply focus on evidence of what the word crisps means in isolation, then select a few pieces of evidence involving the combined term pretzel crisps, and conclude that the phrase as a trademark is generic. 

The appeals court appeared particularly troubled that the TTAB disregarded Princeton Vanguard's survey evidence without any explanation. Based on its opinion, it seemed that the board felt that the parties' surveys, in essence, cancelled each other out, but the board did not explain why it felt that way. For example, the board did not state that it had any problem with Princeton Vanguard's survey evidence indicating that 55 percent of respondents thought Pretzel Crisps was a brand name and only 36 percent thought it a common name. 

The TTAB's further consideration of this case on remand will be interesting to watch. Will the board simply button up its initial opinion by referencing Princeton Vanguard's evidence but still hold the term pretzel crisps generic? That would seem to comply with the Federal Circuit ruling, but would that be the right thing to do? 

Does the difference between a compound term and a phrase make any legitimate sense? Why does the Court of Appeals maintain these two terms? Where do the definitions of compound term and phrase diverge? Should it even matter? Did the Court of Appeals have it correct before, namely, there should be two standards? Do consumers view phrases differently from compound terms? Have we been trained to do so? 

This case may leave more questions than answers. And regardless of legal analysis, do we really want someone to be able to register a trademark pretzel crisps for pretzel crackers? Or is that, well, a bit crackers?

Originally published on InsideCounsel.com.

This article is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. Brinks Gilson & Lione does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information and review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter requiring attention. For further information, please contact a Brinks Gilson & Lione lawyer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Scott J. Slavick
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions