How would you categorize the following proposed trademarks, using the Abercrombie spectrum? Is it generic(non-protectible because it is the name of the thing sold)? Is it descriptive (a quality or characteristic of the thing sold, and thus protectable only if the mark owner can show the mark has acquired secondary meaning)? Is it suggestive (related to the thing sold, although must make a cognitive leap or use imagination to make the connection, and protected from first use in commerce without showing secondary meaning)? Is it arbitrary (not connected to the thing sold, and protectable from first use in commerce)? Is it fanciful(a made-up word that is not connected to the thing sold, and protectable from first use in commerce)?

As you categorize these potential marks, do they all seem like an easy fit along the Abercrombie spectrum, or do some of them present categorical difficulties?

• The color red on the entire exterior surface of a telephone;
• GLOW for women's perfume;
• A folded grape leaf for wine;
• LA PLAYA TAQUERIA for a Mexican fast-food restaurant located near the beach ("playa" is Spanish for beach, and "taqueria" is a restaurant that serves tacos);
• A bee and the word "BEE" for lip balm made with beeswax;
• A picture of the Mona Lisa for a movie production company

-

Now that you have considered the LaFrance reading on trade dress, the slides on non-verbal marks, and the Seabrook test, consider again the following subset of the marks first described in Assignment 1, above. Which of these are inherently distinctive, i.e., capable of bearing source from their first use in commerce? Which are not inherently distinctive, requiring the owner to show acquired source significance before the symbol qualifies as a trademark?

• The color red on the entire exterior surface of a telephone;
• A folded grape leaf for wine;
• A bee and the word "BEE" for lip balm made with beeswax;
• A picture of the Mona Lisa for a movie production company