Lamborghini 's Bull Mark Is Inherently Distinct And Arbitrary

Good Essays
Lamborghini’s bull mark is strong because it is an incontestable mark that is conceptually and commercially strong and not weakened by third-party use. Lamborghini’s mark is conceptually strong because it is inherently distinct and arbitrary. The mark is commercially strong because of Lamborghini’s strong sales and presence in mainstream media. Third-party use of bull marks does not weaken the Lamborghini’s mark because none of the third-party marks are in Lamborghini’s relevant market. And the mark is incontestable because it was registered more than five years ago, therefore, the mark is entitled to a presumption of strength. 1. Lamborghini’s mark is conceptually strong because the recognized meaning of a bull lacks an…show more content…
See Daddy’s, 109 F.3d at 280. For example, in Daddy’s, the court held that the phrase “Daddy’s” was arbitrary because the phrase lacks any inherent connection with the sale of musical instruments. Id. Similarly, in Little Caesar, the court reasoned that the name “Little Caesars” was an arbitrary mark because the connection between “Little Caesar” and selling pizza was too weak to be a suggestive mark. 834 F.2d at 571. Although the name may convey the idea that something of Italian origin could be involved, the small connection was not enough to find for a suggestive mark. Id. A mark, however, is suggestive if the mark has any relation to the product. Champions, 78 F.3d at 1118. For example, the Champions court reasoned that the plaintiff’s mark was suggestive because the term “champions” is related to golfing services and specifically golf. Id. Because the term “champions” has a connection to golf products, the court found that the mark was either descriptive or suggestive. Id. at 1111. Lamborghini’s bull mark is arbitrary because the recognized meaning of a bull does not have an inherent connection to luxury sports vehicles. The marks in Daddy’s and Little Caesar were arbitrary while the mark in Champions was suggestive. In Daddy’s, the term “Daddy’s” was arbitrary because the term had no relation to the sale of musical instruments. Likewise, the mark in Little Caesar was arbitrary because the connection between the term “Little Caesar”
Get Access