Peaceable Planet, Inc. v. Ty, Inc. and H. Ty Warner
362 F.3d 986 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The rule requiring a personal name to acquire secondary meaning before it is protected as a trademark does not apply when the name is used for a product and the underlying rationales for the rule—protecting an individual's right to use their name in business, the commonness of certain names, and consumer information—are absent.
Facts:
- Peaceable Planet, Inc., a small toy company, produces plush toys filled with bean-like materials.
- In the spring of 1999, Peaceable Planet began selling a plush camel toy named 'Niles,' which was chosen to evoke Egypt and the Nile River.
- The price tag on Peaceable Planet's camel featured information about camels, Egypt, and the Egyptian flag.
- Peaceable Planet sold a few thousand of its 'Niles' camels in 1999.
- Ty Inc., a much larger toy company famous for 'Beanie Babies,' also makes similar plush toys.
- In March 2000, Ty Inc. began selling its own plush camel, which it also named 'Niles'.
- Ty Inc. sold nearly two million of its 'Niles' camels within one year.
Procedural Posture:
- Peaceable Planet, Inc. sued Ty Inc. and its owner in the U.S. District Court.
- The complaint included claims for federal trademark infringement (reverse passing off), false advertising, and several Illinois state-law claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Ty Inc., holding that 'Niles' was a personal name that required secondary meaning for trademark protection, which Peaceable Planet had failed to establish.
- Peaceable Planet, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Ty Inc. as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the trademark rule requiring a personal name to acquire secondary meaning for protection apply when the name is used on a product, such as a toy animal, and the rationale for the rule is not present?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. The rule requiring a personal name to acquire secondary meaning for trademark protection does not apply where the underlying purposes of the rule are not served. The rationales for the personal-name rule are: 1) a reluctance to forbid a person from using their own name in their business; 2) the fact that very common names do not imply a single source to consumers; and 3) preventing the loss of useful consumer information that a personal name might convey about a business owner. None of these rationales apply to a toy camel named 'Niles.' Because the name is affixed to a product, not a business, and does not describe the product itself, it functions as a suggestive mark. Suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and are granted trademark protection immediately upon use, without any need to prove secondary meaning.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the scope of the 'personal name' rule in trademark law, shifting the analysis from a rigid categorical approach to a more flexible, purpose-driven one. By holding that the rule's application depends on its underlying rationales, the court protects junior users who select personal names as suggestive marks for products, rather than for businesses. This precedent strengthens the position of smaller companies against larger competitors who might otherwise appropriate a new, creative mark before the originator can establish secondary meaning, thereby fostering competition and rewarding originality.
