Security Center, Ltd. v. First National Security Centers
750 F.2d 1295 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trademark that is merely descriptive of the services it represents is not inherently distinctive and cannot be protected under trademark law unless it has acquired a secondary meaning, meaning the public primarily associates the term with the producer, not the product itself.
Facts:
- In the fall of 1980, The Security Center opened a business in downtown New Orleans located in a former Federal Reserve Bank building.
- The Security Center's business provided services such as private vault storage, leasing of office space, pick-up and delivery services, and mail services.
- In May 1982, another company began using the name First National Security Centers.
- In January 1983, a sign announced the future location of a First National Security Centers in Metairie, Louisiana.
- The services to be offered by First National Security Centers were virtually identical to those offered by The Security Center.
Procedural Posture:
- The Security Center, Ltd. sued First National Security Centers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking an injunction to prevent the use of 'security center' in its name.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction.
- Following a trial, the district court ruled that 'The Security Center' was a suggestive mark and that there was a likelihood of confusion with 'First National Security Centers.'
- The district court issued a permanent injunction, preventing First National from using the phrase 'security center(s)' in its name.
- First National Security Centers, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the phrase 'security center,' when used for a business providing private storage vaults and related services, a descriptive term that is not entitled to trademark protection without proof of secondary meaning?
Opinions:
Majority - Reavley
Yes, the phrase 'security center' is a descriptive term not entitled to trademark protection without proof of secondary meaning. A mark is descriptive if it identifies a characteristic or quality of the service, requiring little imagination from the consumer. The court determined that 'security center' merely describes the essence of the business—a center that provides security—and is a term that competitors are likely to use. Because the mark is descriptive rather than suggestive, it is only protectable if it has acquired secondary meaning. The Security Center failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as consumer surveys, to show that the public associated the term 'security center' specifically with its business rather than the general service, and therefore the mark is not protectable.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between descriptive and suggestive trademarks, clarifying that terms which directly describe a service are on the weak end of the protection spectrum. It establishes that extensive use of a term by others in the same industry is strong evidence of its descriptiveness, weighing against granting exclusive rights to a single user. The decision underscores the high evidentiary bar for proving secondary meaning, highlighting that advertising expenditures alone are insufficient and that consumer surveys are the most persuasive form of proof. This precedent makes it more difficult for businesses to monopolize common, descriptive phrases and encourages the selection of more distinctive, creative marks for new ventures.
Unlock the full brief for Security Center, Ltd. v. First National Security Centers