A family of marks is a group of marks (e.g., MCNUGGETS, MCSKILLET, MCCAFE, MCGRIDDLES) having a recognizable formative common characteristic (e.g., MC), wherein the marks are composed and used in such a way that the public associates not only the individual marks, but the common characteristic of the family, with the trademark owner (e.g., McDonalds Corp).
Simply using a series of similar marks, however, does not of itself establish the existence of a family of marks. Courts and the USPTO consider the use, advertisement, and distinctiveness of the marks, as well as how the common feature contributes to the purchasing public’s recognition of the marks as being of common origin. To demonstrate such recognition, an owner must show that the marks comprising the family have been advertised or used in everyday sales activities in such a way so as to create common exposure and recognition of common ownership based on the common feature.
As parenthetically indicated above, a well-known example is the McDonald’s Corporation family of “MC” marks, which include MCNUGGETS, MCSKILLET, MCCAFE, MCGRIDDLES and so on. McDonald’s has successfully opposed attempts by others to register “MC” marks over the years and it actively pursues perceived infringers of its family of “MC” marks. See McDonald’s Corp. v. McSweet, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1268 (TTAB 2014) (59-page TTAB decision sustaining McDonald’s opposition to MCSWEET for pickled gourmet vegetables based on dilution and likelihood of confusion with the “MC” family of marks).
A trademark owner does not need to own trademark rights in the formative common feature itself (e.g., “MC”) in order to establish rights to a family based on the common feature. J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The common feature, however, must be distinctive and not generic or “merely descriptive” of the goods or services. Note that a descriptive term is not “merely descriptive” if it has acquired distinctiveness (aka “secondary meaning”) through extensive use and advertising. Thus, a descriptive term can serve as a common feature for a mark family if there is a strong showing of secondary meaning (acquired distinctiveness) in the descriptive common feature. See, e.g., Spraying Systems Co. v. Delavan, Inc., 975 F.2d 387, 395 (7th Cir. 1992) (refusing to recognize a family of “–JET” marks for agricultural spray nozzles); see also, Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC, 745 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (“To the extent Miller’s is claiming trademark rights in a family of marks with “ALE HOUSE” as a common surname, a determination that the “ALE HOUSE” surname is generic would be fatal to the entire mark.”)
Finally, for a good resource on arguing family of marks in the context of USPTO trademark registration or Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, go here.
(photo: Thank you William A. Ling for permission to use his zebra-family photo.)