McKillup Indus., Inc. v. Integrated Label Corp., No. 06 C 3279, 2006 WL 3775954 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2006) (Bucklo, J.).
Judge Bucklo denied summary judgment that defendant’s "integrated labels," "integrated cards" and "integrated forms" marks were generic. Plaintiff argued that the marks were generic based upon the separate dictionary definitions of "integrated" and "labels/cards/forms" (although there was no dictionary definition of either of the three whole marks) and evidence that competitors use the term, including a Google search of each of the marks.
The Court cited Door Systems, Inc. v. Pro-Line Door Systems, Inc., 83 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 1996) for the proposition that the fact that a mark’s component words are in the dictionary "cannot count for much." Id. at 171. In Door Systems, the Seventh Circuit held that "Seven-Up" was not generic even though its component words were. Similarly, the Court held that the fact that "integrated," "label," "card" and "form" were defined in the dictionary did not weigh in favor of a genericness finding.
With respect to the evidence of the terms’ use by competitors, the Court held that the limited evidence presented, which included use of other terms to refer to the products, was not sufficient to warrant summary judgment of genericness. It was not clear from the evidence how far the alleged generic use extended into the relevant public perception or any specific geographic region. As a result, summary judgment was denied.