Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark

DEFENSE · 15usc1125:descriptive-fair-use

This defense does not require defendant to prove absence of all confusion. Nominative use and expressive-use analysis are separate and jurisdiction-sensitive. Jack Daniel’s (2023) rejects the special Rogers threshold when the challenged designation is used as a mark for defendant’s own goods; parody may still affect confusion.

Exact element source

any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1125; Unicode character offsets [195:262] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0a5680239d11ae3247a99abab2344db45177346d2d2e3050e95c82fb39f3aca7.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
VariantDescriptionMerits instance blocksDistinct casesExample cases (up to 3 per group)
descriptive-use/sports-nutrition-slogan1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/f3d/932/0589-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations
/f3d/932/0589-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019Good-faith descriptive use other than as a marksatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: law; party: Gatorade and PepsiCo; theory: Nontrademark descriptive use in good faith; subject: party=Gatorade and PepsiCo; theory=Nontrademark descriptive use in good faith

All three defense prongs were sustained on summary judgment. [law] records the defense being legally established on a record viewed favorably to SportFuel; it does not signify trial factfinding or a concession. The DSL has no affirmative-defense summary-judgment-success basis.
descriptive-use/sports-nutrition-slogan
In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [7033:7251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The products' individual packaging and displays feature Gatorade's house mark and G Bolt logo more prominently.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [10646:10757] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regularly invoke the "Sports Fuel" terminology to describe the products they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of this widespread industry use to the district court, including, for example, Twin Laboratories' "SPORT FUEL" and Trident Sports' "SPORTS FUEL."
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [16052:16370] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Gatorade's stated purpose in adopting the challenged slogan was to help the company better describe its business and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actually contradicts this purpose.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [26582:26778] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a "TM" symbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slogan.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [11267:11381] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Accordingly, we do not believe the district court erred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term "Sports Fuel" as a trademark in its "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company" slogan.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [12299:12486] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

We conclude that Gatorade's slogan uses "Sports Fuel" in a descriptive sense.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [18007:18084] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided sufficient evidence that it used the term "Sports Fuel" fairly and in good faith.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [26440:26581] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.

/f3d/932/0589-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019

In short, to raise the fair use defense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not use "Sports Fuel" as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of its goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [7033:7251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.

This defense does not require defendant to prove absence of all confusion. Nominative use and expressive-use analysis are separate and jurisdiction-sensitive. Jack Daniel’s (2023) rejects the special Rogers threshold when the challenged designation is used as a mark for defendant’s own goods; parody may still affect confusion.