The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P filed an intent-to register the mark HACKLER on the Principal Register for 'alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled spirits, except Scotch whisky, and liqueurs.' Registration was refused under Section 2(e)(4) on the basis that the term HACKLER is primarily merely a surname. P contends that HACKLER is a rare surname (e.g., with only one listing in the Manhattan telephone directory); that the word 'hackler' has a dictionary meaning and is used in applicant's promotional materials referring to 'The Hackler' and a poem titled 'The Hackler from Grousehall'; that 'hackler' is not an obscure English word and even if it were, it is also a rare surname; and that this word does not have the structure and pronunciation of a surname and thus it does not have the 'look and feel' of a surname to the public (that is, the addition of 'er' to a word generally results in a word meaning 'one who ___', e.g., golfer, bottler, hackler). The Examining Attorney argues that HACKLER is not a rare surname (with 1,295 listings from the Phonedisc database and numerous representative excerpts from Nexis articles showing 'Hackler' as a person's surname); that the dictionary definition of the term 'hackler' submitted by applicant is an obscure English language meaning and does not obviate the surname significance of the term (with dictionaries submitted by the Examining Attorney showing no entry for 'hackler'; that the term 'Hackler' has the 'look and feel' of a surname (like names such as Cooper, Turner, Parker, Weaver); and that the impact on the purchasing public is that of primarily merely a surname.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.