Business Law 5th Edition by David Twomey ,Marianne Jennings ,Stephanie Greene

Exercise 8

The Greenwich Bank Trust Co. (GB T) opened in 1998 and by 2008 had expanded to a total of four branches in the Greenwich, Connecticut, community of 62,000 residents. A competitor using the name Bank of Greenwich (BOG) opened in December 2006. GB T's parent entity sued BOG for trademark violation under the Lanham Act. BOG argued that GB T's service mark is generic and is simply not entitled to Lanham Act protection because it combines the generic term "bank" and the geographic term "Greenwich." GB T asserted that it had been the only bank in Greenwich using the word Greenwich in its name and had done so exclusively for nine years. It asserted that a geographic term is entitled to protection if it acquires secondary meaning. GB T introduced evidence regarding its advertising expenditures, sales success, and length of exclusivity of use along with evidence of actual consumer confusion. Decide. [Connecticut Community Bank v The Bank of Greenwich, 578 F Supp 2d 405 (D Conn 2008)].