City of London Distillery, Ltd.v.Hayman Group Limited

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2020

91235280 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2020)

Mailed: December 8, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

City of London Distillery, Ltd.
v.
Hayman Group Limited
_____

Opposition No. 91235280
_____

J. Scott Gerien and Joy L. Durand of Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty
for City of London Distillery, Ltd.

Thomas M. Galgano and Carolyn A. Galgano of Galgano IP Law PLLC
for Hayman Group Limited.
_____

Before Bergsman, Lykos and Pologeorgis, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Hayman Group Limited, a limited company organized under the laws of the
United Kingdom and located in Witham, Essex (Applicant), seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark CITY OF LONDON, in standard character form, for
This Opinion Is a
Precedent of the TTAB
Precedent of the TTAB
PrePrecedent of the TTAB
Opposition No. 91235280

- 2 -

“gin,” in International Class 33.1 Applicant disclaims the exclusive right to use the
term “London.”
City of London Distillery, Ltd. (Opposer) opposes registration of Applicant’s mark
on the following grounds:2
● Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is primarily geographically
deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(3) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(3);3
● Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is primarily geographically
descriptive under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2);
● Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is merely descriptive under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1); and
● Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin fails to function as a trademark
pursuant to Sections 1, 2 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052 and
1127, “due to the prevalence of distilleries which identify their gin as being produced
in the city of London, England, and the history of the production of gin in the city of

1 Application Serial No. 87290461, filed January 5, 2017, under Section 1(a) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claim of first use of its mark anywhere and in
commerce as of October 2012.
2 The operative complaint is Opposer’s Amended Notice of Opposition filed February 12, 2019.
21 TTABVUE.
3 Opposer also pleaded that Applicant’s mark is deceptive under Section 2(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). However, the legal standard for determining whether a
mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(3) is the same
as applied in determining whether a mark is deceptive under Section 2(a). See In re Cal.
Innovations Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 66 USPQ2d 1853, 1856-57 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Given the
incorporation of a geographic term in the mark, we will conduct a Section 2(e)(3) analysis and
forego any further reference to Section 2(a).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 3 -

London, England, such that consumers are likely to perceive the term CITY OF
LONDON as merely informational in nature.”4
Applicant, in its Answer, denies the salient allegations in the Amended Notice of
Opposition. In addition, on June 29, 2018, Applicant moved in the alternative to
amend its application to seek registration under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), if the Board finds that its mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is
primarily geographically descriptive or merely descriptive. In the alternative, if the
Board finds that Applicant failed to prove that its mark has acquired distinctiveness,
then Applicant, pursuant to its motion, seeks to register the mark CITY OF LONDON
for gin on the Supplemental Register.5 Opposer contested Applicant’s motion.6 The
Board, in its February 1, 2019 order, deferred consideration of Applicant’s motion to
amend until trial.7 See the discussion below.
I. The Record
The record includes the pleadings, and, by operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b),
37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b), the file of the subject application. In addition, Applicant admits
that all the documents it produced in response to Opposer’s request for production of
documents are true or correct copies of authentic documents.8 Thus, Opposer may
introduce documents produced by Applicant via a notice of reliance. Trademark Rule

4 Amended Notice of Opposition ¶8 (21 TTABVUE 9 and 14).
5 12 TTABVUE.
6 20 TTABVUE 15.
7 20 TTABVUE 4.
8 Applicant’s response to Opposer’s request for admission No. 1 (24 TTABVUE 96).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 4 -

2.120(k)(3)(ii), 37 C.F.R. § 2.120)k)(3)(ii) (“A party that has obtained documents from
another party through disclosure or under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure may not make the documents of record by notice of reliance alone, except
to the extent that they are admissible by notice of reliance under the provisions of
§ 2.122(e), or the party has obtained an admission or stipulation from the producing
party that authenticates the documents.”).
The parties introduced the testimony and evidence listed below:
A. Opposer’s testimony and evidence
1. Notice of reliance on an excerpt from Opposer’s website
cityoflondondistillery.com purportedly showing use of Opposer’s trade
name and brand CITY OF LONDON in connection with gin;9

2. Notice of reliance on an excerpt from a third-party website purportedly
showing Opposer’s use of the mark CITY OF LONDON for gin;10

3. Notice of reliance on an excerpt from the website
mapping.cityoflondon.gov.uk purportedly to show the boundaries of the
City of London;11

4. Notice of reliance on a copy of the Wikipedia.org entry for “City of
London”;12

5. Notice of reliance on an excerpt from the londonist.com website article
“Is the Square Mile Actually a Square Mile?” purportedly to show that
the City of London is also referred to as the Square Mile;13

6. Notice of reliance on Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s first set of
interrogatories;14

9 24 TTABVUE 25-47.
10 24 TTABVUE 49-51.
11 24 TTABVUE 53.
12 24 TTABVUE 55-74.
13 24 TTABVUE 76-88.
14 24 TTABVUE 90-94.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 5 -

7. Notice of reliance on Applicant’s admissions in response to Opposer’s
first set of requests for admission;15

8. Notice of reliance on a copy of City of London ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BRITANNICA entry (britannica.com);16

9. Notice of reliance on copies of news articles downloaded from the
Internet;17

10. Notice of reliance on a copy of the St. Paul’s Cathedral website
(stpauls.co.uk);18

11. Notice of reliance on excerpts from the Trip Advisor website
(tripadvisor.com);19

12. Notice of reliance on an excerpt from “The Book of Gin” by Richard
Barnett;20

13. Notice of reliance on a copy of a “sell sheet” purportedly from Applicant’s
U.S. importer displaying a bottle of Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON
gin;21

14. Notice of reliance on an excerpt from the pacificedgeca.com website
purportedly displaying bottles of Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON gin;22

15. Notice of reliance on part of the record for application Serial No.
87838921 for the mark TYLER’S ORIGINAL CITY OF LONDON for
“distilled spirits; gin”;23

15 24 TTABVUE 96-98.
16 24 TTABVUE 100-101.
17 24 TTABVUE 103-209; 25 TTABVUE 3-13 and 19-69; 26 TTABVUE 3-46, 88-91, 125-150,
and 208-210.
18 25 TTABVUE 15-17.
19 25 TTABVUE 71-109.
20 25 TTABVUE 111-121.
21 26 TTABVUE 48.
22 26 TTABVUE 50-51.
23 26 TTABVUE 53-56. See also 37 TTABVUE.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 6 -

16. Notice of reliance on a copy of the London and England, ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BRITANNICA entries (britannica.com);24

17. Notice of reliance on an excerpts from websites purportedly to show
Applicant’s TYLER’S ORIGINAL CITY OF LONDON gin advertised for
sale;25

18. Notice of reliance on the London Wikipedia.org entry;26

19. Notice of reliance on the Gin Craze and Gin Wikipedia.org entries;27

20. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites;28

21. Testimony Declaration of Joy L. Durand, Opposer’s counsel;29 and

22. Testimony Declaration of Alan Robinson, Opposer’s Group Finance
Director.30

B. Applicant’s testimony and evidence
1. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites;31

2. Notice of reliance on Opposer’s admissions in response to Applicant’s
first set of requests for admission;32

3. Notice of reliance on Opposer’s responses to Applicant’s first set of
interrogatories;33

24 26 TTABVUE 58-80.
25 26 TTABVUE 82-86, 123, and 215-225.
26 26 TTABVUE 93-114.
27 26 TTABVUE 116-121.
28 26 TTABVUE 152-206 and 212.
29 26 TTABVUE 226-269.
30 26 TTABVUE 270-274.
31 30 TTABVUE 7-191.
32 31 TTABVUE 8-18.
33 31 TTABVUE 20-33.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 7 -

4. Notice of reliance on Opposer’s admissions in response to Applicant’s
second set of requests for admission;34

5. Notice of reliance on Opposer’s responses to Applicant’s third set of
interrogatories;35

6. Notice of reliance on excerpts from printed publications;36

7. Notice of reliance on two third-party registrations for the mark CITY OF
LONDON for clothing and jewelry on the Supplemental Register and
one third-party registration for the mark CITY OF for gin;37

8. Notice of reliance on a copy of the Wikipedia.org entry for “London”;38

9. Notice of reliance on Internet documents;39

10. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly
showing use of CITY OF LONDON for gin;40

11. Testimony Declaration of Simon Strutt, Applicant’s Finance Director;41
and

12. Testimony Declaration of Carolyn A. Galgano, Applicant’s counsel.42

II. Entitlement to a statutory cause of action
Even though Applicant does not contest it, the plaintiff’s entitlement to a statutory
cause of action, formerly referred to as “standing,” is a threshold issue in every inter
partes case before the Board. See Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 2020

34 31 TTABVUE 35-45.
35 31 TTABVUE 47-49.
36 32 TTABVUE 4-158.
37 33 TTABVUE 6-40.
38 34 TTABVUE 6-9.
39 34 TTABVUE 11-46.
40 35 TTABVUE 6-88.
41 36 TTABVUE 2-41.
42 36 TTABVUE 42-61.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 8 -

USPQ2d 11277 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2020). See also Australian Therapeutic Supplies
Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, 965 F.3d 1370, 2020 USPQ2d 10837 (Fed. Cir. 2020);
Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058,
1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Spanishtown Enterprises., Inc. v. Transcend Resources, Inc.,
2020 USPQ2d 11388 (TTAB 2020). To establish entitlement to a statutory cause of
action, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests
protected by the statute (here, 15 U.S.C. § 1063) and (ii) proximate causation.
Corcamore, 2020 USPQ2d 11277, at *4.43 See also Empresa Cubana, 111 USPQ2d at
1062; Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (TTAB
1982).
Plaintiffs that are competitors in the same field or industry as a defendant have a
personal stake in resolving the question of the defendant’s right to register an
allegedly merely descriptive, primarily geographically descriptive or primarily
geographically deceptively misdescriptive term. See Duramax Marine LLC v. R.W.
Fernstrum & Co., 80 USPQ2d 1780, 1787 (TTAB 2006); M-5 Steel Mfg. v. O’Hagin’s
Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1086, 1094 (TTAB 2001); Plyboo America, Inc. v. Smith & Fong Co.,
51 USPQ2d 1633, 1634 (TTAB 1999). See also Corporacion Habanos, S.A. v.
Rodriquez, 99 USPQ2d 1873 (TTAB 2011) (“[W]here, as here, the pleaded ground is

43 Our decisions have previously analyzed the requirements of §1063 under the rubric of
“standing.” We now refer to this inquiry as entitlement to a statutory cause of action. Despite
the change in nomenclature, our prior decisions and those of the Federal Circuit interpreting
“standing” under §§ 1063 and 1064 remain equally applicable.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 9 -

that the mark sought to be cancelled is deceptive under Section 2(a), or primarily
geographically deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(3), petitioners do not
need to own a pending application for the mark, do not have to be using the term as
a mark, or even use the term at all, in order to establish their standing.”).
Alan Robinson, Opposer’s Group Finance Director, testified, “Opposer produces
and sells gin labeled with the trade name and brand name CITY OF LONDON,” that
“Opposer is the oldest working distillery located in the City of London,” that the “City
of London” is “an area of historic significance and independent governance located
within the boundaries of the larger city of London in England,” and that the City of
London “has a rich gin history.”44 See also City of London, Wikipedia.org (“The City
of London is a city and county that contains the historic centre and central business
district (CBD) of London.”);45 City of London, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
(britannica.com) (“City of London, municipal corporation and borough, London,
England. Sometimes called ‘the Square Mile,’ it is one of the 33 boroughs that make
up the large metropolis of Greater London.”);46 Vogue.com (“London has always been
associated with gin.”);47 WashingtonPost.com (“London, home of the world’s most
popular gin style (London Gin).”).48

44 Robinson Decl. ¶¶2 and 4 (26 TTABVUER 270-271).
45 24 TTABVUE 55.
46 24 TTABVUE 100.
47 26 TTABVUE 7.
48 26 TTABVUE 27.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 10 -

Opposer has demonstrated an interest falling within the zone of interests
protected by the statute and a reasonable basis for its belief of damage proximately
caused by registration of the mark. Therefore, Opposer has proven it is entitled to
pursue this proceeding.
III. Background
London is the capital of the United Kingdom.49
It is among the oldest of the world’s great cities – its history
spanning nearly two millennia – and one of the most
cosmopolitan. By far Britain’s largest metropolis. It is also
the country’s economic, transportation, and cultural
centre.50
___
Historically, London grew from three distinct centres: the
walled settlement found by the Romans on the banks of the
Thames in the 1st century ce, today known as the City of
London, “the Square Mile,” or simply “the City”; facing it
across the bridge on the lower gravels of the south bank,
the suburb of Southwalk; and mile upstream, on the great
southward bend of the river, the City of Westminster.51
According to Wikipedia.org, “London’s vast urban area is often described using a
set of district names, such as Bloomsbury, Mayfair and Whitechapel. These are either
informal designations, reflect the names of villages that have been absorbed by
sprawl, or are superseded administrative units such as parishes or former
boroughs.”52

49 London, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (Britannica.com) (26 TTABVUE 58).
50 Id.
51 Id. at 26 TTABVUE 60.
52 London, Wikipedia.org (26 TTABVUE 97). We emphasize again that Internet documents
are admissible only to show what has been printed, not the truth of what has been printed.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 11 -

Such names have remained in use through tradition, each
referring to a local area with its own distinctive character,
but without official boundaries. Since 1965, Greater
London has been divided into 32 London boroughs in
addition to the ancient City of London. The City of London
is the main financial district, and Canary Wharf has
recently developed into a new financial district and
commercial hub in the Docklands to the east.53
Further descriptions state:
The City of London is a city and county that contains the
historic and primary central business (CBD) of London. …
The City is now only a tiny part of the metropolis of
London, through it remains a notable part of Central
London. … The City of London is widely referred to as the
City differentiated from the phrase ‘the city of London’ by
capitalizing City and is also colloquially known as the
Square Mile, as it is 1.12 square miles … in area.54
[The City of London] is only a small component, relatively
small in area, of the larger urban area known as London.
Its area corresponds closely to that of the ancient city from
which modern London has grown. The City belongs
geographically to the historic county of Middlesex, but its
special status and privileges gave it autonomy from that
county for most of its history.55
___
Hundreds of thousands of workers and tens of thousands
of other visitors commute daily to the City via highway,
bus, the Underground (subway), or train stations at

Safer, 94 USPQ2d at 1040. In other words, Internet documents have probative value to show
what the authors perceive, not the truth of what the authors have written. In addition,
Internet documents may have value to show that consumers have been exposed to the term
at issue.
53 Id. at 26 TTABVUE 97.
54 City of London, Wikipedia.org (24 TTABVUE 55). See also City of London, ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BRITANNICA (Britannica.com) (24 TTABVUE 100) (“City of London, municipal corporation
and borough, London, England. Sometimes called ‘the Square Mile,” it is one of the 33
boroughs that make up the large metropolis of Greater London.”).
55 City of London, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (Britannica.com) (24 TTABVUE 100).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 12 -

Blackfriars and at Liverpool, Frenchurch, and Cannon
streets.56
Mr. Strutt testifies that the consumption of gin became popular in Great Britain
and particularly in London during the so-called “Gin Craze” during the 18th century.57
As noted in Wikipedia:
The Gin Craze was a period in the first half of the 18th
century when the consumption of gin increased rapidly in
Great Britain, especially in London. … Many people
overconsumed and the city had an epidemic of
drunkenness; this provoked moral outrage and a legislative
backlash that some compare to the modern drug wars.58
As a result, London has become associated with gin. Online publications and
various third-party websites corroborate this. For example,
● “What Does ‘London Dry’ Mean In Today’s Gin Era?” Gin Foundry website
(ginfoundry.com) (June 6, 2016).
We’ve always considered London as the global capital of
gin. It is both the birthplace of and now a mecca for juniper-
centric spirits and if gin is your thing – nowhere else can
really live up to it. When it comes to gin, London has it all,
from modern bars specializing in the spirit, distilleries
producing it, a longstanding heritage associated with it
embedded into the very fiber of the city and, of course, a
term that is emblazoned onto many gin bottles the world
over.59
● “Distilleries and bars unite for London Gin Trail,” thespiritsbusiness.com
(November 9, 2015).

56 Id. at 24 TTABVUE 101.
57 Strutt Decl. ¶15 (36 TTABVUE 4).
58 Gin Craze, Wikipedia.org (26 TTABVUE 116).
59 26 TTABVUE 208.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 13 -

British gin has a strong vibrant history. By publishing the
gin trail map we hope to mark its renaissance and ensure
its future as a quintessentially British, internationally
recognized spirit.60
● “How Gin Bounced Back From Decades of Decline to Become London’s Latest
Drink,” Vogue.com (June 11, 2018).
London has always been associated with gin. Rumor has it
that, in medieval times, peasants downed it to ward off the
plague. From there, it became part of their culture – nay,
brand: the world’s most famous gins, like Beefeater and
Gordon’s, are all British. Simply put: if anyone is going to
drink gin, it’ll be the Brits.61
● “In London, gin comes roaring back,” washingtonpost.com (January 10, 2013).
The comeback
It’s a great story, not the least because London, the home
of the world’s most popular gin style (London Dry), is so
inextricably linked to the juniper-infused spirit. The city’s
residents have been knocking the drink back in varying
quantities ever since the end of the 17th century, when
William of Orange arrived from the Netherlands bearing
muscular Protestantism and a drink called Jevever.62
● “The Story Behind London’s Gin Revival – Plus, Where to Drink,”
Foodandwine.com (March 27, 2018).
The history of gin is inextricable from the history of
London. This was the city that fell prey to the infamous
“Gin Craze” in the 1700s; embraced gin in classic cocktails
as much as a century ago; and is still home to the one of the
world’s stalwart distillers, Beefeater. Even the best-known
style of gin tells the city’s story: London Dry.”63

60 25 TTABVUE 30.
61 26 TTABVUE 7.
62 26 TTABVUE 27.
63 26 TTABVUE 88.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 14 -

● Beefeaterdistillery.com (accessed November 22, 2019).
London, one of the world’s great cities, has played a leading
role in the development of London Dry Gin.64
● Brokersgin.com (accessed November 11, 2019).
Broker’s is seriously good gin with a decidedly playful
spirit. The bowler hat atop each bottle and the image of a
bowler-hatted gentleman – an archetypal London
stockbroker – are a respectful nod to England’s historical
reputation as the home of gin.65
● Fifty Pounds gin website (fiftypoundsgin.london/fifty-pounds-gin) (accessed
April 29, 2019).
From the botanicals used to the method of production and
bottling Fifty Pounds Gin pays tribute to London’s rich gin
history.66
___
London is the global capital of gin. It is the birthplace of
and the mecca of juniper-based spirits.67
● Gin, Wikipedia.org (accessed March 31, 2019).
Gin was developed based on older Dutch liquor, jenever,
and became popular in Great Britain (particularly in
London) when William of Orange became of King William
III of England.68
Finally, as Mr. Strutt testifies, London Dry is a type of gin.
4. … A London Dry gin is a type of distilled gin that is made
by exclusively using ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin.
This type of ethyl alcohol is re-distilled in the presence of

64 34 TTABVUE 44.
65 30 TTABVUE 18.
66 30 TTABVUE 59.
67 30 TTABVUE 60.
68 26 TTABVUE 119
Opposition No. 91235280

- 15 -

juniper berries and other natural botanicals. Colorants or
flavorants cannot be added after distillation, save for water
or a small amount of sugar.69
5. London Dry gins do not have to be produced in or
originate from London to qualify as a London Dry gin.
Therefore, London Dry gins can be produced anywhere in
the world.70
“Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON gin uses gin distilled at Thames Distillers
Limited located in London, at Timbermill Distillery, Timbermill Way, Guaden Road,
London SW4 6LY.”71 Thames Distillers subsequently bottles Applicant’s gin in Essex,
just outside London.72 Applicant in response to an interrogatory asserted that it
adopted the mark CITY OF LONDON to suggest that its gin is a London Dry gin.73
With this background, we turn to the merits.

69 Strutt Decl. ¶4 (36 TTABVUE 2). See also Applicant’s response to Opposer’s interrogatory
No. 16 (24 TTABVUE 93) (“Although London dry gin is a style of gin that can be made
internationally, the geographical location of London, United Kingdom remains its true
spiritual home.”); Applicant’s admission to Opposer’s request for admission No. 8 (24
TTABVUE 97); Theginisin.com (34 TTABVUE 11) (“The term “London Dry’ is a quality
designation. For a gin to be called London Dry Gin, the base spirit must be distilled to a
completely neutral spirit of 96% ABV, must add a flavor through distillation in presence of
‘natural plant materials,’ and can have nothing added after distillation save water and a
trivial quantity of sugar.”); “What Does ‘London Dry’ Mean In Today’s Gin Era?” Gin Foundry
website (ginfoundry.com) (“London Dry Gin doesn’t have to be made in London; it does not
even have to be made in England. Instead, London Dry (also known as London Gin) refers to
that which is made under a series of mind-bogglingly exciting EU regulations put in place in
February 2008.”) (26 TTABVUE 208).
70 Strutt Decl. ¶¶4-5 (36 TTABVUE 2-3).
71 Strutt Decl. ¶13 (36 TTABVUE 4). See also Applicant’s response to Opposer’s interrogatory
No. 14 (24 TTABVUE 92).
72 Strutt Decl. ¶14 (36 TTABVUE 4). See also Applicant’s response to Opposer’s interrogatory
No. 14 (24 TTABVUE 92).
73 Applicant’s response to Opposer’s Interrogatory No. 4 (24 TTABVUE 91).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 16 -

IV. Whether Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is primarily
geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2)?
The elements for proving that a mark is primarily geographically descriptive
under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2), are
(1) The mark is the name of a place known generally to the public;

(2) The goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in the
geographic place identified in the mark; and

(3) Purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the
geographic place identified in the mark.

See In re Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 113 USPQ2d 1445, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir.
2015); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957,
3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Broken Arrow Beef & Provision, LLC,
129 USPQ2d 1431, 1432 (TTAB 2019); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d
1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014).
The parties neither introduced evidence regarding the relevant public nor
analyzed or identified the relevant purchasing public in their briefs. The relevant
public for purposes of our analysis is the purchasing public in the United States of
the types of goods or services at issue. See, e.g., Newbridge, 113 USPQ2d at 1449;
Institut National Des Appellations D'Origine v. Vintners Int'l Co., 958 F.2d 1574,
1580-81, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1195-1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (for goods identified as “citrus
flavored wine,” “the relevant portion of the American public [is] consumers of wine
and wine products”). Because the goods at issue here are gin, the public includes
ordinary purchasers and drinkers of gin.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 17 -

A. Whether the “City of London” is a generally known geographic
place?

Opposer contends that the “City of London” is a generally known geographic
designation for the business or financial district of greater London.
City of London is a place with international influence and
recognition having within its borders the Bank of England,
the London Stock Exchange, Lloyd’s of London, much of the
rest of London’s financial district, the Temple and Royal
Courts of Justice, constituting the heart of the British legal
profession, Fleet Street, once the hub of London’s
newspaper establishment, as well as the main branch of
the Museum of London and the iconic St. Paul’s Cathedral.
24 TTABVUE 3, Opposer’s First NOR ¶4, Exh. D.74 City of
London vies with New York City as the financial capital of
the world. 24 TTABVUE 3, Opposer’s First NOR ¶4, Exh.
D. Hundreds of thousands of workers and tens of
thousands of visitors commute daily into City of London.
24 TTABVUE 4, Opposer’s First NOR ¶8, Exh. H.75
Accordingly, Americans are routinely exposed to City of
London given its stature as a world financial hub and
destination for tourists from around the world. Indeed,
American media companies including the Wall Street
Journal, New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The
Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, CNN, Fox
Business, NBC, Bloomberg, MSN, Reuters, and ZD Net
routinely feature stories discussing City of London given
its world prominence. 24 TTABVUE 4-8, Opposer’s First
NOR ¶¶9-25, Exhs. I-Y. Thus, the evidence demonstrates
that the primary significance of City of London to
Americans is a geographic location.76

74 Exhibit D refers to City of London, Wikipedia.org (24 TTABVUE 55).
75 Exhibit H refers to City of London, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (britannica.com)
(24 TTABVUE 100).
76 Opposer’s Brief, p. 8 (38 TTABVUE 13).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 18 -

Opposer relies primarily on finance news articles, mostly about Brexit, to support
its contention that “Americans are routinely exposed to City of London.”77 The articles
listed below are representative:
● “A Bad Brexit Deal for Banks Threatens Cities Across the U.K.,” Bloomberg.com
(July 25, 2018).78
While finance represents a 29 percent share of London’s
total exports, it makes up 56 percent of those for Edinburgh
and 54 percent for Cardiff, according to a study, carried out
by the Centre for Cities think
tank and sponsored by the City of London Corporation.79
● “As Brexit Vote Looms, U.S. Banks Review Their European Ties,” NBCnews.com
(May 17, 2016).80
The five largest U.S. banks employ 40,000 people in
London, more than the rest of Europe combined, taking
advantage of the EU “passporting” regime that allows
them to offer services across the bloc out of their British
hubs.
___
But it is outside the euro zone, in the City of London, that
they base their EU business. The investment bankers
heading up M&A advisory teams for the likes of Italy and
France all tend to live in London rather than Rome or
Paris.

77 Id. Opposer also introduced the testimony declaration of Joy Durand, an attorney for
Opposer, who introduced, inter alia, a screenshot of a map from the website
mapping.cityoflondon.gov.uk showing the boundaries of the City of London and from the
Google Maps search engine at google.com. (26 TTABVUE 226-227 and 261-264). These maps
show that the City of London is a geographical location; but that is not at issue. The issue is
whether the City of London is generally known to American consumers or drinkers of gin.
78 24 TTABVUE 103.
79 Id. at 24 TTABVUE 103-104.
80 24 TTABVUE 106.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 19 -

___
The major U.S. banks also use their London entities to help
them avoid the brunt of new U.S. trading rules brought in
with the Dodd-Frank regulation, booking swap trade
agreements with non-U.S. counterparts in Britain rather
than in America.81
● “Baffled by Brexit: With So Much Unknown, London Bankers Struggle to Plan,”
FoxBusiness.com (June 20, 2017).
The City of London is back in the dark over Brexit after
this month’s U.K. general election muddied the outlook for
the U.K.’s departure from the European Union. Banking
chiefs here have been left to wonder whether to accelerate
plans to move operations to the EU.82
___
The surprise electoral result upended this. “The election
results gave an opportunity to [illegible] and reset the tone
as the U.K. enters negotiations,” says Catherine
McGuinness, Policy Chairman, City of London
Corporation, which promotes the city as a financial service
centre.83
● “Bank of England says payments system can serve blockchain users,” Yahoo.com
(July 23, 2018).84
The BoE is aiming to revamp the system that underpins
British banking and trading in the City of London by 2020
to strengthen defenses against cyber-attacks and widen the
number of businesses that can use it.

81 24 TTABVUE 109-110.
82 24 TTABVUE 114.
83 Id. at TTABVUE 115.
84 24 TTABVUE 119.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 20 -

● “‘Brexodus’ to Cost UK Up to 12,000 Finance Jobs – City Chief,” NYTimes.com
(July 24, 2018).85
Brexit will cost Britain up to 12,000 financial services jobs
in the short-term, the City of London financial district’s
leader said on Tuesday, and many more jobs might
disappear in the longer term.
___
So far, there have been 1,600 confirmed job moves, a City
of London spokeswoman said separately.
The City was disappointed that Britain’s government
ditched its preferred option of future EU trade based on
mutual recognition, whereby Britain and the EU accept
each other’s rules under two-way regulatory cooperation.
● “Gray skies are no match for the world’s largest solar bridge,” CNN.com
(September 24, 2014).
Over 4,400 solar panels compose the roof of Blackfriars
bridge in the City of London, making it the largest solar-
paneled bridge in the world.86
___
If the gray skies of London can accomplish such results
across the Thames, imagine the potential elsewhere.87
● “In London’s financial center, resignation about ‘Brexit’ – and a hope that
nothing will change,” LATimes.com (July 1, 2016).
At a financial conference this week in the City of London,
Britain’s equivalent to Wall Street, four eminent
executives and business experts on a panel were asked
whether they thought the country actually would ever

85 24 TTABVUE 130.
86 24 TTABVUE 137.
87 Id. at TTABVUE 138.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 21 -

leave the European Union, as voters mandated in a
referendum June 23.
They thought yes, one no and one voted “it’s so hard to say.”
But all were convinced that the City’s march to global
business supremacy would continue as if the vote never
happened.88
___
The City, colloquially known as the “square mile” – it’s
actually 1.1 square miles – is one of the most densely
packed assemblages of financial talent in the world, home
to more than 400,000 bankers, traders and support staff.
Since the deregulatory “big bang” of 1986 launched the City
on its path to global prominence, its denizens have
acquired the image of a class convinced that the world
needs them more than they need the world.89
Applicant, meanwhile, introduced excerpts from numerous London travel guides
and books referring to the City of London simply as the City.90 The exhibits listed
below are illustrative:
● London, DK Eyewitness (2019)
THE CITY
The towering skyscrapers of the City make up London’s
traditional financial district, where corporates in suits
scurry around during the week, making it a bustling place
at lunchtimes, but an early deserted one during the
weekend.91

88 24 TTABVUE 143.
89 Id. at 24 TTABVUE 144.
90 32 TTABVUE.
91 32 TTABVUE 12.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 22 -

● Frommer’s Easy Guide To London 2019
SUGGESTED ITINERARIES & NEIGHBORHOODS
As recently as the early 1800’s, London – and by London, I
mean what we now call The City, between St. Paul’s and
the Tower – was a frenzied cluster where many lives, birth
to death, were carried out within the same few blocks. …
All around The City were dozens of villages, many of which
retain their names as modern neighborhoods – and, if
you’re lucky, a whiff of their original personalities, but not
of their pestilence.92
● London, Fodor’s Travel (2019)
WHAT’S WHERE
The City. London’s Wall Street might be the oldest part of
the capital, but thanks to new skyscrapers and a sleek
Millennium Bridge, it also looks like the newest. History
fans won’t be shortchanged, however; head for St. Paul’s
Cathedral, Tower Bridge, and the Tower of London.93
The testimony and evidence that Opposer introduced showing that an American
in the financial field or an American with an interest in world financial affairs might
know that the City of London is London’s financial district or central business district
does not necessarily establish what “City of London” means to an American consumer
of gin. Even though it may be reasonable to assume that some Americans in the
financial field are gin consumers, the record in this case does not establish the nature
or extent of any overlap.
Nevertheless, it is common knowledge among the American public that London is
a major city in England. While the “City of London” is technically a subdivision of the

92 32 TTABVUE 21.
93 32 TTABVUE 40.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 23 -

“city of London,” the American public, including gin drinkers and purchasers, are
likely to perceive the mark CITY OF LONDON as referring generally to the city of
London, England. Indeed, if they perceive CITY OF LONDON as a sub-area within
London, that necessarily means they perceive it as referring to London. See B.V.D.
Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design, Inc., 846 F.2d 727, 6 USPQ2d 1719, 1721 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (rejecting the argument that the letter “A” when inverted resembles the
letter “V” because “[t]he purchasing public, we believe, does not indulge in such
recognitional contortions but sees things as they are.”); In re Johnson Prods. Co., 220
USPQ 539, 540 (TTAB 1983) (“It is undeniable that if the mark is carefully examined,
the two overlapping ‘S’s can be discerned. What is more significant, however, is that
this sort of studied analysis of the mark is unlikely to occur in the marketplace where
these products are sold.”).
In addition, because Applicant is seeking to register CITY OF LONDON in
standard characters, Applicant may display the mark in any manner, regardless of
the font style, size, or color, and might at any time in the future display it in a way
that the term LONDON in the mark stands out prominently compared to the words
CITY OF.
In the absence of any evidence indicating that the addition of the words “City of”
would either prevent American consumers from understanding that the mark refers
to London, England, or points to something else, we find that the mark CITY OF
LONDON for gin is the name of a geographic place (i.e., London) known generally to
the American gin drinking and purchasing public.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 24 -

B. Whether Applicant’s gin originates from the “City of London”
and whether American gin purchasers and drinkers are likely
to believe that Applicant’s gin originates there?

The second element of a Section 2(e)(2) claim is whether Applicant’s gin originates
in or near the City of London. See, e.g., In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d
1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007) (YOSEMITE BEER held geographically descriptive of beer
produced and sold in a brewpub in Merced, California, the Board stating that “[s]ince
the goods originate at or near [Yosemite National Park], we can presume an
association of applicant’s beer with the park.”). While Applicant’s gin does not
originate in the technical City of London (i.e., within the boundaries of the financial
district subdivision of London), it does originate in London. As noted above,
“Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON gin uses gin distilled at Thames Distillers Limited
located in London, at Timbermill Distillery, Timbermill Way, Guaden Road, London
SW4 6LY.”94 Thames Distillers subsequently bottles Applicant’s gin in Essex, just
outside London.95
As held in the preceding section, the term “city of London” means London, the
well-known major city in England.96 Thus, Applicant is using the mark CITY OF
LONDON to reflect its association with the geographic location known as the city of

94 Strutt Decl. ¶13 (36 TTABVUE 4). See also Applicant’s response to Opposer’s interrogatory
No. 14 (24 TTABVUE 92).
95 Strutt Decl. ¶14 (36 TTABVUE 4). See also Applicant’s response to Opposer’s interrogatory
No. 14 (24 TTABVUE 92).
96 Even assuming an American consumer or drinker of gin is familiar with the technical
definition of the City of London as London’s central business district, the City of London has
a significant relationship to London where Applicant produces its gin, as well as nearby
Essex, where Applicant bottles it.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 25 -

London. In fact, Applicant asserted that it adopted the mark CITY OF LONDON to
suggest that its gin is a London Dry gin.97 We find, therefore, that a goods-place
association exists (the third element of a 2(e)(2) claim) because American gin
purchasers and drinkers will believe that Applicant’s gin originates within or near
the city limits of London and there is some association or connection between the gin
and London. See In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d at 1621. See also In
re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik”, 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310 (TTAB 2006) (“we presume a
goods/place association [of vodka with BAIKALSKAYA meaning ‘from Baikal’]
because applicant is located near Lake Baikal, in the city of Irkutsk.”).
We find that Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is primarily
geographically descriptive and sustain the opposition as to Opposer’s Section 2(e)(2)
claim.
V. Whether Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is primarily
geographically deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(3) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(3)?
A mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, and thus barred
from registration, if: (1) “the primary significance of the mark is a generally known
geographic location”; (2) “the consuming public is likely to believe the place identified
by the mark indicates the origin of the goods bearing the mark, when in fact the goods
do not come from that place”; and (3) “the misrepresentation was a material factor in
the consumer’s decision” to purchase the goods. In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d

97 Applicant’s response to Opposer’s Interrogatory No. 4 (24 TTABVUE 91). While an
adopter’s intent is not evidence of consumer perception of a mark, it represents the view of
one immersed in the market whose interests are dependent upon correctly gauging consumer
perception.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 26 -

1339, 104 USPQ2d 1330, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Cal. Innovations, 66 USPQ2d
at 1341).
In analyzing the Section 2(e)(2) claim above, we determined that London is a
generally known location to the relevant American gin drinker or purchaser. In
addition, we found that the City of London, being located within the city limits of
London, has a sufficient relationship to London to support the goods/place
association. Because Applicant produces its gin in London and bottles it in nearby
Essex, the mark CITY OF LONDON for gin does not present any material
misrepresentation of fact. Accordingly, the opposition is dismissed as it pertains to
Opposer’s Section 2(e)(3) claim.
VI. Whether Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is merely
descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1)?
In the absence of acquired distinctiveness, Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act
precludes registration of a mark on the Principal Register that, when used in
connection with an applicant’s goods, is merely descriptive of them. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1). “A mark is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys information
concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of the goods or services for which
registration is sought.” Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965,
128 USPQ2d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 123
USPQ2d 1707, 1709 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). We “must consider the mark as a whole and do
so in the context of the goods or services at issue.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro
Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also
In re Calphalon, 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (“[W]e must assess whether
Opposition No. 91235280

- 27 -

the standard character mark SHARPIN is incongruous as applied to ‘cutlery knife
blocks which incorporate built-in sharpeners that automatically sharpen knives.’”).
“Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the
mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB
1985). Instead, “the question is whether someone who knows what the goods and
services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.” DuoProSS,
103 USPQ2d at 1757 (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17
(TTAB 2002)).
Opposer contends that Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON is merely descriptive
because it immediately conveys to purchasers that Applicant’s gin is a London dry
gin.98 As noted above, London Dry is a type of gin.
4. … A London Dry gin is a type of distilled gin that is made
by exclusively using ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin.
This type of ethyl alcohol is re-distilled in the presence of
juniper berries and other natural botanicals. Colorants or
flavorants cannot be added after distillation, save for water
or a small amount of sugar.99

98 Opposer’s Brief, p. 14 (38 TTABVUE 19).
99 Strutt Decl. ¶4 (36 TTABVUE 2). See also Applicant’s response to Opposer’s interrogatory
No. 16 (24 TTABVUE 93) (“Although London dry gin is a style of gin that can be made
internationally, the geographical location of London, United Kingdom remains its true
spiritual home.”); Applicant’s admission to Opposer’s request for admission No. 8 (24
TTABVUE 97); Theginisin.com (34 TTABVUE 11) (“The term “London Dry’ is a quality
designation. For a gin to be called London Dry Gin, the base spirit must be distilled to a
completely neutral spirit of 96% ABV, must add a flavor through distillation in presence of
‘natural plant materials,’ and can have nothing added after distillation save water and a
trivial quantity of sugar.”).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 28 -

In fact, Applicant concedes that it uses the CITY OF LONDON mark to identify, inter
alia, its London Dry gin.100
However, Applicant’s mark includes CITY OF, and is not the equivalent of or
synonymous with LONDON DRY. The record does not establish that Applicant’s
CITY OF LONDON mark immediately conveys any information concerning a feature,
quality, or characteristic of the gin itself for purposes of our analysis under
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1). As already established, the City of London is a historic
district of London serving as London’s central business district known as a finance
center. American consumers of gin will not view CITY OF LONDON as connoting a
characteristic of the gin itself, but, as we have just held regarding the Trademark Act
Section 2(e)(2) claim, as describing where it comes from. CITY OF LONDON does not
directly convey to the American gin drinker or purchaser that Applicant’s product is
a London dry gin or any other type of gin.
We find that the CITY OF LONDON for gin is not merely descriptive of
Applicant’s gin in derogation of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act and dismiss this
claim.
VII. Whether Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin fails to
function as a mark?
Opposer argues “the words ‘city of London’ are merely informational as they are
highly geographically descriptive and/or highly descriptive of the style, purity,
quality, ingredients and geographic origin of gin, such that CITY OF LONDON fails

100 Strutt Decl. ¶3 (36 TTABVUE 2).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 29 -

to function as a mark.”101 See Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act. Section 45
defines a “trademark” as “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination
thereof — (1) used by a person … to identify and distinguish his or her goods … from
those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if
that source is unknown.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
There are several different reasons why matter might not function as a mark. For
example, matter is merely informational and does not function as a mark when, based
on its nature and the context of its use by the applicant or others in the marketplace,
consumers would perceive it as merely conveying general information about the goods
(which is different from merely conveying more specific information about a feature,
quality, or characteristic of the goods) or constitutes an informational message
untethered to the goods. See generally TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING
PROCEDURE § 1202.04 (2018). See also Yarnell Ice Cream, 2019 USPQ2d 265039, at
*17 (TTAB 2019) (giving the following as examples of terms that are incapable of
functioning as marks: “No More RINOS!,” “Once a Marine, Always a Marine,” “Drive
Safely,” and “I ♥ D.C.”).
Here, Opposer contends:
Applicant’s use of the term “CITY OF LONDON” just
informs consumers that Applicant’s “City of London Gin is
a small batch, hand-crafted Premium London Dry Gin
distilled in London.” 24 TTABVUE 13, Opposer’s First

101 Opposer’s Brief, p. 11 (38 TTABVUE 16). See also id. at p. 13-14 (38 TTABVUE 18-19)
(“Additionally, the prevalence of distilleries that identify their gin as being produced in the
city of London, England, their references to the history of the production of gin in the city of
London, England increases the likelihood that consumers will perceive the term “city of
London” as being merely informational.”).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 30 -

NOR ¶40, Exh. NN. Accordingly, the place, the city of
London, is so highly descriptive and informational of the
origin and history of gin, including Applicant’s gin, that no
single party can claim exclusivity in it as it fails to function
as a mark.102
While Opposer uses the term “informational,” the specific issue that Opposer
asserts is the allegedly highly descriptive nature of CITY OF LONDON as to gin. This
is the issue the Federal Circuit identified in In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 53
USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999), where the court determined that the mark at
issue there was so highly descriptive of the goods and so commonly used by others in
connection with the goods “as to be incapable of acquiring distinctiveness as a
trademark.”103 As explained above, we agree with Opposer that the proposed mark is
primarily geographically descriptive (though not merely descriptive), but we do not
view the record here as showing that the phrase is so highly geographically
descriptive and commonly used in connection with gin that it is incapable of being
perceived, in the eyes of the gin-consuming public, as a source identifier. Accordingly,
we dismiss the opposition as it pertains to Opposer’s claim that CITY OF LONDON
fails to function as a trademark in derogation of Sections 1, 2 and 45 of the Trademark
Act.

102 Opposer’s Brief, p. 14 (38 TTABVUE 19).
103 Opposer’s failure to function claim thus does not assert that the phrase CITY OF
LONDON is a commonly-used informational message untethered to any particular type of
good, such as PROUDLY MADE IN USA, see In re Remington Prods., Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714
(TTAB 1987), or THINK GREEN, see In re Manco Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1938, 1942 (TTAB 1992).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 31 -

VIII. Whether Applicant’s motion to amend its application is timely
and procedurally proper.
Because we have found Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin to be
primarily geographically descriptive and have sustained Opposer’s Section 2(e)(2) of
the Trademark Act claim, but have also found that it is not so highly geographically
descriptive and commonly used that it could never function as a trademark, we turn
to Applicant’s motion to amend its application, in the alternative, to seek registration
under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Trademark, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), or on the
Supplemental Register.
The amendment of an application that is the subject of an opposition proceeding
is governed by Trademark Rule 2.133, 37 C.F.R. § 2.133. That rule provides that an
applicant may not amend in substance its application that is the subject of an
opposition, except with the consent of the other party or parties and the approval of
the Board, or except upon motion granted by the Board. This means that the Board,
in its discretion, may grant a motion to amend an application that is the subject of an
opposition, even if the opposer does not consent. Cf. Drive Trademark Holdings LLC
v. Inofin, 83 USPQ2d 1433, 1435 (TTAB 2007) (noting principle that an acceptable
amendment to the identification may be permitted despite opposer’s objection if
amendment limits identification and applicant consents to entry of judgment on the
question of likelihood of confusion as to the broader identification).
Where, as here, a motion to amend an application in substance is made without
the consent of the other party, it should be made prior to trial to give the opposer fair
notice. See Ayoub, Inc. v. ACS Ayoub Carpet Serv., 118 USPQ2d 1392, 1394 (TTAB
Opposition No. 91235280

- 32 -

2016) (applicant’s motion to amend the application to the Supplemental Register
raised for the first time in applicant’s brief on the case failed to fairly apprise opposer
prior to trial that applicant intended to amend its application); Drive Trademark
Holdings, 83 USPQ2d at 1435 (“the Board will generally defer determination of a
timely filed (i.e., pre-trial) unconsented motion to amend in substance until final
decision.”); Personnel Data Sys., Inc. v. Parameter Driven Software, Inc., 20 USPQ2d
1863, 1864-65 (TTAB 1991) (respondent’s Section 18 motion to restrict identification
of goods in its registration, filed with brief on case, denied because petitioner had not
been put on notice before it presented its case that respondent intended to amend its
identification of goods).
That is to say, the Board will exercise its discretion under
Trademark Rule 2.133(b) only where the petitioner or
opposer has been put on notice during the trial period that
the Board will be considering the issue of confusion with
respect to a recitation of goods or services narrower in
scope than that which was shown in the registration or
application at the commencement of the proceeding.
Personnel Data Sys., 20 USPQ2d at 1865.
If an applicant wishes to defend against the opposition by asserting that it is at
least entitled to a registration with a particular restriction (e.g., applicant’s mark has
acquired distinctiveness or is registrable on the Supplemental Register), applicant
should raise the defense either in its answer or by way of a timely motion to amend
the application to include the restriction. See Ayoub, 118 USPQ2d at 1394 (applicant’s
motion to amend to Supplemental Register raised for first time in its main brief on
the case deemed untimely where issue was neither raised prior to or during trial nor
tried by implied consent).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 33 -

If the Board ultimately finds that an applicant is entitled to registration only upon
entry of a restriction that applicant timely proposed, the Board will approve and enter
the restriction. See Embarcadero Tech. Inc. v. RStudio Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1841
(TTAB 2013) (applicant’s Section 18 motion to restrict its identification of goods
raised in alternative prior to close of discovery is timely and avoids likelihood of
confusion). But see Southwestern Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007,
Applicant filed its motion, in the alternative, to amend its application to seek
registration under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act or on the Supplemental Register
after the close of discovery but before Opposer’s pretrial disclosures were due. 1031
n.152 (TTAB 2015) (applicant not allowed time to amend application where no
specific restriction was suggested or tried by any party), aff’d mem., 652 F. App’x 971
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Opposer did not consent to Applicant’s motion “because any such amendment
would be futile.”104 In addition, Opposer contested the motion on the ground that
Applicant failed to plead its proposed amendment as an affirmative defense in its
Amended Answer.105 Thus, Opposer contends that, because it has not had the
opportunity to conduct discovery on this issue, if the Board grants Applicant’s motion,
Opposer is entitled to take discovery as to whether Applicant’s mark has acquired
distinctiveness.106

104 Opposer’s opposition to Applicant’s motion for summary judgment and motion to amend,
p. 14 (13 TTABVUE 15).
105 Id.
106 Id.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 34 -

First, Opposer’s assertion that Applicant’s amendment would be futile goes to the
merits of Applicant’s amendment rather than whether it is procedurally appropriate.
The assertion that Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is entitled to
registration under Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register is not wholly without
merit.
Second, Applicant’s proposed amendment is akin to an affirmative defense
because it raises new facts and arguments that, if true, would circumvent Opposer’s
2(e)(1) and 2(e)(2) claims. Cf. Embarcadero Tech. 105 USPQ2d at 1828-29 (applicant
moved to amend its descriptions of goods and services, requested at trial that the
amendment be considered in the alternative, and the Board deemed the answer
amended to include the affirmative defense under Section 18).
An affirmative defense assumes the allegations in the complaint to be true but,
nevertheless, constitutes a defense to the allegations in the complaint. An affirmative
defense does not negate the elements of the cause of action; it is an explanation that
bars the claim. Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1637 (TTAB 2011)
(citing Gwin v. Curry, 161 F.R.D. 70, 71 (N.D. Ill. 1995)) (the affirmative defense
concept codifies the common law plea in confession and avoidance: “Each defendant
either expressly or impliedly treats the factual allegations in a complaint as true, but
then goes on to assert new matter that eliminates or limits the defendant’s ordinary
liability stemming from those allegations.”). See also Parkinson v. DOJ, 874 F.3d 710,
720-721 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Affirmative Defense, under Defense, BLACK’S
LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) (“A defendant’s assertion of facts and arguments
Opposition No. 91235280

- 35 -

that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff’s or prosecution’s claim, even if all the allegations
in the complaint are true.”)).
Although Applicant did not plead its Section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness
or alternative amendment to the Supplemental Register in its Amended Answer,
Applicant was not categorically precluded from raising either basis for registration
later by way of motion to amend the application. See, e.g., Embarcadero Tech. Inc. v.
RStudio Inc., 105 USPQ2d at 1828-29. In such situations, such as in the case before
us, Trademark Rule 2.133(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.133(a), specifically provides that an
application subject to an opposition may be amended upon a motion granted by the
Board. Thus, Applicant could have asserted, as an affirmative defense, registration
in the alternative, under Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register, if it knew it
was going to amend its application when it filed its Answer. However, after Applicant
filed its Answer, Trademark Rule 2.133(a) permits Applicant to file a motion to
amend its application so long as the motion gives Opposer sufficient notice to prepare
for trial.
Third, Opposer’s claim that Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin fails to
function as a mark presupposes that it is incapable of functioning as a mark and,
therefore, is not registrable on the Supplemental Register. Therefore, we find that
Opposer has not shown that it needs additional discovery on this claim because it is
part of Opposer’s case in chief.
Finally, we turn to whether Applicant’s motion seeking registration pursuant to
Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act has prejudiced Opposer. As noted above, Applicant
Opposition No. 91235280

- 36 -

filed its motion to amend prior to trial and, therefore, it is prima facie timely. In
support of its motion for summary judgment filed simultaneously with its motion to
amend, Applicant introduced a declaration by Simon Strutt, Applicant’s Finance
Director, attesting to the following:
Applicant has continuously and exclusively sold
Applicant’s Gin through its exclusive U.S. distributor,
Pacific Edge, in the United States for more than five years,
i.e., since at least as early as October 2012. Applicant’s
CITY OF LONDON gin has been distributed in
approximately 4,000 outlets in 21 states. Sales of
Applicant’s Gin, to date, has exceeded approximately $1.2
million. In 2012, Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON gin won
gold medal at the Spirits Business Gin Masters Awards.107
Because the Board deferred ruling on Applicant’s motion until final hearing, it
was incumbent upon Opposer to renew its request to reopen discovery for the limited
purpose of exploring the evidence supporting Applicant’s claim of acquired
distinctiveness if, in light of Mr. Strutt’s testimony, Opposer required additional
discovery. Opposer’s failure to renew its motion to renew discovery belies Opposer’s
belief that it is prejudiced by Applicant’s motion to pursue registration, in the
alternative, under the provisions of Section 2(f).
In view of the foregoing, we find that Applicant’s motion to amend is procedurally
timely and would not prejudice Opposer if we were to grant it. We therefore now turn
to the merits of the motion, beginning with our analysis as to whether Applicant’s
involved mark has acquired distinctiveness.

107 Strutt Decl. ¶11 (11 TTABVUE 24).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 37 -

IX. Whether Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON has acquired
distinctiveness?
As noted above, under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, matter that is primarily
geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2) may nonetheless be registered on the
Principal Register if it “has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.”
Thus, the USPTO may register CITY OF LONDON on the Principal Register if
Applicant proves that it has acquired distinctiveness (also known as “secondary
meaning”) as used in connection with Applicant’s gin. See Spiritline Cruises LLC v.
Tour Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *5 (TTAB 2020) (“A primarily
geographically descriptive mark may be registered if it ‘has become distinctive of the
applicant’s [services] in commerce.’”); U.S. Playing Card Co. v. Harbro, LLC,
81 USPQ2d 1537, 1540 (TTAB 2006) (“If the geographic term is ‘primarily
geographically descriptive’ under Section 2(e)(2), the term may be registered on the
Supplemental Register or upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness.”). See also In
re Bacardi & Co., 48 USPQ2d 1031, 1036 n.17 (TTAB 1997) (“A mark refused
registration under Section 2(e)(2) may be registrable on the Supplemental Register,
under Section 23, or it may be registrable on the Principal Register with a showing
of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).”).
Acquired distinctiveness means an acquired “mental association in buyers’ minds
between the alleged mark and a single source of the product.” Apollo Med. Extrusion
Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1848 (TTAB 2017)
(quoting 2 McCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 15:5
(4th ed., June 2017 Update)). In this regard, in analyzing above whether the CITY
Opposition No. 91235280

- 38 -

OF LONDON is a generally known geographic location, we considered all of the
evidence touching on the relevant public’s perception of that name.
An applicant seeking registration of a mark under Section 2(f) bears the ultimate
burden of establishing acquired distinctiveness. In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd.,
797 F.3d 1332, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The applicant ... bears the
burden of proving acquired distinctiveness.”) (citation omitted).
A. Degree of Geographic Descriptiveness
The initial question before us in our analysis of whether the CITY OF LONDON
has acquired distinctiveness is its degree of geographic descriptiveness as used in
connection with Applicant’s gin. See Spiritline Cruises, 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *5
(quoting Royal Crown Cola, 892 F.3d 1358, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“the applicant’s burden of showing acquired distinctiveness increases with the level
of descriptiveness; a more descriptive term requires more evidence of secondary
meaning.”) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424
(Fed. Cir. 2005))). As the Board has explained:
[T]he greater the degree of descriptiveness, the greater the
evidentiary burden on the user to establish acquired
distinctiveness. The sufficiency of the evidence offered to
prove acquired distinctiveness should be evaluated in light
of the nature of the designation. Highly descriptive terms,
for example, are less likely to be perceived as trademarks
and more likely to be useful to competing sellers than are
less descriptive terms. More substantial evidence of
acquired distinctiveness thus will ordinarily be required to
establish that such terms truly function as source-
indicators.
In re Greenliant Sys. Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (TTAB 2010) (internal citations
omitted). See also La. Fish Fry Prods., 116 USPQ2d at 1265 (Board has discretion not
Opposition No. 91235280

- 39 -

to accept an applicant’s allegation of five years of substantially exclusive and
continuous use as prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness when the proposed
mark is “highly descriptive”); Boston Beer Co., 53 USPQ2d at 1058 (“[C]onsidering
the highly descriptive nature of the proposed mark, [Applicant] has not met its
burden to show that the proposed mark has acquired secondary meaning.”).
As discussed above, American gin drinkers and purchasers will perceive the
commercial impression of the mark CITY OF LONDON to mean and engender
London, a well-known major metropolitan area in England, long associated with gin.
Because the evidence here convinces us that London is so well-known and so closely-
associated with gin generally―indeed, it gives its name to a specific and popular type
of dry gin―we find CITY OF LONDON highly geographically descriptive in
connection with gin.
B. Evidence of Acquired Distinctiveness
Because we found that CITY OF LONDON is highly geographically descriptive of
Applicant’s goods, Applicant’s burden of establishing acquired distinctiveness under
Section 2(f) is commensurately high. See Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; In
re Bongrain Int’l Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1729 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
LC Trademarks, Inc., 121 USPQ2d 1197, 1199 (TTAB 2016); In re Greenliant Sys.
Ltd., 97 USPQ2d at 1085.
“To show that a mark has acquired distinctiveness, an applicant must
demonstrate that the relevant public understands the primary significance of the
mark as identifying the source of a product or service rather than the product or
Opposition No. 91235280

- 40 -

service itself.” Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1422; see also Coach Servs.,
101 USPQ2d at 1729. We base our Section 2(f) analysis and determination in this
case on all of the evidence considered as a whole, guided by the following factors:
(1) association of the trade[mark] with a particular source
by actual purchasers (typically measured by customer
surveys); (2) length, degree, and exclusivity of use; (3)
amount and manner of advertising; (4) amount of sales and
number of customers; (5) intentional copying; and (6)
unsolicited media coverage of the product embodying the
mark. ... All six factors are to be weighed together in
determining the existence of secondary meaning.
In re Snowizard, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (TTAB 2018) (quoting Converse, Inc.
v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 907 F.3d 1361, 128 USPQ2d 1538, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). See
also Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecomms.
Grp., 900 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1401, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1990). On this list, no single
fact is determinative. In re Tires, Tires, Tires Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1153, 1157 (TTAB
2009); In re Ennco Display Sys. Inc., 56 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (TTAB 2000) (“Direct
evidence [of acquired distinctiveness] includes actual testimony, declarations or
surveys of consumers as to their state of mind. Circumstantial evidence, on the other
hand, is evidence from which consumer association might be inferred, such as years
of use, extensive amount of sales and advertising, and any similar evidence showing
wide exposure of the mark to consumers.”). We now turn to an analysis of the evidence
in the record.
1. Association of CITY OF LONDON with a particular source by actual
purchasers (typically measured by customer surveys).

Applicant did not submit any direct evidence of acquired distinctiveness, such as
testimony from actual consumers or a customer survey. Applicant did supply,
Opposition No. 91235280

- 41 -

however, some circumstantial evidence of acquired distinctiveness, which we discuss
below.
2. Length, degree, and exclusivity of use.
Applicant has used CITY OF LONDON in the United States since October 2012.108
There is no evidence of any other entity using CITY OF LONDON for gin or any other
alcoholic beverage in the United States.109
3. Amount and manner of advertising.
Applicant proffered no testimony or other evidence regarding its advertising
expenditures in the U.S. However, Applicant’s U.S. distributor, Pacific Edge Wine
and Spirits, advertises Applicant’s “Tyler’s City of London Imported Dry Gin” on its
website.110 In addition, both parties introduced copies of third-party websites
advertising the sale of Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON gin.111
4. Amount of sales and number of customers.
Applicant has sold its CITY OF LONDON gin in the United States through its
exclusive U.S. distributor Pacific Edge Wine and Spirits.112 Pacific Edge Wine and
Spirits has distributed Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON gin to approximately 4,000

108 Strutt Decl. ¶7 (36 TTABVUE 3).
109 Applicant’s witness testified that he is unaware of any third-party use of CITY OF
LONDON for gin in the United States and, aside from Opposer, the witness is unaware of
any third-party use of CITY OF LONDON for gin anywhere else in the world. Strutt Decl.
¶ 12 (36 TTABVUE 4).
110 36 TTABVUE 12.
111 26 TTABVUE 82-86, 123, and 215-225; 35 TTABVUE 6-88.
112 Strutt Decl. ¶8 (36 TTABVUE 3).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 42 -

outlets in 21 states.113 Sales of CITY OF LONDON gin in the United States from
October 2012 through November 22, 2019 (date of the declaration) has exceeded $1.5
million dollars.114
The third-party online retailers noted above advertise the sale of a 750ml bottle
of Applicant’s gin for as low as $14.99 and as high as $31.99. Assuming an average
retail price of $20 per bottle, then Applicant has sold approximately 75,000 bottles of
gin between October 2012 and November 22, 2019 (seven years), or approximately
10,714 bottles per year. Inasmuch as Applicant has sold its gin through 4,000 outlets,
each outlet has sold on average 2.7 bottles.115 Nevertheless, because Applicant
provided no context in the form of market share or growth, these numbers do not
show that CITY OF LONDON has acquired distinctiveness. See Target Brands, Inc.
v. Shaun N.G. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1681 (TTAB 2007) (sales alone without
context not sufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness). Cf. Bose Corp. v. QSC
Audio Prods. Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“some
context in which to place raw statistics is reasonable.”); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d
1021, 1026 (TTAB 2006) (Board rejected an applicant’s attempt to show weakness of
a term in a mark through citation to a large number of GOOGLE “hits” because the
results lacked sufficient context).
5. Intentional copying.

113 Strutt Decl. ¶9 (36 TTABVUE 3).
114 Strutt Decl.¶11 (36 TTABVUE 4).
115 Because Applicant failed to provide context for its sales figures, Applicant left us to apply
the above-noted assumptions to give meaning to the testimony of Applicant’s witness
regarding Applicant’s sales.
Opposition No. 91235280

- 43 -

Applicant did not present any testimony or other evidence regarding intentional
copying.
6. Unsolicited media coverage of the product embodying the mark.
Applicant did not introduce any testimony or evidence regarding media coverage
of its CITY OF LONDON gin in the U.S.
Applicant’s witness testified that in 2012, Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON gin won
a gold medal at the EU Spirits Business Masters Award presented in the United
Kingdom.116 However, there is no testimony or evidence as to whether American gin
purchasers and drinkers are aware of that award, and the third parties advertising
the sale of Applicant’s CITY OF LONDON gin did not promote the award on their
websites.
We considered the evidence as a whole and find that in light of the highly
geographically descriptive nature of the mark, this meager showing falls far short of
proving acquired distinctiveness. Although Applicant’s use of the mark CITY OF
LONDON for gin has been continuous and substantially exclusive since October 2012,
its sales and advertising have been de minimis and it has received no media attention.
Accordingly, Applicant failed to prove that CITY OF LONDON for gin has acquired
distinctiveness and we refuse to register the mark under Section 2(f) of the
Trademark Act.
Nevertheless, consistent with our finding earlier rejecting Opposer’s failure to
function claim, we find that Applicant’s mark CITY OF LONDON for gin is capable

116 Strutt Decl. ¶10 (36 TTABVUE 3).
Opposition No. 91235280

- 44 -

of functioning as a mark and, therefore, we therefore grant Applicant’s motion to
amend pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.133 solely to the extent that we approve
Applicant’s mark for registration on the Supplemental Register.
Decision: The opposition is sustained as to the claim under Section 2(e)(2) of the
Trademark Act.
The opposition is dismissed as to the claims under Sections 2(e)(3), 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act, and failure to function as a mark under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the
Trademark Act.
Applicant has not established it is entitled to registration on the Principal
Register under Section 2(f), but we approve Applicant’s mark for registration on the
Supplemental Register.