## Facts

- Blinded Veterans Association (BVA) is a nonprofit founded by blinded World War II veterans and later federally chartered; it provides services and advocacy for veterans who lost their sight and uses the initials “BVA.”
- Blinded American Veterans Foundation (BAVF) is a nonprofit formed in the mid-1980s by former BVA officials to assist veterans with sensory disabilities, with a focus on blinded veterans; it used the name “Blinded American Veterans Foundation” and initials “BAV”/“BAVF.”
- BVA sued alleging trademark infringement and related unfair-competition theories, seeking to bar BAVF from using its name, its initials, and any organizational name combining “veterans” with “blind”/“blinded.”
- The district court found BVA’s name protectable based on acquired distinctiveness and found BAVF’s name and initials likely to cause confusion; it entered a broad injunction restricting BAVF’s use of the challenged terms.
- BAVF appealed, contesting trademark protectability and the breadth of the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether “blinded veterans,” as used in “Blinded Veterans Association,” is generic and therefore incapable of trademark protection, even if the public associates the phrase with BVA.
2. Whether, despite genericness, BVA may obtain relief under a passing-off (unfair competition) theory based on a likelihood that the public will be misled about BAVF’s identity or affiliation.
3. Whether the injunction barring use of any name combining “veterans” with “blind”/“blinded” was impermissibly broad.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held that “blinded veterans” is generic and that BVA’s organizational name is not a protectable trademark.
- The court ruled that evidence of public association (secondary meaning) cannot convert a generic term into a protectable mark.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment and broad injunction.
- The court remanded for consideration of a narrower passing-off theory and appropriately tailored relief.

## Legal Principles

- Generic terms—those naming a class of persons or services—cannot function as trademarks and are never entitled to trademark protection.
- Secondary meaning cannot rescue a generic designation; public recognition of a generic phrase does not create exclusive trademark rights.
- Trademark protection must be distinguished from unfair-competition remedies: even without a protectable mark, a plaintiff may seek relief against conduct likely to mislead the public about source, identity, or affiliation (passing off).
- Injunctive relief in naming disputes must be tailored; courts should not grant exclusive control over generic language needed by others to describe their constituency or services, but may consider narrower measures (e.g., disclaimers or less confusing naming) to reduce deception.

## Conclusion

The court rejected trademark exclusivity in the generic phrase “blinded veterans,” vacated an injunction that effectively monopolized that language, and remanded to determine whether limited relief was warranted to prevent BAVF from misleading the public into believing it was BVA or affiliated with BVA.


Blinded Veterans Ass’n v. Blinded Am. Veterans Found., 872 F.2d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1989)