## Facts

- Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. (BPB), a log-residence manufacturer, began using “APPALACHIAN LOG STRUCTURES” in January 1980.
- BPB advertised the name in specialized publications and promoted in Tennessee, including the Knoxville Home Show, and established a Tennessee dealership in January 1981.
- BPB applied to register “APPALACHIAN LOG STRUCTURES” in December 1981 and obtained federal registration in August 1983 based on acquired distinctiveness.
- Appalachian Log Homes, Inc. (ALH), a Tennessee log-home seller, began using “APPALACHIAN LOG HOMES” in August 1981 in east Tennessee, selecting the name to describe its location and product.
- At trial, evidence showed “Appalachian” denotes a well-known geographic region and was commonly used in business names (including testimony identifying extensive third-party use).
- After a bench trial, the district court denied BPB injunctive relief, finding the mark primarily geographically descriptive and not shown to have acquired secondary meaning; BPB appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether BPB’s registered mark “APPALACHIAN LOG STRUCTURES” was primarily geographically descriptive and, if so, whether BPB proved secondary meaning sufficient for protection.
2. If the mark was protectable, whether ALH’s “APPALACHIAN LOG HOMES” infringed and should be enjoined.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment denying an injunction.
- The court held the mark was primarily geographically descriptive.
- The court held BPB failed to prove the mark had acquired secondary meaning in the relevant market.
- Because BPB lacked a protectable mark on this record, BPB was not entitled to injunctive relief against ALH’s use of its name.

## Legal Principles

- A federally registered mark is presumed valid, but the presumption may be rebutted with evidence that the mark is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning.
- A mark that primarily conveys geographic origin is not inherently distinctive and is protectable only upon proof of secondary meaning.
- Secondary meaning requires proof that the mark’s primary significance to relevant consumers is source identification, not geographic description.
- Evidence of promotional expenditures and sales may be insufficient absent proof of consumer perception (e.g., surveys or other direct evidence), especially where third-party use shows a crowded field.
- When a plaintiff cannot establish a valid, protectable mark, injunctive relief for trademark infringement is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of injunctive relief because “APPALACHIAN LOG STRUCTURES” was primarily geographically descriptive and BPB did not carry its burden to show secondary meaning overcoming widespread geographic and third-party use of “Appalachian.”


Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc., 871 F.2d 590 (6th Cir. 1989)