## Facts

- Compagnie Generale Maritime (CGM), a French corporation, filed multiple applications to register the stylized mark **FRENCH LINE** for numerous goods and services across many classes.
- The applications were based on French registrations under **Lanham Act § 44(e)**, which (at the time) did not require proof of use in U.S. commerce to be submitted with the applications.
- The examining attorney refused registration under **Lanham Act § 2(e)**; before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the refusal proceeded on the ground that the mark was **primarily geographically descriptive**.
- The PTO submitted evidence (e.g., press clippings) showing marketplace use of “French line(s)” to describe **lines of goods from France**, including clothing/fashions and cosmetics.
- CGM argued that “FRENCH LINE” primarily evoked its historic transatlantic passenger shipping service rather than a geographic source message for consumer goods and services.
- The TTAB found that purchasers would likely believe goods/services offered under **FRENCH LINE** came from France; it treated the mark as **primarily geographically descriptive** for French-origin goods/services and **deceptively misdescriptive** for non-French goods/services, and it affirmed refusal for all applications.

## Issues

1. Whether the TTAB clearly erred in finding **FRENCH LINE** primarily geographically descriptive under Lanham Act **§ 2(e)(2)** for goods/services originating in France.
2. Whether the TTAB clearly erred in finding **FRENCH LINE** deceptively misdescriptive under Lanham Act **§ 2(e)(1)** for goods/services not originating in France.
3. Whether the TTAB’s findings on geographic significance and goods/place association were reversible under the **clear-error** standard of review.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit **affirmed** the TTAB’s refusal to register **FRENCH LINE** for all identified goods and services.
- The court held the TTAB did **not** clearly err in finding the mark:
  - **Primarily geographically descriptive** when used for goods/services from France; and
  - **Deceptively misdescriptive** when used for goods/services not from France.
- The court emphasized that even if it might have drawn different conclusions on de novo review for some items, appellate review was limited to whether the TTAB’s determinations were clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- A mark is **primarily geographically descriptive** under **§ 2(e)(2)** when (1) the primary significance of the term is a generally known geographic location, and (2) purchasers are likely to believe the goods/services originate there (goods/place association).
- A mark is **deceptively misdescriptive** under **§ 2(e)(1)** when it misdescribes a characteristic (including geographic origin) and consumers are likely to believe the misdescription in a way that matters to purchasing decisions.
- Evidence of real-world usage can support findings that a term conveys a geographic meaning and that consumers make a goods/place association.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviews the TTAB’s fact findings and ultimate factual determinations for **clear error**, not de novo.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld refusal of registration because substantial record evidence supported the TTAB’s findings that “FRENCH LINE” would be perceived as indicating French origin for many goods and services, making it primarily geographically descriptive for French-origin offerings and deceptively misdescriptive for non-French offerings under Lanham Act § 2(e).


In re Compagnie Generale Maritime, 993 F.2d 841 (Fed. Cir. 1993)