## Facts

- A Russian vodka producer applied to register the standard-character mark BAIK for vodka on the Principal Register.
- The examining attorney refused registration under Lanham Act § 2(e)(4) on the ground that BAIK is primarily merely a surname.
- The USPTO relied mainly on a nationwide telephone directory database showing 456 listings for “Baik” as a surname in the United States.
- The record contained no evidence that “Baik” was associated with any well-known person in the United States.
- The applicant asserted no one connected with it had the surname “Baik,” and argued BAIK is a Russian-sounding term evocative of “Baikal” (Lake Baikal/Siberia), including planned marketing tied to “Vodka Siberia.”
- After a final refusal, the applicant appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

## Issues

1. Whether BAIK, for vodka, is “primarily merely a surname” under Lanham Act § 2(e)(4).
2. Whether the examining attorney established a prima facie case that the primary significance of BAIK to the relevant purchasing public is surname significance.

## Decision

- The TTAB reversed the refusal to register.
- The Board held the examining attorney did not establish a prima facie case that BAIK is primarily merely a surname.
- The Board found “Baik” to be an extremely rare surname on this record, with no showing of public recognition.
- Because the USPTO did not carry its initial burden, the burden did not shift to the applicant to prove acquired distinctiveness.

## Legal Principles

- Under Lanham Act § 2(e)(4), a mark is refused registration on the Principal Register if it is primarily merely a surname, absent acquired distinctiveness.
- The examining attorney bears the initial burden to make a prima facie showing that the mark’s primary significance to the purchasing public is as a surname.
- Surname significance is assessed using factors including: (1) surname rarity, (2) connection of the name to the applicant, (3) other recognized meanings, (4) “look and feel” as a surname, and (5) stylization or display (if relevant).
- Evidence that a term lacks dictionary meaning does not, by itself, prove surname significance, particularly where the record supports a plausible non-surname connotation.
- In close cases, doubt on whether a term is primarily merely a surname is resolved in favor of publication/registration.

## Conclusion

The TTAB allowed BAIK to proceed toward registration for vodka because the USPTO’s directory evidence and lack of notoriety proof, combined with no applicant connection and a plausible Russian/geographic connotation, did not show that U.S. consumers would primarily perceive BAIK as a surname.


In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik”, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1921 (T.T.A.B. 2007)