## Facts

- Miracle Tuesday, LLC applied to register the mark “JPK PARIS 75” and design for fashion accessories (e.g., sunglasses, wallets, handbags, travel bags, suitcases, belts, shoes) on an intent-to-use basis.
- “JPK” referenced designer and company manager Jean–Pierre Klifa.
- The mark prominently included “PARIS”; “75” corresponded to Paris postal codes.
- The examining attorney found Paris to be widely known and famous for fashion and related accessories.
- The goods were designed and manufactured outside Paris, primarily in Miami and Asia; Miracle Tuesday was based in Miami.
- Miracle Tuesday relied on Klifa’s biographical ties to Paris (French citizenship, years living in Paris, and trade show exhibitions there) and articles about consumer purchasing behavior.

## Issues

1. Whether the mark’s primary significance was a generally known geographic place (Paris).
2. Whether consumers were likely to believe the goods originated in Paris when they did not.
3. Whether the geographic misdescription would be material to a significant portion of consumers’ purchasing decisions under Lanham Act § 2(e)(3).

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register the mark.
- Substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s findings that “PARIS” was the dominant meaning and that “JPK” and “75” reinforced, rather than displaced, the geographic significance.
- Substantial evidence supported that consumers would likely infer a Paris origin or Paris-based source connection for fashion accessories, even though the goods were not designed or made there.
- Substantial evidence supported materiality because Paris’s reputation in fashion would likely influence purchasing decisions for the identified goods.
- The court declined to reweigh competing evidence under the substantial-evidence standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- A mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under Lanham Act § 2(e)(3) when: (1) its primary significance is a generally known geographic location; (2) consumers are likely to believe the goods come from that place when they do not; and (3) the misdescription is material to purchasing decisions.
- Biographical or historical ties of a designer to a place do not, without more, establish that goods “originate” there for § 2(e)(3) purposes.
- For goods in fields strongly associated with a place’s reputation (e.g., Paris and fashion), geographic terms can support both likely consumer belief as to source and materiality.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld refusal of registration because the “PARIS” designation on fashion accessories would likely mislead consumers into believing the goods originated in Paris, and that misdescription was supported as material given Paris’s reputation in fashion.


In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)