## Facts

- United Distillers plc filed an intent-to-use application to register HACKLER in standard characters for “alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled spirits, except Scotch whisky, and liqueurs.”
- The Examining Attorney issued a final refusal under Lanham Act § 2(e)(4) on the ground that HACKLER is primarily merely a surname.
- United argued HACKLER had an occupational meaning (“a person who produced flax”) and promoted “The Hackler” through historical and literary references, including a poem titled “The Hackler from Grousehall.”
- United asserted the surname was rare, relying in part on limited local directory evidence.
- The Examining Attorney submitted nationwide directory evidence showing substantial surname occurrences and media excerpts using “Hackler” as a surname.
- The Examining Attorney also submitted dictionary evidence that did not include “hackler,” characterizing the asserted occupational meaning as obscure.
- United appealed the final refusal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

## Issues

1. Whether HACKLER, when used on the identified alcoholic beverages, is primarily merely a surname under Lanham Act § 2(e)(4).
2. Whether the USPTO made a prima facie showing that HACKLER’s primary significance to the purchasing public is that of a surname, and whether the applicant rebutted that showing.

## Decision

- The TTAB affirmed the refusal to register HACKLER on the Principal Register under § 2(e)(4).
- The Board found the USPTO established a prima facie case that HACKLER would be perceived primarily as a surname.
- The Board determined the applicant’s asserted occupational meaning and related promotional materials did not outweigh the surname significance.
- Because the mark was sought in standard characters, there was no stylization to alter the primary surname impression.

## Legal Principles

- A designation is “primarily merely a surname” if, as applied to the relevant goods, its primary significance to the purchasing public is that of a surname.
- The USPTO bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case that a proposed mark is primarily merely a surname.
- Surname analysis is guided by a nonexclusive set of factors, including: (i) surname rareness; (ii) whether anyone connected with the applicant bears the name; (iii) existence of other recognized meanings; (iv) the term’s “look and feel,” structure, and pronunciation as a surname; and (v) whether stylization reduces surname significance.
- Evidence of an alternative meaning does not preclude a § 2(e)(4) refusal if that meaning is not sufficiently recognized by the purchasing public to overcome surname perception.
- Occupational word formation (including “-er” terms) can support, rather than negate, surname significance because many common surnames derive from occupations.

## Conclusion

The TTAB held HACKLER primarily merely a surname for distilled spirits and liqueurs, concluding that evidence of surname use and consumer perception outweighed the claimed occupational meaning, and it affirmed the § 2(e)(4) refusal to register the mark on the Principal Register.


In re United Distillers plc, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1220 (T.T.A.B. 2000)