## Facts

- A New Orleans business operating from a former Federal Reserve Bank building provided high-security storage for valuables and related services (including office space and mail services) and used the service mark “The Security Center” beginning in 1980.
- In May 1982, the plaintiffs acquired the business and continued using “The Security Center,” and the trial court treated the mark’s first use as dating to 1980 despite no written assignment.
- In May 1982, a joint venture began using the name “First National Security Centers” for a planned, similar operation in the same general market, including private storage vaults and related services.
- By January 1983, defendants publicly displayed their name on a construction-site sign for their Metairie, Louisiana location.
- The parties’ dispute centered on whether “security center” is sufficiently distinctive to be protected as a service mark for private vault and related services, and whether defendants could be enjoined based on likely confusion.

## Issues

1. Whether “security center,” used for a business housing private storage vaults and offering related services, is sufficiently distinctive to be a protectable service mark.
2. If the term is descriptive rather than inherently distinctive, whether the plaintiffs proved secondary meaning sufficient to support exclusive rights.
3. Whether, given the similarity of names and services, plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief based on likelihood of confusion.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the permanent injunction and rendered judgment for defendants.
- The court held that “security center” was not a protectable mark in this context.
- Because the term was unprotectable, the injunction could not stand, and the court did not sustain relief premised on confusion.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark protection requires a protectable designation; a court must classify the term on the distinctiveness spectrum (generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, fanciful).
- A term that directly conveys the nature or purpose of the services is descriptive and is not protectable absent proof of secondary meaning.
- Likelihood-of-confusion relief presupposes that the plaintiff owns a valid, protectable mark; without that predicate, an injunction is improper.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that “security center,” as applied to private vault storage and related services, lacked the distinctiveness needed for service-mark protection and that plaintiffs had not shown a basis to claim exclusive rights in the phrase, requiring reversal of the injunction against defendants’ use of “First National Security Centers.”


Security Ctr., Ltd. v. First Nat’l Sec. Ctrs., 750 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1985)