Zatarain’s is a food product manufacturer who trademarked the terms “Fish-Fri” and “Chick-Fri” for batter mixes they produce and sell. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. started selling a “fish fry” and a “chicken fry” product similar to Zatarain’s. This lead Zatarain’s to claim Oak Grove Smokehouse was infringing on their trademark and creating unfair competition so they sued Oak Grove Smokehouse. The district court found that the trademark “Fish-Fri” was a descriptive term, but that there was an established secondary meaning in favor of the Zatarain’s brand. However, the court also found that Oak Grove Smokehouse could use the term under fair use because it describes what their product is used for. The court also found the trademarked “Chick-Fri” to be invalid because it is a descriptive term, but contains no secondary meaning. Zatarain’s…show more content… Analysis or Application: The court found that plaintiff’s term “Fish-Fri” is a descriptive term; however, because the plaintiff was able to prove that consumers associate the term with their brand, it is trademarkable with established secondary meaning. The plaintiff was not able to prove secondary meaning for their trademark “Chicken-Fri” so the court found their trademark invalid and the plaintiff did not contest this ruling. They did contest the court's ruling over “Fish-Fri” stating that the term is not a descriptive term but a suggestive term, meaning the defendant does not have any fair use protection under the Lanham Act. The Lanham act establishes that to be a descriptive term the term needs to pass a test: do other companies use the term, does the term have a dictionary definition, and does the term require some imagination from the consumer to infer the meaning? The court found in this case “Fish-Fri” or “Fish-Fry” is used by multiple companies, the term does have a dictionary definition, and does not require consumer imagination to infer the meaning. Therefore it was held that “Fish-Fri” is descriptive and not
