White Hot Powder Gets Its Shot in Color Mark Case
Gunpowder Maker an American Success Story in TTAB ReversalSuccess in the American tradition demands the qualities of motivation, determination, willingness…
October 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Gunpowder Maker an American Success Story in TTAB Reversal
Success in the American tradition demands the qualities of motivation, determination, willingness to sacrifice, hard work, timing, and a true element of luck.
That's how gunpowder manufacturer and recent trademark applicant Hodgdon Powder Company prefaces its company history. Certainly several of these factors came into play in the company's success at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
In a rare and precedential color mark decision, the Board reversed a refusal to register Hodgdon's mark comprising the color white applied to gunpowder for “preformed gunpowder charges for muzzleloading firearms,” finding that Hodgdon had successfully proven that its mark had acquired distinctiveness.
The examining attorney argued that the applied-for mark was not inherently distinctive and that Hodgdon's evidence of acquired distinctiveness was insufficient. Given the precedents in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. and in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., which held that marks comprised of a single color alone are never inherently distinctive, her first argument was clearly correct.
In its opinion in In re Hodgdon Powder Co., Inc., Serial No. 85947962 (June 30, 2016), however, the Board noted that gunpowder was almost always referred to as black powder. Hodgdon's witness backed this up by testifying that gunpowder has “always been gray or black.”
Determined and motivated, Hodgdon went on to explain that the white color of its gunpowder serves no purpose other than to identify its product, that the color white is not a natural by-product of the gunpowder manufacturing process, that there has been no other known use in the industry of the color white for gunpowder since the product was first developed by Chinese alchemists in the ninth century, and that the color white is not functional when used in connection with gunpowder.
This evidence led the Board to conclude that the color white is an anomaly contrary to consumers' expectations regarding the appearance of gunpowder.
To further support its application, Hodgdon filed a declaration attesting to substantially exclusive and continuous use of the color white for gunpowder for at least the five years preceding the filing date of its application. Hodgdon also put in some hard work at the winningly named 2014 SHOT Show in Las Vegas (SHOT stands for Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade). It conducted an informal survey about its product and presented the results to the Board. The survey showed that over 90% of respondents stated that only one company makes white gunpowder. And that company is Hodgdon.
Hodgdon's advertising stated that its product, sold under the registered mark White Hots, is “The Only White Gunpowder.” The company reported that since first introducing the mark in 2008, its sales had exceeded $3.5 million. The examining attorney contended that Hodgdon's advertising was insufficient as “look for” evidence and did not establish that consumers viewed the proposed color mark as a source indicator for the identified goods. She also asserted that Hodgdon provided insufficient information about its survey methodology and participants, making the survey inadmissible.
The Board, however, found Hodgdon's advertising to be “effective 'look for' advertising.” As to the survey, the Board acknowledged that it would not be admissible in an inter partes proceeding, and standing alone would not establish acquired distinctiveness. However, the validity of the survey was immaterial in light of the Board's finding regarding the “look for” advertising.
Reviewing the totality of the evidence, the Board found that the color white for Hodgdon's gunpowder had acquired distinctiveness, and so reversed the refusal to register.
And here's where Hodgdon's “true element of luck” comes in: You can probably count on one hand the number of single color cases that the TTAB has allowed to register in the last five years. The Board and the courts in general do not appear to be sympathetic to owners of single color trademarks, and require a substantial amount of evidence to find that single color marks have acquired distinctiveness.
This case is instructive to future would-be single-color trademark owners trying to prove acquired distinctiveness. I would not go so far as to say it signals a new trend that single-color marks are going to be allowed to register more often. But in this case, the fact that no other gunpowder manufacturers make white gunpowder probably outweighed any lack of enthusiasm the Board might have for single-color applicants.
So Hodgdon had its shot—and hit the target on the second try. An American success story, indeed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readFOMO Run Amok? Resolve of Firms Chasing AI Dreams Tested by Sky-High Costs
Trending Stories
- 1Breast Cancer Patient's Negligence Claims Cleared to Proceed Against Recalled BioZorb Marker
- 2Pentagon Settles Suit Seeking to Clear Records of Service Members Discharged for Being LGBTQ
- 3US Tower General Counsel Elevated to President
- 4Another US Law Firm Closes London Office
- 5Judge Largely Blocks Tennessee's Porn Site Age Verification Law as Other States Enforce Theirs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250