2009 – 1370年。近十年来,Chippendales一直致力于在固有独特性的基础上获得服装行业的注册,而不是获得次要意义或独特性。最初的申请是由Chippendales于2000年11月27日提交的,但由于种种原因,它被迫接受了第二种含义的注册。该注册的问题是在2003年完成的,可以认为是无可争议的。然而,这并不能满足Chippendales的要求,事实上这是正确的。Chippendale的律师指出,侵权者往往要求提供证据,以证明在这类服务和商品中所获得的独特性,而这类服务和商品进一步增加了诉讼成本。因此,Chippendales考虑在2005年提交一份新的申请,注册声称具有内在独特性的袖口和衣领的贸易服装。PTO的审查员最终拒绝了这一要求,在2009年,TTAB对此表示肯定。


In a number of cases, this can lead to questioning priority. The mark of a plaintiff may have an earlier date of initial utilization in comparison with the mark challenged. However, if the mark challenged was utilized before the mark of distinctiveness was acquired by plaintiff, there may be lack of luck for the plaintiff. In the more general sense, a mark of inherent distinctiveness is considered as stronger in comparison with the mark acquiring distinctiveness by utilization. With a mark of secondary meaning, a plaintiff may end up dealing with a difficulty to prevent infringing utilization of services or goods. The listing of this is not done in the registration of this mark.The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of United States has affirmed its decision about the Board of Trademark Trial and Appeal that the dress of Chippendales under the trade of “Cuffs and Collar” cannot be considered as inherently distinctive for the services of adult entertainment. These services included exotic dancing for female while live performances were presented. This was the case of Chippendales USA Inc.
No. 2009-1370. For approximately ten years, Chippendales has been putting in efforts for obtaining a registration for the dress of trade on the basis of inherent distinctiveness instead of acquiring secondary meaning or distinctiveness. The initial application was filed by Chippendales on 27th November, 2000, but perceiving a number of reasons, it had been forced for accepting a registration of second meaning. The issue of this registration was done in the year 2003 and can be considered as incontestable. However, this did not satisfy Chippendales, rightfully in fact. It was noted by the attorney of Chippendale that more often evidence is demanded by infringers for the distinctiveness acquired in context with these types of services and goods that further lead towards increasing the costs of litigation. Accordingly, Chippendales considered filing a new application for registering its trade dress of Cuffs and Collar in the year 2005 that claimed inherent distinctiveness. The examiner of PTO ended up rejecting the claim and in the year 2009, there was affirmation by TTAB.