Can “safari” be a trademark?

No. The court treated “safari” as generic for safari-style goods, so it cannot function as a trademark for those goods.

What is the trademark spectrum from this case?

Generic, Descriptive, Suggestive, Arbitrary, Fanciful. Only the last three are protectable without secondary meaning.

What did the court do with summary judgment?

It approved summary judgment where the undisputed facts showed generic use and no infringement for descriptive uses.

Why is genericness important?

Generic words name the product type. Granting trademarks on them would unfairly block competitors from truthful descriptions.

Did all uses of “safari” escape liability?

Descriptive, category uses did. Other disputed uses were left for closer analysis, but the generic finding drove the result.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World Inc

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World Inc.

461 F.2d 1040 (2d Cir. 1972)

U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 1972 461 F.2d 1040 Appellate Panel Trademark Law ~7 min read

generic terms trademark spectrum descriptive use summary judgment

Quick Summary

This case asks if the word “safari” can be a private trademark. The Second Circuit said no for safari-style goods because safari names the kind of goods—a generic term. The decision also explained the trademark spectrum (generic → descriptive → suggestive → arbitrary → fanciful) and allowed summary judgment where the record showed generic use and fair, descriptive references.

Issues

Can “safari” be validly registered and enforced as a trademark by itself?
When is summary judgment proper for a defendant using the term “safari”?

Rules

Generic terms cannot be trademarks. They are common names of goods or services.
Descriptive terms need secondary meaning to be protected; suggestive/arbitrary/fanciful marks are inherently protectable.
Summary judgment is proper when undisputed facts show genericness or fair, descriptive use with no likelihood of confusion.

Facts (Timeline)

Suit Filed: Abercrombie & Fitch sued Hunting World to stop use of Safari and related terms.

Defense Motion: Hunting World sought summary judgment—arguing no infringement.

District Court: Allowed descriptive/generic uses like “safari hat,” “Minisafari,” and “Safariland” in certain contexts.

Appeal: Plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit.

Core Question: Is “safari” source-identifying or the name of a product type?

Timeline showing lawsuit, summary judgment, and appeal in the Safari trademark dispute

Arguments

Plaidiff (A&F)

“Safari” marks identify A&F’s goods and should be protected.
Defendant’s use creates confusion and exploits A&F’s goodwill.
An injunction should stop all uses of “safari.”

Defendant (Hunting World)

“Safari” is generic for safari-style clothing and gear.
Uses were descriptive and fair; consumers were not confused.
Summary judgment should be granted on the undisputed record.

Judgment

The Court of Appeals agreed that “safari” is generic for safari-type goods. Generic terms cannot be privately owned as trademarks. For the challenged descriptive uses, the court approved summary judgment where the evidence showed no protectable rights or confusion. Broad injunction sought by A&F was not justified.

Holding: No infringement for generic/descriptive uses of “safari.”
Relief: Injunction denied as to those uses; genericness controls.

Ratio

Generic words remain free for everyone. Trademark protection depends on where a term sits on the Abercrombie spectrum. If a word names the product class, it is unprotectable, even if some buyers link it to one seller.

Why It Matters

Gives the famous trademark spectrum used in courts and classrooms.
Protects competition by keeping generic terms open for all.
Shows when courts can decide genericness at summary judgment.

Key Takeaways

Generic ≠ Trademark: No exclusivity over product names.
Descriptive needs proof of secondary meaning.
Suggestive/Arbitrary/Fanciful are inherently protectable.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: G-D-S-A-F — Generic → Descriptive → Suggestive → Arbitrary → Fanciful.

Group: Place the word on the spectrum.
Guard: If Generic, no rights; if Descriptive, look for secondary meaning.
Gauge: Check confusion only if protectable category is reached.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is “safari” protectable as a trademark, and was summary judgment proper for the defendant’s uses?

Rule

Generic terms cannot be trademarks; descriptive marks require secondary meaning; courts may grant summary judgment on clear records.

Application

Evidence showed “safari” named a product category; defendant used it in a descriptive, category sense, not as a source signifier.

Conclusion

“Safari” is generic for the goods at issue; summary judgment upholding such uses was appropriate; injunction denied.

Glossary

Term	Easy Meaning
Generic Term	The common name of the product (e.g., “safari jacket” for safari-style jacket).
Descriptive Mark	Directly tells a feature/quality; protectable only with secondary meaning.
Secondary Meaning	Public links the term to one source, not just the product feature.
Suggestive/Arbitrary/Fanciful	Require imagination or are unrelated/made-up; protectable without proof of secondary meaning.