F$\mathrm{.}2$d $22(1$st Cir.$)]$

$6.$ The Greenwich Bank & Trust Co$.($GB&T$)$ opened in $1998$ and by $2008$ had expanded to a total of four branches in the Greenwich, Connecticut, community of $62,000$ residents. A competitor using the name Bank of Greenwich $($BOG$)$ opened in December $2006.$ GB&T$\text{'}$s parent entity sued BOG for trademark violation under the Lanham Act. BOG argued that GB&T$\text{'}$s service mark is generic and is simply not entitled to Lanham Act protection because it combines the generic term "bank" and the geographic term "Greenwich." GB&T asserted that it had been the only bank in Greenwich using the word Greenwich in its name and had done so exclusively for nine years. It asserted that a geographic term is entitled to protection if it acquires secondary meaning. GB&T introduced evidence regarding its advertising expenditures, sales success, and length of exclusivity of use along with evidence of actual consumer confusion. Decide. $[$Connecticut Community Bank v$.$ The Bank of Greenwich, $578$ F$.$ Supp. $2$d $405($D$.$ Conn.$)]$