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’s parent entity sued BOG for trademark violation under the Lanham Act. BOG argued that GB&T’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 2d 405 (D Conn)].