as a community bank.” (Shomper Dep. at 10.) CFB’s senior vice president, Karen Baker, testified similarly, noting that the CFB name was selected because “Mr. Berman wanted to make [CFB] a community bank.” (Baker Dep. at 19-20.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff argues that the addition of the term “first” to its name renders CFB’s marks protectable because the term was added to reflect Berman’s “customer-friendly orientation philosophy.” (Pl.’s Opp. & Mot. Partial Summ. J. at 5.) Yet, the “customer-friendly” philosophy is in no way unique. Rather, that philosophy is endemic to the “genus or class” of community banks which, by definition, cater to individuals in the community. See Dixon, 49 Drake L.Rev. at 673 (on the definition of community banks); Ale House Management, Inc., 205 F.3d at 141 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Plaintiffs concession that the
holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that the relevant intent is not the intent to return ultimately but the intent to return to the united states within a relatively short period holding that redactions that replace a proper name with an obvious blank the word delete a symbol or similarly notify the jury that a name has been deleted render the admission of a codefendants confession unconstitutional holding that any acts in which employee engaged with intent to woo plaintiffs wife away from him during business meetings and trips simply had no connection to business of employer holding that plaintiffs intent to distinguish its business from others in the generic category does not render a generic name protectable