F.2d 622, 626 (8th Cir.1987) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b)). But “a mark’s registered status is only an evidentiary tool, and the fact of registration does not affect the plaintiffs ultimate burden of proof in an infringement action.” Id. 7 . The significance of this distinction is that proof of secondary meaning is required for descriptive marks rather than suggestive marks. General Mills, 824 F.2d at 625. Secondary meaning is: "evidence that the consumers accept and recognize a mark as denoting only one seller or source.” Worthington Foods, Inc., v. Kellogg Co., 732 F.Supp. 1417, 1433 (S.D.Ohio 1990). 8 . The citation to 748 F.2d 669 regarding Tektronix, Inc., in Nestle Foods is incorrect. The correct citation is Tektronix, Inc., v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 917 (C.C.P.A.1976) (<HOLDING>). The Tektronix opinion is cited with apparent
holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder holding that the board was not in error in dissecting the marks by considering 38 third party registrations having the suffix tronics or tronix where the holder of the mark tektronix opposed registration of the mark daktronics holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party holding that the holder of the note must act in a manner that effectively provides notice that the holder has exercised his option recognizing that a forum selection clause also applies to a nonsignatory third party where the third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract