"[t]o establish secondary meaning, a manufacturer must show that, in the minds of the purchasing public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself."
And that is precisely what the evidence showed in the TTAB case that started this thread - that the overwhelming majority of the purchasing public relevant to the NAR's membership services, i.e. real estate agents, perceive "Realtor" as a distinctive indicator of source or origin of the NAR's membership services.
When you see a word like "show", it means "show" - produce evidence - demonstrate. Evidence is not about what seems "logical" or "reasonable". Evidence is about what are the facts, and the facts of human behavior and perception that are relevant to whether a trademark has secondary meaning, are not "logical" or "reasonable". People do not behave like machines. So, Garry, you can go on until you are blue in the face about what makes sense to Garry Anderson, or what "should" make sense according to some logical reasoning. But what matters is the impression made in the minds of the relevant consumer of the services in question. When you have gathered the results of your own scientific survey on that question, feel free to tell us what the perception is in those minds other than your own.
Hal, maybe Garry has one point, though
Absurdity - Absurditor