IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Dupont factors
Subscribe to Dupont factors's Posts

Unbranded Brandy: COGNAC Certification Mark Matters, Even in Hip-Hop

by | Aug 15, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a ruling from the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, disagreeing with the Board’s dismissal of Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac’s opposition to a trademark application filed by Cologne & Cognac Entertainment related to a hip-hop record label. Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, Case No. 23-1100 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) (Lourie, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

The certification mark COGNAC is protected by two entities: the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (the interprofessional union of all growers, producers and merchants of COGNAC spirits) and the Institut National des Appellations d’Origine (an administrative agency within the French government) (collectively, the opposers). Unlike a trademark that indicates a single source for a product, a certification mark is used by an entity other than the owner and is typically used to certify regional or other origin-related characteristics of the product (e.g., FLORIDA oranges, DARJEELING tea or GEORGIA peaches). The opposers are responsible for controlling and protecting the common law certification mark COGNAC for brandy manufactured in the Cognac region of France according to particular standards.

The applicant filed a trademark application in March 2019 seeking registration of a composite trademark for Cognac & Cologne Entertainment to be used for hip-hop music and production services.

The opposers opposed that trademark application, claiming priority and arguing both a likelihood of confusion with the COGNAC certification mark and that the applicant’s mark, by creating an association with the COGNAC mark, would likely cause dilution through blurring. In a split decision, the Board dismissed the opposition, finding no likelihood of consumer confusion and no likelihood of dilution. The opposers appealed.

For likelihood of confusion, the opposers argued and the Federal Circuit agreed that:

  • The Board applied the wrong legal standard for “fame,” and its finding that the COGNAC mark was not famous was not supported by substantial evidence.
  • The Board legally erred in analyzing similarities in the parties’ marks, and its allegedly inconsistent findings showed that its conclusion on similarity was not supported by substantial evidence.
  • The Board applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating the relatedness of goods, trade channels and consumers.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision, working through each issue in turn. First, the Court assessed likelihood of confusion, reviewing the Board’s ultimate legal conclusion de novo and underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. The Court analyzed the DuPont factors to assess whether a likelihood of confusion existed.

Fame: DuPont factor five assesses the fame of the prior mark, including sales, advertising and length of use. Fame is not binary, but instead is a spectrum from very strong (i.e., very famous) to very weak. More famous marks have more extensive public recognition and renown and accordingly are afforded a broad scope of protection. The Federal Circuit found multiple reversible errors in the Board’s fame analyses.

The Federal Circuit explained that the first Board error was its requirement [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Gets a DuPont 101 Lesson

by | Feb 22, 2024 |

Addressing errors in the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s likelihood of confusion analysis in a cancellation action, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the Board erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the first DuPont factor (similarity of the marks) and failing to consider the relevant evidence for the third (similarity of established trade channels). Naterra International, Inc. v. Samah Bensalem, Case No. 22-1872 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2024) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

In 2020, Naterra International filed a petition to cancel Samah Bensalem’s registration for BABIES’ MAGIC TEA for use in connection with “medicated tea for babies that treats colic and gas and helps babies sleep better” based on a likelihood of confusion with Naterra’s multiple registrations for BABY MAGIC for use in connection with infant toiletry products such as lotion and baby shampoo. The Board denied Naterra’s petition, finding that Naterra failed to prove a likelihood of confusion. The Board found that while the first DuPont likelihood of confusion factor (similarity of the marks) weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion, factors two (similarity of the goods) and three (similarity of established trade channels) did not, and Naterra’s BABY MAGIC mark “fell somewhere in the middle” for factor five (fame of the prior mark). The Board found that factors four (conditions of purchasing), six (number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods), eight (length of time and conditions of concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion), 10 (market interface between applicant and owner of a prior mark) and 12 (extent of potential confusion) were neutral. Naterra appealed.

Naterra argued “that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that the similarity and nature of the goods (DuPont factor two) and trade channels (DuPont factor three) disfavor a likelihood of confusion,” and that the Board did not properly weigh the first (similarity of the marks) and fifth (fame of the prior mark) DuPont factors.

DuPont Factor Two – Relatedness of the Goods

The Board rejected Naterra’s expert testimony that other so-called “umbrella” baby brands offered both infant skincare products and ingestible products, calling it “unsupported by underlying evidence.” The Federal Circuit disagreed, stating that “testimony that third-party companies sell both types of goods is pertinent to the relatedness of the goods.” Nonetheless, because the Court could not determine whether the Board rejected the expert testimony for other reasons, it remanded the case for further consideration and explanation of its analysis on this point.

DuPont Factor Three – Similarity of Trade Channels

The Board found that the third factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion, stating that it lacked the “persuasive evidence” necessary to “conclude that the trade channels are the same.” The Federal Circuit found that the Board erred by not addressing relevant evidence, namely Bensalem’s admission that the parties’ goods were sold in similar trade channels. The Court also noted that the Board “did not identify in its decision any evidence showing a lack of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

If at First You DuPont Succeed, Try a Different Factor

by | Jul 13, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the Board incorrectly analyzed several DuPont factors, improperly disregarded the DuPont factor regarding third-party registration on similar goods, permitted the opposer to succeed without a showing of identical marks for identical goods used in the marketplace and predicated its comparative analysis on the incorrect mark. Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd., Case No. 22-1578 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2023) (Mayer, Reyna, Dyk, JJ.)

Spireon filed a trademark application for the mark FL FLEX for use in connection with “[e]lectronic devices for tracking the locations of mobile assets in the nature of trailers, cargo containers, and transportation equipment using global positioning systems and cellular communication networks.” After the Examining Attorney approved the application, Flex opposed registration on grounds of priority and likelihood of confusion with Flex’s previously registered marks: FLEX, FLEX (stylized) and FLEX PULSE.

The Board sustained Flex’s opposition based on its analysis of the DuPont factors for evaluating likelihood of confusion. There are a total of 13 factors that together form the underlying factual findings upon which the legal conclusion of likelihood of confusion is made. Not all factors are relevant in every case.

In its consideration of the first DuPont factor (the similarity of the marks), the Board addressed the strength of Flex’s marks, including the marks’ conceptual and commercial strength. The Board weighed five marks—FLEX (in three relevant commercial contexts), LOAD FLEX VALUE FLEX—and concluded that the third-party evidence did not show that Flex’s marks were either conceptually weak or inherently distinctive. The Board then considered the similarity of the marks, analyzing Spireon’s FL FLEX against FLEX, FLEX (stylized) and FLEX PLUS (rather than the actual mark FLEX PULSE). The Board found the marks highly similar and concluded that the first DuPont factor supported a finding of likelihood of confusion. The Board also addressed three other DuPont factors that it considered relevant, but no others. Spireon appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. The Court found that the Board erred in not considering the sixth DuPont factor, “[t]he number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.” This factor requires an evaluation of conceptual strength and commercial strength. Conceptual strength focuses on the degree to which a mark is descriptive in that it “directly and immediately convey[s] some knowledge of the characteristics of products.” Commercial strength focuses on the “marketplace recognition value of the mark.”

The Federal Circuit explained the relevance of third-party registrations and their bearing on a mark’s conceptual strength, noting that the Board erred in assigning a low probative value to 15 composite marks of record. The Court explained that composite third-party marks are relevant to resolving the question of whether the “shared segment—in this case, ‘flex’—has a commonly understood” meaning in the pertinent field and to the crowded nature of the field in which the flex root is used. As the Court explained, proof of use or non-use is material because the sixth DuPont factor only considers [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Spark Here: TTAB Refuses to Register Similar Mark for Real Estate Services

by | Apr 27, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register a mark due to the “close similarity” between the applied-for mark and a previously registered mark. In Re: Charger Ventures LLC, Case No. 22-1094 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

Charger Ventures applied to register SPARK LIVING, identifying its services as rental property management and real estate leasing and listing. Based on an existing mark, SPARK, which identified other real estate services such as rental brokerage, commercial property leasing and management, the Examining Attorney ultimately refused to register Charger’s mark, despite Charger twice amending its application and disclaiming the word LIVING. Charger appealed to the Board, which used the 13 DuPont factors to analyze likelihood of confusion. The Board focused on five of the DuPont factors:

  1. Similarity of the marks: SPARK LIVING fully incorporates SPARK, and LIVING is both descriptive and disclaimed, making it “subordinate to SPARK.”
  2. Similarity of the nature of goods/services: While not identical, commercial and residential real estate services may “emanate from a single source under a single mark.”
  3. Similarity of trade channels: There exists “some overlap” between commercial and residential real estate trade channels.
  4. Class of purchasers: Although real estate purchasers exercise a high level of care, “even . . . sophisticated purchasers are not immune from source confusion.”
  5. Strength of the mark: Although SPARK is somewhat commercially weak, “even weak marks are entitled to protection.”

The Board did not announce the weight it afforded to each factor but found that Charger failed to overcome the high similarity between its mark and SPARK. The Board therefore affirmed the Examining Attorney and refused to register SPARK LIVING. Charger appealed to the Federal Circuit.

As to factor 1, Charger argued that the Board erred in finding similarity of the marks. The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that Charger disclaimed LIVING from its mark. The Court explained that disclaimer has no legal effect on likelihood of confusion because consumers do not know which words have been disclaimed. The Court found that the Board properly considered the full mark and that the marks were clearly similar.

As to factors 2 and 3, Charger argued that the previous SPARK registration could not be newly extended to include residential real estate services. The Federal Circuit rejected Charger’s argument, finding that many marks bridge the commercial and residential gap and that a registration’s listed services do not limit the trade channels in which the mark actually operates.

Regarding factor 4, Charger argued that SPARK and SPARK LIVING appealed to different classes of purchasers. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that Charger had failed to show that residential property owners were distinct from commercial owners.

Charger asserted that the Board improperly analyzed factor 5, since a mark’s weakness is “paramount” to likelihood of confusion. However, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that Charger failed to overcome the registered mark’s presumption of validity, despite other “spark” marks in the field. The Court [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Actual or Potential Consumers in Related Goods Context Doesn’t Require PURE Overlap

by | Mar 23, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reminded us that, in the context of related goods, the likelihood of confusion analysis does not require that actual or potential consumers of the goods be the same, but only that there be sufficient overlap. In re Oxiteno S.A. Industria e Comercio, Case No. 22-1213 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2023) (Dyk, Bryson, Prost, JJ.)

Oxiteno filed an intent-to-use trademark application for OXIPURITY, with its goods and services statement ultimately amended to include dozens of chemical products “for use in the pharmaceutical, veterinary, flavor and fragrance, and cosmetic fields.” The application was refused on likelihood of confusion grounds in view of FMC Corporation’s registered OXYPURE mark, largely because the hydrogen peroxide products covered by the OXYPURE registration moved through the same channels of trade as products recited in the Oxiteno application.

Oxiteno appealed the refusal to the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. The Board analyzed likelihood of confusion using the DuPont factors and found the first four factors most relevant:

  • Factor 1: The similarity of OXIPURITY and OXYPURE. The Board concluded (as had the Examiner) that the two marks were “similar in sound, meaning and commercial impression,” and found that this factor strongly favored a likelihood of confusion.
  • Factor 2: The similarity of the covered goods. The Board agreed with the Examiner that the respective goods, while not the same, were sufficiently related to favor a likelihood of confusion finding.
  • Factor 3: The similarity of channels of trade. The Board reviewed the third-party websites that the Examiner considered particularly dispositive. The websites sold hydrogen peroxide goods covered by the OXYPURE mark and the chemicals Oxiteno intended to sell under the OXIPURITY mark. The Board concluded that the same sources manufactured FMC’s established products and Oxiteno’s intent-too-use products, and directly sold these products to largely overlapping industries.
  • Factor 4: “[t]he conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made.” Of the four most relevant factors in this case, this was the only factor that the Board found to favor registration. The Board concluded that the consumers of the established and intent-to-use products would be sophisticated and not act on impulse.

Despite the potential consumers’ presumed sophistication, the Board found that factors 1 through 3 “rendered confusion likely” and thus affirmed the Examiner’s refusal. Oxiteno appealed.

Oxiteno argued that likelihood of confusion could not be found when the actual or potential consumers of the respective products covered by two marks were not the same, as with the relevant products here.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board, noting statements made by a company selling Oxiteno’s products that explained why almost every business is a potential purchaser of FMC’s OXYPURE hydrogen peroxide products. The Court also noted that FMC’s brochures stated that it sold its hydrogen peroxide products under OXYPURE and other brand names to the same key industries to which Oxiteno sold its products. The Court, therefore, concluded that substantial evidence supported that at least some [...]

Continue Reading



read more

A Primer on Practice at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board

by | Jun 30, 2022 |

In a precedential decision rendered in an opposition proceeding, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) took the lawyers for each side to task for ignoring Board rules in presentation of their case, but ultimately decided the case on a likelihood of confusion analysis. The Board found that the parties’ marks and goods were “highly similar” and sustained the opposition. Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, Opposition Nos. 91223352; 91223683; 91227387 (June 15, 2022, TTAB) (Wellington, Heasley and Hudis, ALJs) (precedential).

Pharmavite sought registration of the standard character mark NATURE MADE for various foods and beverages based on allegations of bone fide intent to use in commerce. Made in Nature (MIN) opposed on the ground that Pharmavite’s mark so resembled MIN’s registered and common law “Made In Nature” marks as to cause a likelihood of confusion when used on the goods for which registration was sought.

In its brief to the Board, Pharmavite raised, for the first time, the Morehouse (or prior registration) defense. MIN objected to the Morehouse defense as untimely. The Board agreed, noting that defense is “an equitable defense, to the effect that if the opposer cannot be further injured because there already exists an injurious registration, the opposer cannot object to an additional registration that does not add to the injury.” The party asserting a Morehouse defense must show that it “has an existing registration [or registrations] of the same mark[s] for the same goods” (emphasis in original).

Here, the Board found that this defense was not tried by the parties’ express consent and that implied consent “can be found only where the non-offering party (1) raised no objection to the introduction of evidence on the issue, and (2) was fairly apprised that the evidence was being offered in support of the issue.” In this case, Pharmavite did introduce into the record its prior NATURE MADE registrations but only for the purpose of supporting Pharmavite’s “[r]ight to exclude; use and strength of Applicant’s mark.” The Board found that this inclusion did not provide notice of reliance on the Morehouse or prior registration defense at trial.

In sustaining the opposition, the Board commented extensively on the record and how it was used, “[s]o that the parties, their counsel and perhaps other parties in future proceedings can benefit and possibly reduce their litigation costs.”

Over-Designation of the Record as Confidential

The Board criticized the parties for over-designating as confidential large portions of the record, warning that only the specific “exhibits, declaration passages or deposition transcript pages that truly disclosed confidential information should have been filed under seal under a protective order.” If a party over-designates material as confidential, “the Board will not be bound by the party’s designation.”

Duplicative Evidence

The Board criticized the parties for filing “duplicative evidence by different methods of introduction; for example, once by Notice of Reliance and again by way of an exhibit to a testimony declaration or testimony deposition.” The Board noted that such practice is viewed “with disfavor.”

Overuse of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Stratus Update: Federal Circuit Affirms TTAB Refusal to Register Telecoms Mark

by | Apr 30, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refusal to register the mark STRATUS over the existing registration for STRATA, finding a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. Stratus Networks, Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Communications, Inc., Case No. 19-1351 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2020) (Reyna, J.).

(more…)



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Legal Notices  |  Privacy & Cookies Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2024 McDermott Will & Emery

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery