Tag: litigation

Likelihood of Confusion trademarks service marks

Likelihood of Confusion – Trademarks

“Likelihood of confusion” is a legal test. It is applied by the courts and administrative agencies to contested Trademark/Service Mark proceedings and by United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Examiners during the registration process for Trademark/Service Mark Applications.

Likelihood of Confusion – What Law Applies?

Before a federal Trademark is granted, an Applicant must prove to the USPTO that the Trademark was used on goods and/or services in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate. The geographical limit for a federal Trademark registration is the geographical boundary of the United States and its territories.

Federal Jurisdiction

Federal jurisdiction of Trademarks/Service Marks (hereinafter Trademarks) can be controlled by the precedent of the US Supreme Court or one of the thirteen federal circuit courts sitting beneath the US Supreme Court.

Each of the thirteen federal circuits has its own case law precedent for adjudicating “likelihood of confusion” for contested Trademarks.  Although the case law precedent of the federal circuits is similar, it is not identical.

State Jurisdiction

When a Trademark is granted at the State level, the law of that State controls court and agency proceedings. The laws of the several States are variable on the standards for “likelihood of confusion.” The geographical limit for a State Trademark is the border of the State.

Likelihood of Confusion – USPTO Trademark Applications

For the USPTO, the “likelihood of confusion” precedent for Trademark Examiners is set forth in the case of In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Today, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from USPTO agencies and adopted the du Pont case as precedent.

On page 567 of the du Pont case, the court stated:

“In testing for the likelihood of confusion under 15 U.S.C. § 1052 Sec. 2 (d), the following, when of record, must be considered:

  1. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
  2. The similarity of dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.
  3. The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.
  4. The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., “impulse” vs. care, sophisticated purchasing.
  5. The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use.)
  6. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
  7. The nature and extent of any actual confusion. The length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.
  8. The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “family” mark, product mark).
  9. The market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior mark… (e.g., have the interested parties executed a contract to proclaim there is no confusion?).
  10. The extent to which the applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods.
  11. The extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial.
  12. Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.”

If the Examiner or the USPTO determines there is a “likelihood of confusion” between Applicant’s Trademark and a prior Registration or pending Application, the USPTO will refuse to register the junior Applicant’s Trademark.

Observations

With regard to the “likelihood of confusion” test, each of the federal circuit courts have adopted precedent similar to the test set forth in the case of In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). When possible, parties to an infringement will attempt to try the case in a venue most favorable a party’s evidence and arguments.

Have Questions on Your Trademark?

Business Patent Law, PLLC assists companies and individuals with the procurement and management of their Intellectual Property portfolios.

If your enterprise needs legal assistance procuring/managing/enforcing your Patent Applications, Patents, Copyrights or Trademarks/Service Marks, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses of all sizes.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Beach Buggy Invention Tires Litigation Intellectual Property

Expert Witnesses and Legal Proceedings

The Situation

Our company is a family owned business and we supply valve stems to motor vehicle rim manufactures.  We are a named party in a class action law suit against the motor vehicle manufactures, the international tire manufacturer and the rim manufacturers that utilized our valve stems.

Allegedly, the defective tires were attached to certain models of passenger cars.  The Plaintiffs aver that the tires “blew out” at maintained speeds of 70 MPH for more than fifteen minutes when the ambient temperature exceeded 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

Expert Witnesses and Adversarial Proceedings

Can our company use expert witnesses to defend against legal claims made against us?  Yes.

Can we use engineers, lay people and others as expert testimony to prove that the class action suit against our company is without merit?  It depends, in the federal system, an expert witness’ testimony is controlled by the federal rules of evidence.

Some Relevant Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:

    • rationally based on the witness’s perception;
    • helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and
    • not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

    • the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
    • the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
    • the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
    • the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Rule 703. Bases of an Expert

An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.

Can our Legal Team use the following as Expert Witnesses?

  1. The Director of our engineering department who has twenty years experience of overseeing quality control in the manufacture of our valve stems to prove that our valve stems were not defective. Yes – would qualify as an expert.
  2. The Director of our engineering department who has twenty years of experience of overseeing quality control in the manufacture of our valve stems to prove that the tires were not defective. No – would not qualify as an expert.
  3. Our vice president of sales to prove that 75% of the rims associated with the alleged defective tires did not utilize our valve stems.  Yes – would qualify as an expert, and if challenged should be allowed to give a lay opinion on the issue.
  4. The lead investigator of an insurance company’s automobile accident reconstruction team to prove that the tires were not defective. Yes – would qualify as an expert.
  5. An independent one-man shop seller of new tires with thirty years of experience of removing worn passenger car tires and installing new replacement tires to prove that the tires were not defective. Via news reports, the tire seller observed that seals for the alleged “blow out” tires did not contact their rims in accordance with industry protocol – outward and inward sides of tires were reversed when installed on their rims. Yes – would qualify as an expert.
  6. The above one-man shop seller observes that many “beach buggy” owners asked him how to reverse the tires on their cars. The witness testifies that social media was instructing “beach buggy” owners to reverse the inward and outward sides of the tires for a better “beach experience.” The witness opines that the reversed tires caused the tires to “blow out.” No – would not qualify as an expert to give opinion on the cause of the blow outs. However, the witness could testify as a layman regarding his interaction with “beach buggy” owners and social media.

If your enterprise needs legal assistance procuring/managing/enforcing your intellectual properties, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Opposition to a Trademark

Opposition Proceedings

What is a USPTO Opposition Proceeding?

Another Company filed a Trademark Application in the United States Patent & Trademark Office that is almost identical to our Trademark.  What can we do?  Can we institute an Opposition?

In view of such facts, your company has at least the following options:

  • Do nothing
  • Purchase the troublesome Trademark
  • Send a Cease and Desist Letter
  • If your company owns a federal Registration, institute a federal Trademark infringement legal action in the appropriate jurisdiction and venue
  • Possibly – institute a False Designation of Origin legal action in the appropriate federal jurisdiction and venue
  • Initiate a trademark infringement proceeding in a state court under the appropriate state statute or at common law
  • Initiate a legal proceeding before the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Which option is more cost-beneficial for your company? That is management’s decision.  As a general rule, the legal costs of an Opposition Proceeding are much less than the legal costs of a federal or state law infringement case.

15 U.S.C. 1063, in part, reads:

“Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark upon the principal register, including the registration of any mark which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 1125(c) of this title, may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, file an opposition in the Patent and Trademark Office, stating the grounds therefor, within thirty days after the publication under subsection (a) of section 1062 of this title of the mark sought to be registered….”

Any person who believes he/she/it could be damaged by the registration of the Mark on the Principal Register of the United States can institute an Opposition Proceeding before the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal.  If the Opposer successfully proves the case, the Trademark Application will not mature into a federal Registration.

Oppositions are generally less costly to litigate than cases in the federal or state courts.  Like cases in the federal courts, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to an Opposition Proceeding.

Oppositions can be conducted with or without oral hearings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

Successful Opposition Proceedings

For an Opposer (plaintiff) to be successful before the TTAB, they must prove one or more of the following:

  • (1) Defendant’s [the owner of the mark] mark so resembles a mark registered in the Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the defendant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
  • (2) Defendant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the defendant, is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them.
  • (3) Defendant’s mark is geographically deceptive, that defendant’s mark consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter, that defendant’s mark falsely suggests a connection with plaintiff’s name or identity, or that defendant’s mark is a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and was first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after January 1, 1996.
  • (4) There was no bona fide use of defendant’s mark in commerce prior to the filing of the use-based application for its registration under Trademark Act § 1(a), for a Trademark Act § 1(b) application, within the expiration of the time for filing a statement of use.
  • (5) Defendant did not have a bona fide intent to use the mark in connection with the identified goods/services as of the filing date of the application under Trademark Act § 1(b).
  • (6) Defendant is not (and was not, at the time of the filing of its application for registration) the rightful owner of the registered mark.
  • (7) The term for which registration is sought or for which registration has been obtained has not been used as a trademark or service mark.
  • (8) Defendant’s mark has been abandoned due to nonuse with intent not to resume use.
  • (9) Defendant’s mark is the title of a single creative work and not considered a trademark.
  • (10) That Defendant’s mark is generic.

If your enterprise needs legal assistance procuring/managing/enforcing your Trademarks/Service Marks, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.