Estta1088137 10/12/2020 in the United States Patent And
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1088137 Filing date: 10/12/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 87570853 Applicant Ultra Pro International, LLC Applied for Mark CHROMAFUSION Correspondence KEVIN KEENER Address KEENER AND ASSOCIATES PC 161 NORTH CLARK STREET SUITE 1600 CHICAGO, IL 60601 UNITED STATES Primary Email: [email protected] Secondary Email(s): [email protected], [email protected], vin- [email protected], [email protected] 312-523-2164 Submission Appeal Brief Attachments APPEAL BRIEF OFFICIAL.pdf(1786430 bytes ) AB EXHIBITS A-E.pdf(4097452 bytes ) AB EXHIBITS F-J.pdf(4394441 bytes ) AB EXHIBITS K-L.pdf(3512538 bytes ) AB EXHIBITS M-Q.pdf(3952921 bytes ) AB EXHIBITS R-S.pdf(2391444 bytes ) Filer's Name Amanda Westfall Filer's email [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Signature /Amanda Westfall/ Date 10/12/2020 APPLICANT’S BRIEF APPLICATION NUMBER 87/570,853 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Applicant: Ultra PRO International LLC Mark: ChromaFusion Serial No: 87570853 Filing Date: August 16, 2017 APPLICANT’S APPEAL BRIEF APPLICANT’S BRIEF APPLICATION NUMBER 87/570,853 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY...........................................................................................1 B. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD..............................................................................2 C. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE.....................................................................................3 II. ARGUMENT............................................................................................................................3 A. MARKS ARE ONLY VAGUELY SIMILAR...............................................................4 B. GOODS ARE DISSIMILAR.........................................................................................9 C. BURDEN NOT MET...................................................................................................19 III. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................21 APPLICANT’S BRIEF APPLICATION NUMBER 87/570,853 INDEX OF CASES CITED PAGE NO. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973)….passim In re Thor Tech, Inc., 113 USPQ2d 1546 (TTAB 2015)………………………………………....4 In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198 (TTAB 2009)…………………………...……....4 In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ 2d 1266 (TTAB 2009)………………….…….………4 Ass’n of the U.S. Army, 85 USPQ2d 1264 (TTAB 2007)………………………..…………….…4 In re White Rock Distilleries Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1282 (TTAB 2009)………………………….….4 Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894 (Fed. Cir. 2000)……………..…..5 Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)………...9 Astra Pharm. Prod. v. Beckman Instruments, 718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983)……………..…….13 Pignons S. A. de Mechanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482 (1st Cir. 1981)…..13 Fisher Stoves, Inc. v. All Nighter Stove Works, Inc., 626 F.2d 193 (1st Cir. 1980)……….….…13 Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 644 F.2d 960 (2d Cir. 1981)……………………………………13 Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1371, 101 USPQ 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2004)…………………………………………………………………………………………16, 19 Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350 (TTAB 1990)…………16, 19 Local Trademarks, Inc. v. Handy Boys Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1156 (TTAB 1990)………….......16, 19 Quartz Radiation Corp. v. Comm/Scope Co., 1 USPQ2d 1668 (TTAB 1986)…………....…16, 19 Wynn Oil Co. v. Thomas, 839 F.2d 1183 (6th Cir. 1998)…………………………….…………..21 BeerNuts, Inc. v. Clover Club Foods Co., 711 F.2d 934, 941 (10th Cir. 1983)………………....21 In re Huges Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263 (TTAB 1984)………………………………...………21 APPLICANT’S BRIEF APPLICATION NUMBER 87/570,853 I. INTRODUCTION In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.141 and 2.142, Applicant hereby appeals to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from the decision of the Trademark Examining Attorney refusing registration of the mark CHROMAFUSION, Serial. No. 87570853, in International Class 16 for “Plastic holders in the nature of sleeves having an opaque side and translucent side specifically adapted for holding and protecting collectible trading cards and for use in card game competitions and tournaments,” and in International Class 28 for “Plastic protective sleeves having an opaque side and translucent side for gaming cards and specifically adapted for use in card game competitions and tournaments; Plastic holders in the nature of sleeves having an opaque side and translucent side specifically adapted for holding and protecting game cards and for use in card game competitions and tournaments” under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. The Examining Attorney continues to refuse registration of the applied-for mark on the basis of a likelihood of confusion in view of the registered marks (1) CHROME, Registration No. 4352791, in International Class 16 for “Trading cards,” (2) TOPPS CHROME, Registration No. 2251239, in International Class 16 for “Trading cards,” and (3) BOWMAN CHROME, Registration No. 2265679, in International Class 16 for “TRADING CARDS” (“Registrant’s Marks”). Applicant respectfully disagrees and requests the Board reverse the Examining Attorney’s determination. A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Applicant, Ultra PRO International LLC, is a Delaware Corporation. On August 16, 2017, Applicant filed the present application, Serial No. 87570853, in International Classes 16 and 28 for the mark CHROMAFUSION. On November 16, 2017, the Examining Attorney 1 APPLICANT’S BRIEF APPLICATION NUMBER 87/570,853 issued an Office Action, with attachments, refusing registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act based on a likelihood of confusion with Registration Nos. 4352791, 2251239, and 2265679, and further providing an advisory as to a prior-filed pending application also filed by Ultra PRO, and requiring an amendment to the identification of goods. On May 16, 2017, Applicant filed a response to the Examining Attorney’s office action addressing the Examining Attorney’s request for an amendment to the identification of goods, and arguing that there was no likelihood of confusion with Registration Nos. 4352791, 2251239, and 2265679, because the marks are not confusingly similar or related. On June 7, 2018, the application was suspended due to the prior-filed application. On May 10, 2019, the prior-filed application was abandoned. Thereafter, on September 4, 2019, the Examining Attorney issued a final office action, maintaining the refusal under Section 2(d) due to Registration Nos. 4352791, 2251239, and 2265679. On March 4, 2020, Applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration of the refusal to register and filed a Notice of Appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. On March 27, 2020, the Examining Attorney denied Applicant’s request for reconsideration. On May 29, 2020, Applicant submitted a Request for Remand to the Examiner, and it was remanded to the Examiner on June 2, 2020. On June 23, 2020, Reconsideration was denied and Examiner issued a Final Office Action. B. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD The record consists of the following (chronological order): 1.) Applicant’s application, Serial No. 87570853, filed on August 16, 2017; 2.) Examiner’s Office Action, dated November 16, 2017, and attachments, including Registration Nos. 4352791, 2251239, and 2265679; 3.) Applicant’s Response to Office Action, dated May 16, 2018; 2 APPLICANT’S BRIEF APPLICATION NUMBER 87/570,853 4.) Suspension Letter, dated June 7, 2018; 5.) Examiner’s Final Office Action, dated September 4, 2019; 6.) Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration, dated March 4, 2020; 7.) Examiner’s Request for Reconsideration Denial, dated March 27, 2020, and attachments (“Reconsideration Letter”). 8.) Applicant’s Request for Remand, dated May 29, 2020. 9.) Examiner’s Final Office Action, dated June 23, 2020. C. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The issue on appeal is whether the Trademark Examining Attorney erroneously determined that there exists a likelihood of confusion (§2(d)) between Registration No. 4352791 for CHROME in International Class 16, Registration No. 2251239 for TOPPS CHROME in International Class 16, Registration No. 2265679 for BOWMAN CHROME in International Class 16, and Serial No. 87570853, for registration of the mark CHROMAFUSION in International Classes 16 and 28 (“Applicant’s Mark”). II. ARGUMENT In rejecting Applicant’s argument that there will not be a likelihood of confusion, the Examiner appears to contend that the following factors are the most relevant: (1) similarity of the marks and (2) similarity and nature of the goods and/or services. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s analysis of those factors and the assertions set forth therein. In conducting an analysis of the likelihood of confusion, the seminal case involving a refusal under Section 2(d) is In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (“du Pont”), in which the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals discussed the factors relevant to a determination of a likelihood of confusion. 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). In setting forth the 3 APPLICANT’S BRIEF APPLICATION