Estta272541 03/17/2009 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: ESTTA272541 Filing date: 03/17/2009 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91183558 Party Plaintiff Temple University -- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Correspondence Leslie H Smith Address Liacouras & Smith, LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 808 Philadelphia, PA 19102 UNITED STATES [email protected] Submission Motion for Summary Judgment Filer's Name Leslie H Smith Filer's e-mail [email protected] Signature /Leslie H Smith/ Date 03/17/2009 Attachments TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR SJ Motion with Exhibits and Certif of Service.pdf ( 75 pages )(1933802 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of Application No. 77/038246 Published in the Official Gazette on December 18, 2007 Temple University – Of The Commonwealth: System of Higher Education, : : Opposer, : Opposition No. 91183558 : v. : : BCW Prints, Inc., : : Applicant. : SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF OPPOSER TEMPLE UNIVERSITY – OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………… 2 II. UNDISPUTED FACTS……………………………………………………… 3 III. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ESTABLISH A LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION BETWEEN THE TEMPLE MARKS AND OPPOSER’S TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (AND DESIGN) TRADEMARK…………… 7 A. Likelihood of Confusion is a Question of Law Appropriate for Summary Judgment………………………………………………………………….. 7 B. Under the du Pont Test, the Undisputed Facts Establish A Likelihood of Confusion between Temple’s TEMPLE Marks and Opposer’s TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (and design) Mark…………………………………… 7 1. The TEMPLE Marks and the TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (and design) Mark Are Similar in Appearance, Sound, Connotation, and Commercial Impression………………………… 8 2. The Respective Goods Are Identical or Sufficiently Related Such that Confusion is Likely…………………………….. 11 3. The Respective Goods Are Marketed to the Same Customers in the Same Channels……………………………………………… 12 4. The Degree of Care Exercised by Consumers Supports a Likelihood of Confusion Finding...................................................... 12 5. The TEMPLE Marks Are Strong Marks…………………………… 13 6. The TEMPLE Marks Are Used on a Variety of Goods and Services………………………………………………………… 14 IV. BECAUSE THE TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (AND DESIGN) MARK WAS NOT USED IN CONNECTION WITH SPORTS BRAS AS OF THE FIRST USE DATE LISTED IN THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICATION IS VOID AB INITIO…………………………………………………………………………. 15 V. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………… 16 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A -- DECLARATION OF LINDA T. FRAZER EXHIBIT B -- APPLICANT’S ANSWERS TO OPPOSER’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES EXHIBIT C -- DOCUMENT BATES-NUMBERED 000044 EXHIBIT D -- TARR PRINTOUTS OF SAMPLING OF 3RD PARTY REGISTRATIONS FOR BOTH SWEAT SHIRTS/PANTS AND SPORTS BRAS EXHIBIT E -- APPLICANT’S ANSWERS TO OPPOSER’S INTERROGATORIES NOS. 21 AND 22 EXHIBIT F -- DECLARATION OF LESLIE H. SMITH ATTACHMENT 1: WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF “SPORTS BRA” TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000)………… 10 In re Dixie Restaurants, 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997)…………………. 10 In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973)…… passim Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., Inc., 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976)……….. 15 Giant Foods, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1993)……… 10, 11 Hurley Int’l, LLC v. Volta, 82 USPQ2d 1339 (TTAB 2007)………………………………….. 16 In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988)………………………….. 10 J& J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991)……. …… 15 Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Seiko v. Satellite Int’l Ltd., 29 USPQ2d 1317 (TTAB 1991)………. 15 Kellogg Co. v. Pack’Em Enterprises, Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545 (TTAB 1990)…………………. 7, 8 Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indust. Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1992)……….... 7 Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 531 F.2d 561 (CCPA 1976)……… 11 In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985)………………… 10 Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1777, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005)…………………………………………………………… 11 Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)……………………………… 12, 13 Saab-Scania Akiebolag v. Sparkomatic Corp., 26 USPQ 1709 (TTAB 1993)………………… 12 Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 4 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987)……………… 7 Turner Entertainment Co. v. Nelson, 38 USPQ2d 1942 (TTAB 1996)…………………………. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………… 2 II. UNDISPUTED FACTS……………………………………………………… 3 III. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ESTABLISH A LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION BETWEEN THE TEMPLE MARKS AND OPPOSER’S TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (AND DESIGN) TRADEMARK…………… 7 A. Likelihood of Confusion is a Question of Law Appropriate for Summary Judgment………………………………………………………………….. 7 B. Under the du Pont Test, the Undisputed Facts Establish A Likelihood of Confusion between Temple’s TEMPLE Marks and Opposer’s TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (and design) Mark…………………………………… 7 1. The TEMPLE Marks and the TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (and design) Mark Are Similar in Appearance, Sound, Connotation, and Commercial Impression………………………… 8 2. The Respective Goods Are Identical or Sufficiently Related Such that Confusion is Likely…………………………….. 11 3. The Respective Goods Are Marketed to the Same Customers in the Same Channels……………………………………………… 12 4. The Degree of Care Exercised by Consumers Supports a Likelihood of Confusion Finding...................................................... 12 5. The TEMPLE Marks Are Strong Marks…………………………… 13 6. The TEMPLE Marks Are Used on a Variety of Goods and Services………………………………………………………… 14 IV. BECAUSE THE TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (AND DESIGN) MARK WAS NOT USED IN CONNECTION WITH SPORTS BRAS AS OF THE FIRST USE DATE LISTED IN THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICATION IS VOID AB INITIO…………………………………………………………………………. 15 V. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………… 16 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A -- DECLARATION OF LINDA T. FRAZER EXHIBIT B -- APPLICANT’S ANSWERS TO OPPOSER’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES EXHIBIT C -- DOCUMENT BATES-NUMBERED 000044 EXHIBIT D -- TARR PRINTOUTS OF SAMPLING OF 3RD PARTY REGISTRATIONS FOR BOTH SWEAT SHIRTS/PANTS AND SPORTS BRAS EXHIBIT E -- APPLICANT’S ANSWERS TO OPPOSER’S INTERROGATORIES NOS. 21 AND 22 EXHIBIT F -- DECLARATION OF LESLIE H. SMITH ATTACHMENT 1: WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF “SPORTS BRA” ATTACHMENT 2: SEARCH RESULTS FOR “SPORTS BRA” ON APPLICANT’S WEB SITE LOCATED AT WWW.TEMPLEWORKOUTGEAR.COM ATTACHMENT 3: SEARCH RESULTS FOR “TANK TOP” ON APPLICANT’S WEB SITE LOCATED AT WWW.TEMPLEWORKOUTGEAR.COM TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000)………… 10 In re Dixie Restaurants, 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997)…………………. 10 In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973)…… passim Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., Inc., 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976)……….. 15 Giant Foods, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1993)……… 10, 11 Hurley Int’l, LLC v. Volta, 82 USPQ2d 1339 (TTAB 2007)………………………………….. 16 In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988)………………………….. 10 J& J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991)……. …… 15 Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Seiko v. Satellite Int’l Ltd., 29 USPQ2d 1317 (TTAB 1991)………. 15 Kellogg Co. v. Pack’Em Enterprises, Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545 (TTAB 1990)…………………. 7, 8 Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indust. Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1992)……….... 7 Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 531 F.2d 561 (CCPA 1976)……… 11 In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985)………………… 10 Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1777, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005)…………………………………………………………… 11 Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)……………………………… 12, 13 Saab-Scania Akiebolag v. Sparkomatic Corp., 26 USPQ 1709 (TTAB 1993)………………… 12 Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 4 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987)……………… 7 Turner Entertainment Co. v. Nelson, 38 USPQ2d 1942 (TTAB 1996)…………………………. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of Application No. 77/038246 Published in the Official Gazette on December 18, 2007 Temple University – Of The Commonwealth: System of Higher Education, : : Opposer, : Opposition No. 91183558 : v. : : BCW Prints, Inc., : : Applicant. : SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF OPPOSER TEMPLE UNIVERSITY – OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION Opposer Temple University – Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education (“Temple”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this motion for summary judgment, requesting the Board to dismiss Applicant’s TEMPLE WORKOUT GEAR (and design) application, Serial No. 77/038246 (the “Application”), under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, as likely to be confused with Temple’s TEMPLE trademarks and service marks, and further on the ground that, because Applicant was not using the mark in connection with sports bras as of the date indicated in the Application, the Application contains a material misstatement of fact that Applicant knew or should have known was false or misleading, making the Application void ab initio.1 1 The Notice of Opposition contained only a likelihood of confusion claim. Based on information acquired during discovery, Opposer, on March 11, 2009, filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Notice of Opposition, seeking to include a claim that the Application contains this material misstatement of fact that Applicant knew or should have known was false or misleading. The arguments concerning this fraud claim are included in this brief, to avoid the need for resubmission of this Summary Judgment Motion, should the Motion for Leave to Amend be granted. If the Motion for Leave to Amend is denied, this second basis for summary judgment (specifically, Section IV of this Summary Judgment Motion) should be disregarded.