This Opinion Is Not a Precedent of the TTAB
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This Opinion is not a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: February 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ The Topps Company, Inc. v. Panini America, Inc. _____ Opposition No. 91209769 _____ Andrew Baum and Janina Gorbach of Foley & Lardner for The Topps Company, Inc. Charles E. Phipps and Robert E. Nail of Locke Lord for Panini America, Inc. _____ Before Quinn, Wellington and Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge: Panini America, Inc. (“Applicant”) filed an application to register on the Principal Register the mark LIMITED (in standard characters) for “sports trading cards” in International Class 16.1 Applicant claims that its applied-for mark has 1 Application Serial No. 85650691, filed June 13, 2012 under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. Applicant subsequently filed an amendment to allege use that sets forth dates of first use anywhere and in commerce of 1994. Opposition No. 91209769 acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). The Topps Company, Inc. (“Opposer”) opposed registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that Applicant’s applied-for mark, when applied to Applicant’s goods, is merely descriptive thereof. Further, Opposer alleges that Applicant’s mark has not acquired distinctiveness. Applicant, in its answer, denied the salient allegations in the Notice of Opposition. Evidentiary Objections Before turning to the merits of this litigation, we focus our attention on evidentiary matters raised by the parties. The first involves Opposer’s objection to Applicant’s evidence of sales and advertising numbers based on inadmissible hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and 1006. More specifically, Opposer objected to spreadsheets comprising summaries of Applicant’s sales and advertising numbers because Applicant “failed to lay a proper foundation for their admission either as business records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) or as summaries of admissible business records under Fed. R. Evid. 1006.” (Brief, p. 17). During the testimony of Martin Welling, Applicant’s vice president of operations, product development, for the 2.5 years prior to his deposition, Mr. Welling identified and introduced spreadsheet summaries covering sales revenue and advertising expenditures. See Exhibit 34 “Donruss and Panini America, Inc. LIMITED Sales History (through August 2013) Consolidated” and “Donruss and Panini America, 2 Opposition No. 91209769 Inc. LIMITED Advertising and Promotional History (through August 2013) Consolidated”; and Exhibit 35 “Donruss & Panini America, Inc. LIMITED (Brand) Information (through March 2014) Consolidated.” The deposition and accompanying exhibits are designated as confidential.2 According to Applicant, the data reports “comprise written summaries of accounting information routinely and systematically prepared and maintained by Panini and its predecessors in the course of their regularly conducted business activities.” (Brief, p. 19). Further, Applicant makes the following claim: “Panini’s aforementioned sales revenue and advertising expenditure reports were first provided to Topps back on September 17, 2013 during the discovery phase of this proceeding (marked at that time as Panini Exhibit PA-0387 and Exhibit PA-0045) as part of Panini’s Response to Topps’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Topps never made any demand or request for Panini’s detailed accounting records from which the reports were prepared, although such records would certainly have been made available for review had Topps bothered to request such materials.” (Brief, p. 20).3 Opposer responded by contending that it was Applicant’s burden to offer the documents summarized in the spreadsheets for Opposer’s inspection, and not Opposer’s burden to ask for them. 2 In view of this confidentiality, the documents do not appear on TTABVue and, thus, they cannot be identified herein by this manner. 3 Applicant also points out that, in any event, its claim of $30 million in sales revenue under the LIMITED designation for the period 2001-2012 is already of record by virtue of Applicant’s response setting forth this figure in the application file. See Cold War Museum Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1628-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Unlike the numbers introduced at trial, the number in the involved application is not confidential. 3 Opposition No. 91209769 Opposer highlights certain testimony of Mr. Welling to establish the lack of a proper foundation for admitting this evidence: Q: And are these Panini’s business records kept in the ordinary course of business? Can you verify these are Panini’s records? A: Yes, as they’ve been presented to me. (Welling dep., p. 39) Q: With respect to Exhibits 34 and 35, if you could – if you could verify that the – information represented in these actual reports are based on Panini’s business records kept in the ordinary course of business? A: As it’s been presented to me, yes. (Welling dep., p. 40). Mr. Welling was not familiar with the spreadsheets until the meeting with Applicant’s attorneys; further, he never saw for himself the underlying business records, and ensured their accuracy only to the extent “as presented to [him].” As pointed out by Opposer, business records are trustworthy because they are prepared contemporaneously with the recorded events and because businesses need to rely on them in their commercial affairs. To the contrary, as Opposer states, “[t]he spreadsheets at issue here have none of those characteristics: they were prepared long after most of the events they purport to record, and they were designed to be passed on to others, not to be relied on by the preparing company itself.” (Brief, p. 18). We are inclined to agree with Opposer that the spreadsheet summaries are not business records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), and that the summaries do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 1006. Nevertheless, because consideration of the 4 Opposition No. 91209769 sales and advertising numbers does not alter our determination on the merits of Applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness, we will consider this evidence in making our decision. Accordingly, Opposer’s objections are overruled. As to the second evidentiary matter, Applicant raised objections to certain of Opposer’s evidence, citing Trademark Rule 2.123(1) and TBMP § 706 (2014). More specifically, Applicant objected to articles retrieved from the Internet (Exhibits B and C) because, in Applicant’s view, the evidence comprises search summaries and further that Opposer failed to indicate the relevance of the material being offered; and to excerpts from the website, www.ebay.com (Exhibits D-1 through D-8), because Opposer failed to indicate the relevance of the material being offered. Opposer has responded to the objections. The objections are not well taken. First, Applicant’s objection that Opposer did not indicate the relevance of the materials being offered should have been promptly raised when the notice of reliance was filed. An objection to a notice of reliance on the ground that the notice does not comply with the procedural requirements of the particular rule under which it was submitted generally should be raised promptly. Applicant’s objection, which is a procedural objection under Trademark Rule 2.122(e), should have been raised at a time when Opposer would have had an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiency. See TBMP §§ 532, 704.08(b) and 707.02. Accordingly, on this basis the objection is deemed waived. Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., 102 USPQ2d 1085, 1093 (TTAB 2012) (objection that notice of reliance failed to indicate relevance of materials was waived because 5 Opposition No. 91209769 the deficiency was curable and the objection should have been raised at a time that applicant would have had an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiency). Second, and more importantly, the notice of reliance sufficiently sets forth the relevance of the materials being offered. With respect to Applicant’s objection based on admissibility, the evidence at issue does not comprise, contrary to Applicant’s characterization, internet search summaries. Rather, as aptly pointed out by Opposer, the evidence comprises actual articles available in general circulation to members of the public retrieved from the Lexis/Nexis database. See Safer Inc. v. OMS Investments, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031, 1038 (TTAB 2010) (if a document obtained from the Internet identifies its date of publication or date that it was accessed and printed, and its source, it may be admitted into evidence pursuant to a notice of reliance in the same manner as a printed publication in general circulation in accordance with Trademark Rule 2.122(e)). Accordingly, Applicant’s objections are overruled in their entirety. The Record The record consists of the pleadings; the involved application; trial testimony, with related exhibits, taken by each party; dictionary definitions, excerpts from printed publications, excerpts from a third-party website, and Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s Requests for Admission, all introduced by way of Opposer’s notices of reliance. Both parties filed briefs. 6 Opposition No. 91209769 The Parties Opposer has manufactured and sold sports trading cards for over 65 years. Based on sales volume, Opposer is the leader in this industry. Clay Luraschi, Opposer’s vice president of product development, North America sports and entertainment, testified that over the years Opposer published sports trading cards in various sets and series, with its current collection comprising trading cards for Major League Baseball, the National Football League, Major League Soccer and Ultimate Fighting Championship. Opposer also published trading cards for the National Hockey League through 2004, and for the National Basketball Association through 2009.