Estta1095460 11/13/2020 in the United States Patent And

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1095460 Filing date: 11/13/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91253643 Party Defendant Gifted Invictus LLC Correspondence JEFFREY STURMAN Address STURMAN LAW LLC 8700 E JEFFERSON AVE #371706 DENVER, CO 80237 UNITED STATES Primary Email: tm-docketAsturmanlaw.com 720-772-1724 Submission Motion for Summary Judgment Yes, the Filer previously made its initial disclosures pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.120(a); OR the motion for summary judgment is based on claim or issue pre- clusion, or lack of jurisdiction. The deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set or reset: 11/14/2020 Filer's Name Jeffrey Sturman Filer's email [email protected] Signature /Jeffrey Sturman/ Date 11/13/2020 Attachments Motion for Summary Judgement_INVICTA S.p.A. v. Gifted Invictus LLC_Op pos- ition Proceeding Number 91253643.pdf(151506 bytes ) Exhibits for Motion for Summary Judgement_INVICTA S.p.A. v. Gifted In victus LLC_Opposition Proceeding Number 91253643.pdf(963706 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INVICTA S.p.A., Opposition No. 91253643 Opposer, Serial No. 88577810 Trademark: GIFTED INVICTUS v. Gifted Invictus LLC, Applicant. APPLICANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 Introduction 4 Argument 5 Legal Standard for Summary Judgment 5 Legal Standard to Establish a Likelihood of Confusion 5 Context for Evaluating Trademarks for Likelihood of Confusion 7 Likelihood of Confusion Factors 8 Analysis of Specific DuPont Factors 10 Conclusion 12 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Number Application of Ferrero, 479 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1973) 12 Carnation Co. v. California Growers Wineries, 97 F.2d 80, 25 CCPA 1277 (1938) 12 1 of 14 Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 434 F.2d 794, 167 USPQ 713 (9th Cir. 1970) 8 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) 5 Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 6, 11 Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 8 Coca-Cola Company v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) 12 Coca-Cola Company v. Seven-Up Company 497 F.2d 1351 (CCPA 1974) 11 Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 10 Dan Robbins Associates v. Questor Corp., 599 F.2d 1009 (CCPA 1979) 11 EI DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Yoshida Internat'l, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 12 Electronic Design Sales Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, 954 F. 2d 713, 21 USPQ2d 1388 8 Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976) 8 Florence Mfg. Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co., 178 F. 73 (2 Cir. 1910) 12 Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 212 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1981) 6, 11 Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 USPQ 390, (Fed. Cir. 1983) 5 Helene Curtis Industries Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 1989) 7 Herbko Intern., Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 6 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 6, 8 Hiram Walker & Sons v. Penn-Maryland Corporation, 79 F.2d 836 (2 Cir. 1935) 12 Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Marketing Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1991) 12 In Re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 8 In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 7 In re Cordua Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.4 (TTAB 2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 9 In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 5, 10 2 of 14 In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) 6, 8, 10 In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498 (TTAB 2010) 8 In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243 (TTAB 2010) 9 In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 8, 10 In Re National Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 7, 11 In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375 (TTAB 2006) 9 In re St. Helena Hospital, 774 F.3d 747, 113 USPQ2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 7 In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634 (TTAB 2009) 9 Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 576 F.2d 926, 198 USPQ 151 (CCPA 1978) 6 Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A. Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 11 Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Prods., 866 F.2d 1386, 9 USPQ2d 1736 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 12 Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enters., 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 6, 10 Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc., 971 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 5 Magnavox Co. v. Multivox Corp. of America, 341 F.2d 139, 52 CCPA 1025 (1965) 7 New England Fish Co. v. The Hervin Co., 511 F.2d 562, 184 USPQ 817 (CCPA 1975) 11 Odom's Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF Acquisition, L.L.C., 600 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 10 Olde Tyme Foods Inc. v. Roundy’s Inc., 961 F.2d 200, 22 USPQ2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 5 Packard Press v. Hewlett-Packard, 227 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 7 Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson’s Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (CCPA 1973) 7, 11 Price Candy Co. v. Gold Medal Candy Corp., 220 F.2d 759, 105 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1955) 10, 13 Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 6, 8 Shen Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. The Ritz Hotel Limited, 393 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 5, 6, 11 3 of 14 Sleepmaster Prods. Co. v. American Auto-Felt Corp., 241 F.2d 738, 113 USPQ 63 (CCPA 1957) 7 Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distribs., Inc., 748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 7 Spice Islands, Inc. v. Frank Tea & Spice Co., 505 F.2d 1293, 184 USPQ 35 (CCPA 1974) 7 Taubman Co. v. Webfeats Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, 319 F. 3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003) 12 Threshold.TV Inc. v. Metronome Enters. Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1031 (TTAB 2010) 10 Witco Chem. Co. v. Whitfield Chem. Co., 418 F.2d 1403, 164 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1969), aff’g 153 USPQ 412 (TTAB 1967) 8 Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2009) 8 Rules Page Number Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) 5 Regulations Page Number 37 C.F.R. §2.127 4 I. Introduction Applicant, Gifted Invictus LLC, (“Applicant”), by and through their undersigned legal counsel, submit Applicant’s Motion for Summary Judgement under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); 37 C.F.R. §2.127. Applicant respectfully asks the Board to deny INVICTA S.p.A.’s (“Opposer”) claim in opposition of Applicant’s trademark GIFTED INVICTUS under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act on account of Opposer’s INVICTA trademarks. There is no dispute as to any material fact relevant to the issue of likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s Trademark and Opposer’s Trademarks in connection with the goods and services as listed in Applicant’s trademark application and Opposer’s Trademark Registrations. 4 of 14 Applicant is therefore entitled to judgement as a matter of law on the grounds that no likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant’s Trademark and Opposer’s Trademarks. II. Argument A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); See Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc., 971 F.2d 732, 734 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact issue is genuine only if a reasonable fact finder viewing the entire record could resolve the dispute in favor of the nonmoving party. See Olde Tyme Foods Inc. v. Roundy’s Inc., 961 F.2d 200, 22 USPQ2d 1542, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The nonmoving party may not rest on the “mere allegations” of their pleading and assertions of counsel, but must designate specific portions of the record or produce additional evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). B. Legal Standard to Establish a Likelihood of Confusion “Whether there is a likelihood of confusion is a question of law based on underlying facts, such as the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods or services.” Shen Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. The Ritz Hotel Limited, 393 F.3d 1238, 1241 (Fed.

Load more