Estta908206 07/09/2018 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: ESTTA908206 Filing date: 07/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91208416 Party Plaintiff PayPal, Inc. Correspondence ROCHELLE D ALPERT Address MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ONE MARKET SPEAR STREET TOWER SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 UNITED STATES Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Submission Brief on Merits for Plaintiff Filer's Name Sharon R. Smith Filer's email [email protected], [email protected], sftrade- [email protected], [email protected] Signature /SRS/ Date 07/09/2018 Attachments Opposer Trial Brief iso Consolidated Oppositions and Index of Objec- tions.pdf(443609 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In the matter of application Serial No. 85/578,671 Filed March 23, 2012 For the mark ZOOMPAY Published in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE on August 14, 2012 In the matter of application Serial No. 86/192,659 Filed February 13, 2014 For the mark ZOOMPAY Published in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE on July 15, 2014 PAYPAL, INC., Opposer, Opposition No.: 91,208,416 (parent) v. 91,217,374 (child) ZT HOLDINGS, LLC Applicant. OPPOSER’S TRIAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITIONS TO APPLICATIONS FOR ZOOMPAY DB2/ 33770618.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ................................................................................. 6 A. Overall Use and Strength of the XOOM Marks .................................................... 6 B. Use of the XOOM Marks for Relevant Financial Transaction and Electronic Payment Goods and Services ............................................................... 7 C. Consumers’ Understanding of Goods and Services for Use with XOOM Marks ................................................................................................................... 11 D. Federal Trademark Registrations for XOOM Marks and Specimens Filed ........ 11 E. Third Party Registrations Evidencing Overlap in Goods and Services ............... 12 F. Consumers’ References to XOOM Pronounced as “ZOOM” ............................. 12 G. Opposer’s Consumer Marketing about XOOM Evidences its Pronunciation as “ZOOM” .................................................................................. 12 H. Relevant Dictionary Definitions .......................................................................... 12 I. Evidence of Overlap with Class 36 Services for ZOOMPAY ............................. 13 J. Evidence that Applicant Lacks a Bona Fide Intent to Use ZOOMPAY for Any Computer Operating Software ..................................................................... 13 K. Evidence of Meaning of “Computer Operating Software” .................................. 13 L. Judgment in Favor of Opposer ............................................................................. 14 M. Admissions Against Interest ................................................................................ 14 N. Applicant’s Evidence and Objectionable Evidence ............................................. 14 II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES..................................................................................... 15 III. FACTS ............................................................................................................................. 16 A. Opposer Has Prior Trademark Rights in the XOOM Marks ............................... 16 B. Applicant’s ZOOMPAY Trademark Application No. 85/578,671 for Financial Transaction and Electronic Payment Services ..................................... 24 C. Applicant’s ZOOMPAY Intent-to-Use Trademark Application No. 86/192,659 for Class 9 Computer Operating Software ........................................ 25 D. Procedural Status of Consolidated Opposition .................................................... 25 IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 26 A. Evidence Establishes a Likelihood of Confusion as to Both Opposed Applications for ZOOMPAY ............................................................................... 26 B. Evidence of Record of Applicant’s Objective Lack of Bona Fide Intent to Use ZOOMPAY (Application No. 86/192,659) in Commerce for Computer Operating Software ............................................................................. 46 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 52 -1- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1581 (TTAB 2007) ....................................................................................29, 30 In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1783 (TTAB 1993) ..........................................................................................37 AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1973) ...................................................................................................42 In re Appetito Provs. Co., Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1553 (TTAB 1987) ............................................................................................29 Baroid Drilling Fluids, Inc. v. Sun Drilling Prods., 24 USPQ2d 1048 (TTAB 1992) ..............................................................................................43 Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1482, 2007 WL 894416 (TTAB 2007) ............................................................30 Brdwy. Catering Corp. v. Carla, Inc., 215 USPQ 462 (TTAB 1982) ..................................................................................................44 Clinton Detergent Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 302 F.2d 745 (CCPA 1962) .....................................................................................................31 Commodore Elecs. Ltd. v. CBM Kabushiki Kaisha, 26 USPQ2d 1503 (TTAB 1993) ..............................................................................................50 In re Davey Prods. Pty. Ltd., 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1198 (TTAB 2009) ..........................................................................................37 DC Comics v. Pan Am. Grain Mfg. Co., 77 USPQ2d 1220 (TTAB 2005) ..............................................................................................44 In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) .......................................................................................... passim In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) ...........................................................................................31 Eveready Battery Co., Inc. v. Green Planet, Inc., 91 U.S.P.Q.2d 1511, 2009 WL 2176668 (TTAB 2009) ..........................................................30 -2- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 196 U.S.P.Q. 24 (CCPA 1976) .......................................................................28 Fiserv, Inc. v. Elec. Transaction Sys. Corp., 113 USPQ 2d 1913 (TTAB 2015) ...........................................................................................37 Fossil Inc. v. Fossil Group, 49 U.S.P.Q.2 1451, 1998 WL 962201 (TTAB 1998) ..............................................................32 Fram Trak Indus. v. Wiretracks LLC, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 2000 (TTAB 2006) ..........................................................................................27 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..........................................................................................33, 41 Hi-Shear Corp. v. Nat. Auto. Parts Ass’n, 152 U.S.P.Q. 341 (TTAB 1966) ..............................................................................................42 Honda Motor Co. v. Winkelmann, 90 USPQ2d 1660 (TTAB 2009) ..............................................................................................50 Hornblower & Weeks Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1722 (TTAB 2001) ..............................................................................................43 In re i.am.Symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................42 In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1214 (TTAB 2001) ..........................................................................................31 In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1393 (TTAB 1987) ............................................................................................31 Jules Berman & Assos., Inc. v. Consol. Distilled Prods, Inc., 202 U.S.P.Q. 67, 1979 WL 24832 (TTAB 1979) ....................................................................30 Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...............................................................41 L.C. Licensing Inc. v. Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883 (TTAB 2008) ..............................................................................................50 Lane Ltd. v. Jackson Intl. Trading Co., 33 USPQ2d 1351 (TTAB 1994) ..............................................................................................50