Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1003531 Filing date: 09/20/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91245121 Party Plaintiff Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association Correspondence LISA GATES Address BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 300 E RANDOLPH STREET SUITE 5000 CHICAGO, IL 60601 UNITED STATES [email protected], [email protected] 312-861-8686 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: 09/25/2019 Filer's Name Shima S. Roy Filer's email [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Signature /Shima S. Roy/ Date 09/20/2019 Attachments PUBLIC MSJ Brief_Redacted.pdf(630311 bytes ) PUBLIC - Part 1 of 4 Garza Affidavit-Redacted with Exs A-D.pdf(4240610 bytes ) PUBLIC - Part 2 of 4 Garza Exhibit E.pdf(6030458 bytes ) PUBLIC - Part 3 of 4 Garza Exhibits F-G.pdf(6060880 bytes ) PUBLIC - Part 4 of 4 Garza Exhibits H-J.pdf(989686 bytes ) Part 1 of 3 Roy Declaration.pdf(326451 bytes ) Part 2 of 3 - Roy Exhibits A-H.pdf(6232097 bytes ) Part 3 of 3 - Roy Exhibits I - N.pdf(5962647 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD : Alzheimer's Disease and Related : Disorders Association, Inc. : : Opposer, : : Opposition No. 91245121 v. : : Alzheimer's New Jersey, Inc. : : Applicant. : : ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................... 2 III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS .......................................................................... 2 IV. NO QUESTIONS OF FACT EXIST AS TO WHETHER A LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION EXISTS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE ................... 7 A. All of the Factors that Inform A Likelihood of Confusion Analysis Favor Alzheimer's Association ............................................................................................... 8 1. The marks are similar in appearance and cover identical goods ........................ 9 2. The goods and services offered under the WALK TO END ALZHEIMER'S Marks and WALK TO FIGHT ALZHEIMER'S application are directed to the same participants used in the same channels of trade ...................................... 12 3. The strength and commercial awareness of the WALK TO END ALZHEIMER'S marks cannot be credibly disputed ........................................ 13 4. No similar marks are used on similar goods..................................................... 15 5. The remaining du Pont factors – bad faith and actual confusion – favor Opposer ............................................................................................................. 15 6. Balancing of the du Pont factors ...................................................................... 16 B. The Affirmative Defenses of Laches, Estoppel, and Acquiescence Fail As a Matter of Law ........................................................................................................................ 17 1. The required elements to sustain a laches defense do not exist. ....................... 17 2. Applicant's defenses of estoppel and acquiescence fail for the same reason as its laches defense .............................................................................................. 18 3. No facts exist to support an unclean hands affirmative defense ....................... 19 4. Failure to state a claim is not a proper affirmative defense .............................. 20 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Lawrence I. Wechsler, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1715 (TTAB 2007) .......................................................................................... 14 Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1526 (TTAB 2008) .......................................................................................... 18 Be Sport, Inc. v. Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1765 (TTAB 2015) ........................................................................................ 11 Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc., 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1633 (TTAB 2011) .......................................................................................... 20 Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc., 293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................ 13 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................................................... 7 Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992).................................................................................................... 9 Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. v. ABS-CBN Int'l, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1560 (TTAB 2007) .......................................................................................... 18 Coach House Restaurant Inc. v. Coach and Six Restaurants, Inc., 934 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................... 18 DAK Indus. Inc. v. Daiichi Kosho Co. Ltd., 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1622 (TTAB 1992) .......................................................................................... 19 In re Dixie Restaurants, 105 F.3d. 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................. 9 In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973) ........................................................................................... passim Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1546 (TTAB 2012) .......................................................................................... 9 ii General Mills, Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus., S.A., 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1584 (TTAB 2011) ........................................................................................ 12 Herbko Int'l Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................ 15 Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc., 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1722 (TTAB 2001) ........................................................................................ 7, 8 In re Inn at St. John's, LLC, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1742 (TTAB 2018) .......................................................................................... 12 Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161 (Fed. Cir. 1992).................................................................................................. 12 Krause v. Krause Publications Inc., 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1904 (TTAB 2005) .......................................................................................... 18 L'Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1434 (TTAB 2012) ........................................................................................ 10 Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-cut Log Homes, Inc., 971 F.2d 732(Fed. Cir. 1992)............................................................................................. 17, 18 In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................ 15 Nat'l Cable Television Ass'n Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors Inc., 937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991).......................................................................................... 17, 18 In re Nat'l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)................................................................................................ 11 Nina Ricci S.A.R.L. v. ETF Enterprises, 889 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989)................................................................................................ 16 Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computers Services, Inc. 918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).................................................................................................... 9 Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy’s, Inc., 961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992).................................................................................................... 7 On-line Careline, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................ 12 Opryland USA, Inc. v. Grout American Music Show, Inc., 970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992).................................................................................................... 7 iii Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................................... 11, 15 Panda Travel Inc. v. Resort Option Enterprises Inc., 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1789 (TTAB 2009) .........................................................................................