In the highly followed 2020 case USPTO v. Booking.com the Supreme Court rejected the USPTO’s per se rule that a proposed mark that consisted of a generic term and a generic top-level domain, such as .com, .net, .org, .biz or .info, is automatically generic. The Court stated that “[w]hether any given ‘generic.com’ term is generic … depends on whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class.” Ultimately, the Court ruled that the mark BOOKING.COM was non-generic for travel services and eligible for registration. So, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Examining Attorney in such a case must evaluate the mark using the standard generic analysis. Further, these terms, known as “generic.com” terms, may be registrable on the Principal or Supplemental Register if the Applicant can show sufficient acquired distinctiveness. However, it must be noted that these marks may still be refused as generic marks when appropriate.

In the wake of Supreme Court’s decision, the USPTO released an updated version of Examination Guide 3-20 for Generic.com Terms after USPTO v. Booking.com. In this new guide, the USPTO stated:

1. Though the ruling in com stated that generic.com marks are neither per se generic or per se non-generic, they are likely to be, at minimum, highly descriptive, under §2(e). This then increases the applicant’s burden of proving that the mark has previously acquired distinctiveness under §2(f).
2. In supporting a claim under §2(f), an applicant maybe submit the following as evidence: (1) consumer surveys, (2) consumer declarations, (3) relevant and probative evidence displaying the duration, extent and nature of the usage of the proposed mark and (4) any other appropriate evidence that shows the proposed mark distinguishes the goods or services to consumers.
3. In terms of consumer surveys, any consumer surveys submitted by the applicant to support a §2(f) claim must be accurately designed and interpreted in order to ensure they are reliable representations of the consumers’ perception of the proposed mark.
4. In terms of a §2(f) claim, if the mark is found to be generic for the proposed goods or services, the Examining Attorney must refuse registration of the mark due to genericness and indicate that a claim of acquired distinctiveness cannot override the refusal.
5. In regard to the protection of a proposed generic.com mark, the updated guidelines warn that this type of mark may be limited to a narrow scope of protection and the Examining Attorney must be wary of this when considering whether or not to cite an existing generic.com mark against a later-filed proposed mark with the same terms.
6. Finally, the updated guide reviews the existing procedure for reviewing generic marks and states that the previous generic analysis test is still appropriate when analyzing generic marks.

In conclusion, though the Booking.com decision affords generic.com marks the possibility of registration, an Applicant must be able to prove acquired distinctiveness, and there is no guarantee that a mark will not be barred from registration under the existing genericness guidelines. In the updated guide, the USPTO reminds Applicants and Examining Attorneys alike that all cases must be considered of their own merit with consideration given to all likelihood-of-confusion factors for which there is evidence of record. Go to USPTO.gov for the complete updated Examination Guide 3-20.

In a 2020 nonprecedential case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed a §2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness registration refusal for ONE TEAM CARE, for “providing temporary use of online non-downloadable cloud computing software for coordinating the provision of healthcare among caregivers and patients.”

The Applicant, TriarQ Health, LLC, argued that its proposed mark was not merely, descriptive, because it did not describe a feature or attribute of the identified goods or services, instead, it was suggestive of a function, feature or characteristic of its services. In support of its argument, the Applicant identified nine third-party registrations for the marks “ONE TEAM” and “ONE TEAM” formative marks issued for separate entities and different goods and services. Three of which related closely to the Applicant’s services: (1) “ONE TEAM. ONE FOCUS. LIFE,” for “medical diagnosis and treatment of cancer,” (2) “ONE CENTER. ONE FOCUS. ONE TEAM.” for “medical services, namely, medical imaging, surgery and treatment services” and (3) “ONETEAM.BUILD,” for “providing temporary use of on-line, non-downloadable software for use…in the field of residential and commercial design and construction,” and related activities. However, the Examining Attorney argued that the Applicant’s mark was simply a “combination of descriptive terms that immediately conveys a feature of applicant’s services, namely, software services that coordinate a “one team” method or strategy of care for patients.”

In beginning its analysis of the mark, the Board stated, that it’s not just about whether a consumer would be able to inference the nature of the goods or services from the mark alone, but, “rather, we evaluate whether someone who knows what the goods or services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.” See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

The Board then reviewed the evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney starting with the seven submitted screenshots of different websites from healthcare providers and medical trade journals that used the term “one team,” in the context of various aspects of health care. The Board ultimately decided that the evidence showed only limited use of the term “one team” in connection with various services related to providing a “multidisciplinary approach to medical and health-related services and training.” In regard to this particular evidence, the Board found that the Applicant’s services may be used, among other things, to coordinate healthcare services among a “team” of caregivers to patients. The Board stated, “‘One team’ is a nebulous or, at worst, suggestive term in all of the articles in which it appears.”

The Board then moved to the dictionary definitions submitted by the Examining Attorney of the words comprising the mark. (1) ONE – “being a single unit or thing; constituting a unified entity of two or more components,” (2) TEAM – “a number of persons associated together in work or activity” and (3) CARE – “charge; supervision (under a doctor’s care); to give care (care for the sick.)” It found that the definitions provided fell short of demonstrating that ONE TEAM was merely descriptive of a function or characteristic of the Applicant’s software services for in the field of healthcare, to a degree of particularity. “To be merely descriptive, a term must forthwith convey an immediate idea of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the relevant goods or services with a ‘degree of particularity.’” See The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cont’l Gen. Tire, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1067, 1069 (TTAB 2008) (internal citations omitted.)

In regard to all of the submitted evidence, the Board found that it was impossible to determine whether or not the use of “one team” or “one team care” merely represented the use of the term in the particular context, or if it indicated the use of the term to describe a particular aspect of the Applicant’s medical software services. In terms of the Applicant’s software services could be used, among other things, to facilitate a “one-team” approach to medical care, the Board found that “imagination or additional thought [would be] required to reach that conclusion.” See, e.g., In re George Weston Ltd., 228 USPQ 57 (TTAB 1985).

In conclusion, the Board ultimately decided that the Applicant’s mark ONE TEAM CARE was not merely descriptive under §2(e)(1) and reversed the refusal to register.

In a 2020 non-precedential case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed a §2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal of registration for the mark CITRUS CLUB (CLUB disclaimed). The Board found that Applicant’s mark, CITRUS CLUB, for “cocktail lounge services” would be confusable with the registered mark, CITRUS KITCHEN (KITCHEN disclaimed), for “restaurant services.”

The Applicant argued that its mark CITRUS CLUB was used for a “reservation-only rooftop cocktail lounge atop a five-star hotel in Charleston, South Carolina,” and it “operates exclusively in the evenings, employs a dress code and prohibits children under the age of 21 from entering.” Whereas the registered mark, CITRUS KITCHEN, was used for a “sole store-front physical location in Rancho Cucamonga, California…” and it was focused on “hand-crafted, healthy meal options.” Moreover, it is “open during the day, closes at 8 p.m. on Monday through Saturday, does not feature a dress code and allows children.” The Board used the relevant DuPont factors to determine whether or not the two marks were confusable. “[L]ikelihood of confusion can be found ‘if the respective [services] are related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.”’ See Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Starting with the second DuPont Factor, the Board analyzed the services cited in both the registrations and applications of the marks. The Applicant argued that its mark CITRUS CLUB was different than the registered mark CITRUS KITCHEN because it was a cocktail lounge and not a restaurant, however, the Examining Attorney submitted evidence which defined “cocktail lounge” as a bar, and as “a public room (as in a hotel, club or restaurant) where cocktails and other drinks are served.” This shows that the two services are closely related and that a cocktail lounge may even be within a restaurant. The Examining Attorney further submitted evidence which cited six separate entities that advertised as both a restaurant and cocktail lounge, furthering the argument that the two services are fairly intertwined. Aside from the evidence showing that cocktail lounges may be found in restaurants, the Examining Attorney also cited third-party registrations which showed restaurants that offered high-end cocktails much like a cocktail lounge would. In sum, not only can restaurants and cocktail lounges coexist in one place, but they can offer similar services as well. Therefore, the Board determined that the second DuPont factor weighed in favor of finding confusion likely.

Turning briefly to the third DuPont factor, the similarity of the trade channels and classes of consumers, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s argument that the two marks were used in separate states. As it previously found, cocktail lounges and restaurants can exist in the same place, therefore, that is already one similar trade channel. Further, it deemed that the services cited for the two marks could be offered to the same class of consumers, same type of patron and similar times of the evening. The Applicant further argued that the consumer classes were not the same since there were restrictions in place to enter its establishment, such as a dress code and prohibition of children under 21. However, the Board nullified the argument by stating that those specific restrictions were not reflected in the identification of the services in the registration or application. A likelihood of confusion analysis is based solely on the goods and services listed in the registration and application, not upon restrictions later set forth. “[We] “have no authority to read any restrictions or limitation into the registrant’s description.” Further, an applicant cannot “restrict [their] scope . . . by argument or extrinsic evidence.” See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1739 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638 (TTAB 2009)) Again, the Board found that the third DuPont factor weighed in favor of finding confusion likely.

The Board then focused its attention on the first DuPont factor, the similarity of the marks. Looking at the two marks side by side, the Board deemed the Applicant’s mark CITRUS CLUB similar to the registered mark CITRUS KITCHEN since CITRUS is the first term in each and is followed by a highly descriptive or generic term in each (both CLUB and KITCHEN were previously disclaimed). Further, the marks were visually and aurally similar, and the Board decided that as the initial element, the term CITRUS would be more likely to be noticed or remembered by consumers. See Palm Bay, 73 USPQ2d at 1692 “Veuve” is the most prominent part of the mark VEUVE CLICQUOT because “veuve” is the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label.  Further, see Presto Prods. Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) in stating, “[I]t is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered.” Looking then at the connotation of the two marks, the Board found that the term CITRUS, to the extent it suggested the use of citrus being used in food or drinks, would convey the same meaning to consumers in both marks. Ultimately, given the similarity of the marks’ sound, appearance and similar connotation and commercial impression of the shared term “citrus,” the Board found that the first DuPont factor weighed heavily in finding confusion likely.

In a final argument, the Applicant attempted to argue that CITRUS and KITCHEN are both common and frequently used terms, and therefore, the registered mark should be afforded only a limited scope of protection. The Applicant submitted third-party evidence that demonstrated the term CITRUS in connection with food, however, the Board found the evidence to be wholly inadequate due to the fact that while the submissions linked the term CITRUS to food, none of them linked the term to restaurant services. The Board ended the argument by saying that it did not find the mark CITRUS KITCHEN inherently weak or commercially weak to a point that it would allow registration of the Applicant’s mark CITRUS CLUB.

In conclusion, the Board found the marks to be similar in trade channels, consumer classes, sound, appearance and commercial impression. The relevant DuPont factors, in this case, the first, second and third, all weighed in favor of finding confusion likely, therefore, the Board affirmed the refusal to register the mark CITRUS CLUB under §2(d) likelihood of confusion.

In a 2020 precedential case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed a refusal for registration for the mark CO-OP for “Bicycles, bicycle seats, bicycle wheels, bicycle tires, bicycle handlebars, bicycle forks and bicycle handlebar stems,” which the USPTO deemed merely descriptive under §2(e)(1).

Under §2(e)(1), marks that are merely descriptive are barred from registration on the Principal Registration. These are marks that immediately convey information about a quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the goods with which it is used. In this case, the Applicant, Recreation Equipment, Inc. (REI), argued that the word “co-op” does not describe the goods cited on the application, which are bikes and bike parts. Moreover, the Applicant argued that other registrants successfully registered marks that included the term “co-op.” The Applicant then cited multiple registrations from the Principal Register, which showed that an entity identifier, i.e., “co-op,” is not technically merely descriptive. The Examining Attorney held firm that the term “co-op” was indeed merely descriptive as it conveyed something about the Applicant, specifically that the Applicant was a cooperative business. The Examining Attorney furthered her argument by citing the Meriam Webster’s definition of the term and pulling evidence from the Applicant’s website that shows the Applicant advertising the fact that it was the “nation’s largest consumer cooperative.” Aside from this evidence, there was no other specific finding to show that the term “co-op” otherwise described the goods.

After reviewing the arguments, the TTAB first explained that there was no per se rule of law that a term descriptive of the source of the goods was necessarily descriptive of the goods themselves. The Board determined that the Examining Attorney had relied on the on broad language in In re Major League Umpires, 60 USPQ2d 1059 and used it as a per serule that a mark merely descriptive of the source of goods, was merely descriptive of the goods themselves. She relied on the Board’s citation in that case that, “[i]t is well-established that a term which describes the provider of goods or services is also merely descriptive of those goods and services.” Id. at 1060 (citing In re E. I. Kane Inc., 221 USPQ 1203 (TTAB 1984) and cases cited therein). In doing so, she refused the registration. However, as the Board stated, that The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) does not have a per se rule equating descriptiveness of the source with descriptiveness of the goods provided. TMEP § 1209.03(q) (Oct. 2018) Since much of this appeal relied on In re Major League Umpires the Board found it imperative to review it. The Board found that in that case specifically, the facts were unusual and did not correlate to the case at hand. In the Umpires case, the Board found that the mark went beyond simply describing something about the source of the goods, but also described characteristics of the goods as well. Specifically, the Board stated that the mark, “also immediately conveys to purchasers’ information about a designer of at least some of the goods.” Major League Umpires, 60 USPQ2d at 1061. Moreover, the Board found that umpires were among a class of purchasers, so the mark was merely descriptive of the goods and the type of purchasers, not simply the general public. Finally, the Board found that, “Consumers will therefore understand the mark MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRE, if used on the identified goods, to describe goods which are used by major league umpires.” Ultimately, this case had nothing to do with the source of goods specifically, but three different ways in which the mark was merely descriptive of the goods at hand. The Board found that even though the Applicant conceded to the fact that the mark CO-OP described the provider of the product, the evidence was insufficient to support a §2(e)(1) refusal and that there was no evidence to suggest that consumers would perceive the mark as merely descriptive of a quality, feature or characteristic of the applied-for goods.

Second, the Board looked at the term CO-OP in connection with the applied-for goods, which were bikes and bike parts. It found that the record lacked evidence showing what consumers would think when they saw the term in connection with bikes or bike parts. There was no recorded evidence of third-party use of CO-OP or “cooperative” in connection with the type of goods the Applicant was applying for. Had there been, it would have been evidence that potentially signaled mere descriptiveness. Further, the record did not contain any advertising with any descriptive use of the mark in connection with the goods, as existed in Major League Umpires. (In that case, the Applicant was a group of umpires advertising goods made by, and for, umpires.) Finally, there was no evidence that consumers used the term CO-OP in connection with the goods, or that any trade publication referenced the term in connection with bikes or bike parts. The Board cited Dan Robbins & Assocs., Inc. v. Questor Corp., 599 F.2d 1009, 202 USPQ 100, 105 (CCPA 1979) in concluding, “Many types of evidence can shed light on what a term means within a particular context, but no such evidence is of record here.”

In summation, the Board concluded that while some consumers may have been aware that the Applicant was a co-op, the evidence did not support a finding that the mark CO-OP immediately conveyed, to the average consumer, information about a quality, feature or characteristic of bikes and bike parts. It found that the term merely described the Applicant’s business structure and that alone was insufficient for the Board to affirm a §2(e)(1) refusal to register. Therefore, the Board reversed the refusal to register.

The Trademark Act, formally, the Lanham Act of 1946, has been revised multiple times since its enactment, however, the recent Trademark Modernization Act, (the Act) is the most radical adjustment since 1988. Congress signed the Act into law on Dec. 27, 2020 with full bipartisan support. The Act contains several new procedures that are meant to help maintain and strengthen the effectiveness and reliability of the federal trademark register.

First, one of the Act’s main goals is to minimize the issuance of registrations falsely claiming use in commerce of a mark that the registrant has not used in the required manner. There are now two new ex parte post-registration proceedings to cancel unused trademarks. A trademark applicant can now file a petition with the USPTO to request that the USPTO Director initiate a proceeding to expunge or to reexamine a registration for a trademark that either has never been used in commerce or was not used in commerce prior to a particular Relevant Date (see infra). Both petitions will generally require a verified statement establishing that a thorough investigation was conducted prior to the petition regarding whether the mark had been properly used in commerce and/or maintained. The following two proceedings are of particular use to new applicants looking to create and use a viable trademark but find that they are blocked from registration due to unused marks.

1. Expungement: A trademark applicant can request that the USPTO remove some or all of the goods or services in a registration because a registrant did not use the trademark in commerce in connection with those goods or services. This petition must be filed within three to ten years of the registration date.
2. Reexamination: A trademark applicant can request that the USPTO remove some or all of the goods and services in a registration because the trademark was not used in commerce in connection with those goods and services on or before a particular relevant date. The Act defines the Relevant Date as: 1) The date that the registrant filed an averment of use to support an application filed with a §1(a) basis or 2) The third anniversary of a registration issued under either §44(e) or §66(a). This petition must be filed with the first five years after the trademark is registered and is mostly directed at registrations where a questionable specimen proving the trademarks use in commerce was submitted during the original examination of the application.

Once the petition is filed properly, the Director will determine whether or not a removal of goods or services from a registration will occur. If some or all of the goods or services are removed, the registrant may appeal the decision to the TTAB, and after that, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Second, the Act now provides for more flexible response periods for office actions. Previously, the Trademark Act required a trademark applicant to respond to an office action issued during examination within six months. Now, under the Act, trademark examiners will have greater flexibility in setting response deadlines for office actions. This adjustment authorizes the USPTO to shorten response deadlines to between 60 days and six months, provided the applicants can obtain extensions of time to respond up until the original six-month deadline. The applicant must pay the USPTO a filing fee for these requests for extension.

Third, the Act provides statutory authority for the USPTO letter of protest practice that allows third parties to submit evidence to the USPTO prior to registration in regard to the trademark’s registrability. The Act sets a two-month deadline for the USPTO to act on the submissions and authorizes it to charge a $50 fee for them. Moreover, the new procedure provides that the USPTO’s decision on whether to include the evidence in the application record is final and non-reviewable. Consistent with the requirements of the Act, the USPTO issued the following procedural rules that went into effect on Jan. 2, 2021. The rules require: 1) The submission must identify each legal ground for an examining attorney to refuse registration or issue a requirement; 2) the inclusion of evidence that supports those grounds and 3) a succinct description for each piece of supporting evidence.

Finally, the Act creates a uniform rule establishing a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm. It provides that a trademark owner seeking injunctive relief is entitled to a rebuttal presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of infringement or a likelihood of success on the merits. This rule will help trademark owners enforce their rights against infringers in federal court and unifies the law among the district courts.

Ultimately, the Act is meant to protect the relevant consuming public from confusion regarding the source of goods and services. It has also been enacted to better help protect trademark owners from fraudulent trademark filings, and allow new trademark registrants to register marks without being impeded by invalid marks.

In a 2020 non-precedential opinion, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the refusal of registration for the proposed mark SPIDER WOOD for “Decorative ornaments in the nature of natural sculptures of wood for use in terrariums, animal habitats, bird cages, floral arrangements, and interiorscape installations.” The TTAB found the mark to be merely descriptive under §2(e)(1).

When determining whether a mark is merely descriptive or suggestive, the Examining Attorney must look at the mark in its entirety, and if the mark “immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of the goods or services for which registration is sought,” then it is considered merely descriptive under §2(e)(1). Further, when determining whether a mark is merely descriptive, the Examining Attorney must consider the mark as a whole, and “do so in the context of the goods or services at issue.” See Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 128 USPQ2d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

 The applicant, Petglobe, first argued that the mark was suggestive, and not descriptive because the product “is a tangled mass of wood roots used in animal habitats,” that “does not have any other clear connection to spiders.” The Examining Attorney submitted a slew of evidence in the form of website excerpts that referred to, and offered, the sale of “spider wood” for terrariums and aquariums. The Board found that the applicant’s argument that the mark was suggestive because there was no clear connection to spiders was invalid. It concluded that the term, SPIDER WOOD, in connection with the goods listed in the application, did indeed have a distinct and commercial impression. It stated that the owners of terrariums, animal habitats and birdcages looking to buy “decorative ornaments in the nature of natural sculptures of wood,” would encounter the term SPIDER WOOD and “[would] immediately know that it is a type of driftwood without having to resort to a multi-step reasoning process, thought, or cogitation.” Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the addition of the word SPIDER before WOOD was negated by the evidence provided. It is important to note that in order for a mark to be found merely descriptive it does not have to describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of a good or service to be considered merely descriptive. It can be classified as such if the term describes one important function, attribute or property. In a similar fashion, the term does not need to describe all of the goods or services identified on the application, so long as it describes one of them.

The applicant then argued that it was the first to “develop” the mark and the first to use it. Therefore, it claimed that any other industry usage of the mark, for the same goods, was an infringement against its established unregistered trademark. This argument was quickly dismissed as the Board stated that simply because an applicant was the first user or “developer” of merely descriptive mark did not justify its registration if the only significance conveyed by the term was merely descriptive. “Trademark law does not countenance someone obtaining “a complete monopoly on use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first.” See KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 122, 72 USPQ2d 1833, 1838 (2004)

In conclusion, the Board affirmed the refusal of registration for the mark SPIDER WOOD as it was found to be merely descriptive under § 2(e)(1).

The last two articles discussed the §8 Declaration of Use affidavit and the §9 Application for Renewal affidavit. Both of these documents must be filed within the timeline given and are necessary in order to maintain federal trademark status. This post will discuss the §15 Declaration of Incontestability document, which unlike the other two, is not necessary, but beneficial.

As discussed, prior, the §8 must be filed between every fifth and sixth anniversary of the trademark registration. During the first anniversary deadline, the trademark owner may choose to file a §15 Declaration of Incontestability. After five years of consecutive use, an owner may file a §15, which declares the trademark may be incontestable. When a mark becomes incontestable, it means that the mark is immune from challenge. In order to maintain this status, the owner must continue to file all of the proper paperwork within the allotted time, because a generic mark or a mark abandoned for nonuse may not be declared incontestable.

Simply, when a mark is declared incontestable, it means that it is immune from legal challenge, yet a situation may arise where grounds for legal challenge are allowed. This will be discussed below. When a trademark owner is seeking incontestability, he must be able to show that (1) no final legal decision has been issued against the mark; (2) there is no challenge pending against the mark; (3) the §15 was filed within the deadline (between the fifth and sixth anniversary of the mark’s trademark registration) and (4) the mark has not been deemed generic.

For a mark that has achieved incontestability, the registration can only be challenged for invalidity on limited grounds: (1) the registration or the incontestable right to use the mark was obtained by fraud; (2) the registrant abandoned the mark; (3) the mark is used to misrepresent the source of its goods or services; (4) the infringing mark is an individual’s name used in his/her own business, or is otherwise prohibited or reserved under the Lanham Act; (5) the infringing mark was used in commerce first – prior to the incontestable mark’s registration;  (6) the infringing mark was registered first;  (7) the mark is being used to violate the antitrust laws of the United States; (8) the mark lacks the strength or scope of protection necessary to avoid a likelihood of confusion; (9) the mark is functional in nature or (10) any equitable principles apply, including acquiescence, estoppel or laches.

It is imperative that throughout the life of the registration, the owner must continue to enforce his/her registration rights. Just because the mark has been declared incontestable, does not mean that the owner may neglect to file the appropriate documentation in a timely manner. Even with the §8, §9 and §15 a mark may still be canceled if the owner fails to keep up with the post-registration maintenance for the mark.

The previous post discussed filing a Declaration of Use under §8 of the Trademark Act, its importance and when it must be filed. This post will explain when and why it is necessary to file an Application for Renewal under §9 of the Trademark Act.

Simply, an Application for Renewal is a written request, by the trademark owner, submitted to the USPTO to keep the trademark active. The application must be filed within one year prior to the expiration of the registration, or within the six-month grace period after the expiration, which will come with a grace-period fee. However, if the §9 affidavit is not filed before the end of the grace period, the trademark registration will expire.

Every 10 years, the trademark owner must submit a combined Declaration of Use and Application for Renewal filing to the USPTO. The combined filing, along with a supporting specimen must be filed on a date that falls on or between the ninth and tenth anniversaries of registration. Or, for an extra fee of $100 per class, the documentation can be filed within the six-month grace period following the registration expiration date. Following the tenth anniversary of the trademark, the owner must file a §8 and §9 within the 12-month period proceeding every 10-year anniversary thereafter.

The combined filing must include the following: The trademark registration number; the name and address of the current trademark owner and a filing fee of $425 per class of goods or services listed in the registration.

Failure to submit any of the above documentation and supporting evidence will result in a trademark registration cancelation. Once the mark is canceled, the owner cannot have it revived or reinstated and must file a new trademark registration.

Under §2(d) of the Lanham Act, marks that are confusingly similar may not be registered with the USPTO.  When it comes to determining likelihood of confusion, the examining attorney considers the Dupont Factors. Often, the first two: (1) The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. (2) The relatedness of the goods or services as described in the application and registration(s), hold the most weight. However, there is no precedent that states that the first two are the most important. All of the factors must be considered equally in light of the evidence provided in each case. In the case below, a decision made by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, because the Board failed to consider all of the factors for which there was evidence.

In 2017, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the §2(d) refusal of the mark GUILD MORTAGE COMPANY for “mortgage banking services, namely, origination, acquisition, servicing, securitization and brokerage of mortgage loans.” (MORTGAGE COMPANY was disclaimed) Finding it confusingly similar with the registered mark GUILD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT for “investment advisory services.” (INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT was disclaimed) In light of this, the Applicant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).  In 2019, The CAFC issued a decision that vacated and remanded the TTAB’s decision “for further proceedings consistent the [its] opinion.” The CAFC stated that the Board failed to address the applicant’s arguments and evidence related to the eighth Dupont Factor, which examines the length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.

In a 2020 precedential opinion, on remand from the CAFC, the Board issued a final decision in regard to the mark GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY.  As instructed, the Board reexamined the case giving more consideration to the eighth Dupont Factor. Starting with the first factor, the Board found that the dominant term in both marks was “guild.” Therefore, it ultimately found that the similarities between the marks, in accordance with “guild(‘s)” dictionary definition and overall commercial impression, outweighed the differences in sight and sound. The Board found that the first Dupont Factor weighed in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. As to the second factor, which examines the parties’ involved services, submissions of third-party registrations covering both mortgage banking and investment advisory services were enough to convince the Board that the services are related. Moreover, in accordance with the third factor, the Board found that the same consumers who seek mortgage banking services may also seek investment advisory services. Therefore, the channels of trade and classes of consumers are likely to overlap. Moving to the fourth factor, which examines the degree of purchaser care, the Board made its determination in light of Stone Lion Capital, 110 USPQ2d at 1163, which states that the decision must be based on the least sophisticated consumer. Regardless, the Board found that “consumers may exercise a certain degree of care in investing money, if not perhaps in seeking a mortgage loan for which they simply wish to get funded.” In sum, the fourth factor weighed mildly against finding a likely confusion.

Finally, the Board turned to examine the factor for which the case was remanded, the eighth factor. This factor looks at the length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion. The eighth Dupont Factor requires consideration of the actual market condition, as opposed to the other factors in this case that require analysis based on the application and cited registration and do not consider evidence of how the Applicant and Registrant actually rendered their services in the marketplace. Considering the actual market condition, both services were based in Southern California and operated there for approximately 40 years with no evidence of actual confusion. Not only did both parties conduct businesses in the same state, they ultimately expanded into other states as well. However, there was no evidence to indicate any specific geographical areas of overlap between the consumer markets for the different services. Ultimately, though the parties both conducted business in California, and potentially in some of the same states nationwide, there was not enough evidence to show that “in the actual marketplace, the same consumers have been exposed to both marks for the respective services…” In conclusion, the Board deemed the eighth Dupont Factor neutral and after balancing the other relevant factors, found confusion likely and affirmed the refusal to register under §2(d) of the Lanham Act.

Though the Board ultimately ended up at the same conclusion as it did in 2017, it may have turned out differently if both parties had been heard from. In an ex parte context, there was not an opportunity for the Board to hear from the Registrant in regard to whether or not it was aware of any reported instances of confusion. Since the Board was only able to get “half of the story,” it gave limited probative value to the evidence provided for the eighth factor. This case demonstrates that the weight of each factor varies on a case-by-case basis.

In the past two posts, two examples of likelihood of confusion were examined. In both cases, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the decision for refusal to register under §2(d) of the Lanham Act. In the first case, and in the second case, the first two Dupont Factors weighed heavily against the applicant and weighed in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion refusal. However, in the case below, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the opposition and found that the two marks were not confusingly similar.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed a §2(d) opposition against the mark FULL OF FLAVOR FREE OF GUILT for “vegetable based food products, namely, vegetable based snack foods; meat substitutes.” Prior to the case the applicant, Outstanding Foods, disclaimed FULL OF FLAVOR. The Board found that the opposer, Yarnell Ice Cream, failed to prove likelihood of confusion with their registered mark GUILT FREE for frozen confections. Turning first to the fifth Dupont Factor, the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods, the opposer submitted 15 additional registrations for GUILT FREE in correlation with an array of other products to show that their mark was licensed for use on a diverse array of products. However, not only did the applicant object to the consideration of any products aside from Yarnell’s frozen confections, the Board refused to consider them because the opposition had not informed the applicant that they intended to rely on the additional registrations. Moving onto the third Dupont Factor, the similarity of established likely-to-continue trade channels, the opposer submitted evidence of a single website depicting vegetable-based snacks and frozen confections being sold under the same mark. But the Board found there was “no testimony or evidence showing what sort of commercial impact these products have made.” The opposer relied solely on the fact that parties’ goods were “snacks,” but it did not convince the Board that the involved goods were related.

In looking at the channels of trade, the Board presumed that “both parties offer vegetable based snacks or frozen confections in all channels of trade normal for those products and they are available to all classes of consumers for those products.” However, the Board found that this factor weighed very little in favor of the opposer because there was no evidence to show that the same consumers would encounter the products in close proximity, given that they are entirely different products. In this case, although the products are sold in similar trade channels, it does not mean that they would be near each other in the market. Therefore, it would be hard to find them confusingly similar. In a quick glance at the fourth Dupont Factor, the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing, the Board agreed with the opposer that both parties’ goods were low-cost items and purchased with less care than expensive products. The Board then turned to the strength of the opposer’s mark, which encompasses the seventh Dupont Factor, the fame of the prior mark. The Board found that when the opposer used GUILT FREE in relation to “frozen confections or frozen dairy confections, it suggests that a person may enjoy the frozen treat [without] remorse, shame or guilt due to the calories in the frozen treat.” The applicant submitted 25 third-party registrations incorporating the word “Guilt” used in connection with food, and 13 websites using marks that invoked the “Guilt Free” commercial impression. As mentioned previously, the opposer licensed others to use the GUILT FREE mark, however, the uses were such that the Board found them “unlikely to point to Applicant as the source of the products.” Ultimately, given the commercial impression of the mark GUILT FREE, on the spectrum of distinctiveness, it would be suggestive. In considering the marks commercial strength, through the opposer’s evidence of sales of GUILT FREE frozen confections and its advertising and marketing efforts, the mark made “little, if any, commercial impact.” This commercial impact circles back to the seventh Dupont Factor. When looking at the fame of the prior (or registered) mark, it was found that there was hardly any. In many cases, the first Dupont Factor, the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, weighs heavily in a finding of likelihood of confusion. However, not all of the factors must be considered and there is no order in which the factors must be examined. In this case, the Board found that the marks created similar commercial impression but there were obvious differences between the two that weighed against this factor. When compared in their entireties, the Board ultimately found that the Applicant’s mark was distinguishable from the opposer’s mark. In conclusion, given the narrow scope of protection afforded to suggestive marks, including the opposer’s mark GUILT FREE, the Board dismissed the opposition and found the marks different enough to avoid being confusingly similar.