When To Challenge Trademark Examining Attorney On The Relatedness Factor
ATTORNEYS IN DALLAS
How to challenge a 2(d) refusal by the Examining Attorney, focusing on the evidence related to the similarity of marks and the relatedness of goods, and understanding the significance of incorporating another party's mark in its entirety and the strength of the registered mark.
When To Challenge Trademark Examining Attorney On The Relatedness Factor
Determining when to challenge the Examining Attorney's likelihood of confusion refusal (also known as a 2(d) Refusal) is always a challenging task. A recent decision by the Board provides guidance to applicants, suggesting that they should contest the Examining Attorney's evidence regarding the relatedness of goods if it is limited to citing only a few websites selling the same goods as the applicant and registrant. In the case of In re Pfanner Schutzbekleidung GmbH, Application Serial No. 79247130 (August 5, 2021) [not precedential], the Board overturned the Examining Attorney's refusal, finding insufficient evidence of the relatedness of the goods.
In this particular case, the applicant sought to register the mark PFANNER STRETCHFLEX for protective clothing and sporting gear, including items such as accident and fire protection garments, shin guards, and knee and elbow pads for sports. It's worth noting that the applicant already held a related registration for the mark PFANNER covering similar goods in classes 9 and 28. However, this prior registration did not prevent the Examining Attorney from refusing the applicant's mark for PFANNER STRETCHFLEX. The Examining Attorney relied on the mark STRETCHFLEX as the basis for the refusal, even though the registrant's goods were underwear and loungewear, specifically pants, shorts, and tops in international class 25, without offering any protective clothing or safety gear.
To support the 2(d) refusal, the Examining Attorney submitted excerpts from third-party websites demonstrating the use of the same trademark to brand the relevant products of both the applicant and the registrant. Five websites were presented as evidence:
(1) one example displayed advertisements for underwear, thermal wear, and flame retardant clothing;
(2) another example showed a website selling flame-resistant clothing and protective gloves;
(3) a third example featured a website selling golf and baseball gloves under the same brand as shin guards;
(4) a fourth example advertised underwear, knee pads, and shin guards; and (5) a fifth example displayed the same mark branding underwear, batting gloves, and lacrosse gloves.
Out of these five examples, two websites sold both protective gear and underwear/loungewear under the same trademark, while three websites sold both sporting protective gear and underwear/loungewear under the same mark. Under trademark law, the relatedness of goods does not necessitate that the products be identical or directly competitive. Instead, the law requires some connection between the goods or the conditions under which they are marketed, leading to the encounter of the goods by the same individuals. When the marks are similar, this can create a mistaken belief that the goods come from the same source.
Similarities of Trademarks
Regarding the similarities of the marks, the Board concluded that they were indeed similar because they both incorporated the term STRETCHFLEX. The Board emphasized that while there is no per se rule stating that the incorporation of another party's mark in its entirety automatically establishes similarity, it is typically found to be the case. In fact, Examining Attorneys often consider the marks to be similar and supportive of confusion when one party's mark is wholly incorporated by another. Additionally, trademark law includes a rule stating that the mere addition of a term to a registered mark does not eliminate the similarities between the marks when evaluating likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Therefore, du Pont factor one favored a finding of confusion.
- 66(a) Applications
- Abandoning a Trademark Application or Withdrawing a TTAB Proceeding
- Abandonment and Nonuse
- Abbreviations as Trademarks
- Accelerated Case Resolutions
- Acquired Secondary Trademark Meaning
- Amending Trademark Application
- Assigning a Trademark
- Assigning a Trademark and the Intent to Use Application
- Avoiding Fraud on Trademark Applications
- Avoiding Trademark Litigation
- Basis for Filing a Trademark
- Benefits of Registering a Trademark
- Bona Fide Intent to Use
- Celebrity Trademarks
- Challenging the Relatedness Factor
- Challenging Trademark Rights
- Claims in a Notice of Opposition
- Co-Existence Agreements
- Common Law Trademarks in the Internet Era
- Common Law Use and Priority
- Conflicting Marks
- Consent Agreements
- Constructive Use Priority
- Dates of Use
- Defenses in Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings
- Descriptive or Generic Trademarks
- Design Marks
- Design Trademarks
- Determining Trademark Similarities
- Discovery in TTAB Proceedings
- Dividing a Trademark Application
- Drawing Page
- Electronic Display Specimens for Trademarks
- Evidence in TTAB Proceedings
- Evidence of Acquired Distinctiveness
- Expediting Trademark Cancellation for Nonuse or Abandonment
- Extending Time to Oppose
- Factors of a Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
- False Suggestions of Connection
- Famous Trademarks and Likelihood of Confusion and Dilution
- Filing an Opposition or Cancellation Proceedings
- First Sale Doctrine
- Five Years of Use
- Foreign Trademark Rights
- Generic Trademarks
- Geographic Trademarks
- Hiring Trademark Counsel
- Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks
- Incontestability of U.S. Trademarks
- International Trademark Filings
- Joint Trademark Ownership
- Lawful Use of a Trademark in Commerce
- Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
- Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
- Merely Descriptive Trademarks
- Multiple Bases for a Trademark Application
- Overcoming and Ornamentation Trademark Refusal
- Personal Name Trademarks
- Principal and Supplemental Registers
- Protecting Single Creative Works
- Recording Trademark Assignments
- Refusal of a Trademark
- Refusing a Trade Dress Application
- Registering a Certification Trademark
- Registering a Service Mark
- Registering a Trademark That Lacks Inherent Distinctiveness
- Registering an International Trademark
- Relatedness of Goods or Services
- Request for Reconsideration in Trademark Office Action
- Requirements for International Trademark Application
- Revive an Abandoned Trademark Application
- Secondary Meaning
- Source Confusion
- Special Trademark Applications
- Standard Character and Special Format Marks
- Standing in Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings
- State Trademark Registration
- Statement of Use Extensions
- Tacking Doctrine
- Technical Trademark Use
- The Supplemental Register
- Trade Dress
- Trade Dress Application
- Trademark Application
- Trademark Clearance Searches
- Trademark Disclaimers
- Trademark Licensing
- Trademark of Authors, Performing Artists, and Characters
- Trademark Ownership
- Trademark Protection In Texas
- Trademark Settlements
- Trademark Specimens
- Trademark Specimens
- Trademark Use by Related Company
- Trademark Use in Advertising
- Trademark Use in Commerce
- Trademarking a Distinctive Mark
- Trademarking a Hashtag
- Trademarks for Musical Artists
- TTAB Discovery Rules
- TTAB Proceedings
- U.S. Service Mark
- U.S. Trade Dress
- Understanding Trade Channels
- Unitary U.S. Trademark
- Universal Symbols as Trademarks
- Using Secondary Sources
- What is an Ex Parte Appeal?
- Where to Register a Trademark
- Who Must File a Trademark?
Importance of the Du Point Factors in Trademark Infringment
The DuPont factors are a set of 13 criteria that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses to assess the likelihood of confusion between trademarks. In other words, these factors help determine whether a new trademark can be registered or might infringe on someone else’s existing mark. Courts also use the Dupont factors to resolve cases of trademark infringement.
The primary DuPont factors in the STRETCHFLEX case are (1) the similarity of the marks, (2) the similarity of the goods and services, and (3) the similarity of the channels of trade The Board also addressed du Pont factor six, which considers the number and nature of similar marks on similar goods and the strength of the registered mark. The evidence did not demonstrate that the shared term STRETCHFLEX was used on similar goods. As for the strength of the mark, the term STRETCHFLEX was not deemed weak or diluted. Since STRETCHFLEX was registered on the Principal Register, it is presumed to be inherently distinctive and would receive the protection afforded to inherently distinctive marks. Hence, factor six also supported a finding of confusion.
The Board n the STRETCHFLEX case also addressed Du Pont factor six, which considers the number and nature of similar marks on similar goods and the strength of the registered mark. The evidence did not demonstrate that the shared term STRETCHFLEX was used on similar goods. As for the strength of the mark, the term STRETCHFLEX was not deemed weak or diluted. Since STRETCHFLEX was registered on the Principal Register, it is presumed to be inherently distinctive and would receive the protection afforded to inherently distinctive marks. Hence, factor six also supported a finding of confusion.
Contact an Experienced Trademark Attorney
If you need legal advice regarding your trademark rights, assistance with trademark prosecution, or representation in a domain name dispute, contact Wilson Whitaker Rynell. Our team of trademark lawyers has extensive experience in all aspects of trademark and copyright law, including the filing of trademark applications and representing clients in defense or prosecution before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
CLIENT MATTERS
5,000+
YEARS OF SERVICE
25+
Award Winning
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Expert Team
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Quality Representation
