Trademark law recognizes that a mark being deemed "famous" can provide advantages to the registrant or applicant and expand their trademark rights. However, it's important to note that the legal definition of "fame" differs when assessing likelihood of confusion versus a dilution claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has clarified that the fame of a mark, as the fifth factor in the DuPont analysis, should be evaluated based on the class of customers and potential customers within a specific product market, rather than the general public. This perspective considers consumers of similar products and assigns reasonable weight to the "fame" factor in the overall likelihood of confusion analysis. Conversely, under a dilution claim, fame is an all-or-nothing test—it either exists or it doesn't. In likelihood of confusion analysis, fame is assessed on a spectrum from weak to strong.
The CAFC's ruling in Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC led to a remand of the case to the Board to reassess it based on the proper standard of analysis. Additionally, in a concurring opinion by Judge Newman, it was highlighted that the Board had failed to consider the actual use of the mark by Fairmont Holdings, LLC, which is relevant to the likelihood of confusion analysis. Trademark practitioners are aware that the Board often disregards marketplace conditions and primarily focuses on the identification of goods, rather than considering marketplace realities. However, the concurring opinion emphasizes that the use of the mark on the product should be taken into account within the totality of the circumstances. In assessing commercial impression, consideration of actual use ensures that the Board considers the breadth of a standard character mark, as observed from the consumer's perspective.
Furthermore, the CAFC determined that the evidence of relatedness should be evaluated on a sliding scale. For more information on how fame impacts likelihood of confusion, the firm's blog titled "TTAB-Precedent How Fame Impacts A Likelihood Of Confusion Determination" can be referenced.
In the context of a dilution claim under the provisions of the Trademark Act, a mark must achieve a higher level of fame compared to the fame required for protection under a likelihood of confusion analysis. To succeed in a dilution claim, the party must demonstrate that when the general public encounters the mark, they associate the term with the mark owner. For a successful dilution claim under Section 43(c) of the Trademark Act, the party needs to establish: (1) ownership of a famous and distinctive mark (inherently or through acquired distinctiveness); (2) defendant's use of a mark in commerce that allegedly dilutes the famous mark; (3) the defendant's use of the mark started after the plaintiff's mark became famous, and it remains famous at the time of trial; and (4) the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring. Factors relevant to a dilution claim include the extent, duration, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity, whether the mark owner or a third party promoted the mark, the volume and geographic extent of sales, recognition of the mark, and whether the mark is registered on the Principal Register.
When assessing whether a mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the following factors are pertinent: (1) similarities between the marks; (2) the level of distinctiveness of the famous mark; (3) the extent of substantially exclusive use of the famous mark; (4) the degree of recognition of the famous mark (level of fame); (5) whether there was an intended association with the famous mark; and (6) any actual association between the marks.
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.
Getting in touch is easy. Use the form below and request a free consultation today.
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Let's talk about your legal issue
Wilson Legal Group P.C.
d/b/a Wilson Whitaker Rynell
(972) 248-8080 (Dallas) MAIN OFFICE
(713) 830-2207 (Houston) Appointment Only
(512) 691-4100 (Austin) Appointment Only
For more information on how we can assist in your intellectual property, commercial litigation, divorce, or other personal needs, let us know how we can help you:
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Thank You for Contacting Us!
Your information has been sent, and we will contact you shorlty...issues.
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Oops, there was an error sending your message.
Please try again later.
Disclaimer:
This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and should only be used to contact the firm about scheduling a call or meeting. No confidential or sensitive information should be sent using this form.
We represent clients nationwide, including Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas areas such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Carrollton, Plano, Allen, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, Denton, McKinney, North Richland Hills, and all cities within Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, and Denton County.
Wilson Whitaker Rynell
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248
972-248-8080 (MAIN)
972-248-8088 (FAX)
info@wrrlegal.com (E-MAIL)