The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) may refuse trademark registration based on various grounds. One of the most common reasons is the likelihood of confusion with a registered trademark or a pending application. The rationale behind a 2(d) refusal is that encountering the applicant's mark could lead consumers to be confused, mistaken, or deceived regarding the source of the goods or services. This determination is made on a case-by-case basis, and the factors outlined in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) assist in this analysis. This page will specifically focus on the third du Pont factor, which addresses the similarity or dissimilarity of established and likely-to-continue trade channels.
When drafting a trademark application's identification, the applicant must consider whether to restrict the nature of the goods and services, trade channels, or classes of purchasers. Under trademark law, if no restrictions are included, certain presumptions may apply to the identification. If the applicant does not limit or restrict the trade channels or consumer types, it is presumed that the goods and/or services are offered through all the customary trade channels. In each case, the Examining Attorney should present evidence regarding the "normal trade channels" for the registrant's specific product or industry and demonstrate any overlap with the applicant's trade channels. If the Examiner overlooks this obligation, an applicant can use this oversight to its advantage.
If the Examining Attorney fails to provide evidence regarding the "normal" trade channels and refuses registration, the Board may reverse the decision on appeal. Refer to In re HerbalScience Group, LLC, 96 USPQ2d 1321 (TTAB 2010) [precedential] as an example. In this case, the applicant acknowledged that the subject goods might come from a single source under a single mark but argued that the trade channels and consumer classes were distinct. The applicant did not impose any restrictions in the identification. The applicant's goods were sold to manufacturers of medicinal, pharmaceutical, herbal, and food products, while the registrant's goods, dietary and nutritional supplements, were sold in health food stores and drug stores. The Board concluded that the applicant's identification was sufficient to demonstrate that the goods would be sold to manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. In this instance, the Examiner did not present evidence showing that the normal trade channels for dietary and nutritional supplements would involve manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. Consequently, there was a lack of evidence regarding overlapping trade channels, leading the Board to reverse the refusal. When there are significant differences in trade channels and consumer classes, the likelihood of confusion is unlikely.
Another case that underscores this point is In re Bentley Motors Ltd., Serial No. 85325994, December 3, 2013) [not precedential]. Here, the Examining Attorney failed to provide evidence regarding the ordinary trade channels for the registrant's goods and did not demonstrate any overlap with the applicant's trade channels. The applicant, a luxury dealer of BENTLEY® and ROLLS ROYCE® branded automobiles, amended its identification for perfumes, cosmetics, and other goods in class 3 to restrict the trade channels to Bentley's authorized vehicle dealers and service outlets. It is important to note that the burden is on the Examining Attorney to establish that the ordinary trade channels for the registrant's goods overlap with the applicant's trade channels and consumer classes. Based on this specific du Pont factor, the Board reversed the refusal, as it did in the case of In re HerbalScience Group, LLC.
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)