[E-trademarks] competing volume of evidence question

Thu Feb 8 16:30:05 EST 2024

Sam, I would not recommend citing Nett Designs for the proposition that the examining attorney should act consistently with certain third-party registrations.  This case is frequently cited for the opposite conclusion, namely that third-party registrations are entitled to little persuasive value.  The full quote is:

Needless to say, this court encourages the PTO to achieve a uniform standard for assessing registrability of marks.  Nonetheless, the Board (and this court in its limited review) must assess each mark on the record of public perception submitted with the application.  Accordingly, this court finds little persuasive value in the registrations that [applicant] submitted to the examiner . . .

In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Michael Hall
Senior Counsel
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
d: 919-755-2163
m: 703-489-1944
e: Michael.Hall at wbd-us.com
555 Fayetteville Street
Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 
27601
womblebonddickinson.com
Signature for Hall, Michael

This email is sent for and on behalf of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, which consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing services in the US, the UK, and elsewhere around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is a separate legal entity and is not responsible for the acts or omissions of, nor can bind or obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law. Please see www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/legal-notice for further details.
Disclaimer for Hall, Michael
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Sam Castree via E-trademarks
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 4:18 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Sam Castree <sam at castreelaw.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] competing volume of evidence question

Just change the parts in italics to match your actual issue. Should work just fine, I would think. Cheers, Sam Castree, III Sam Castree Law, LLC 3421 W. Elm St. McHenry, IL 60050 (815) 344-6300  ‌  ‌  ‌
External (e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=d29tYmxlX2JvbmRfZGlja2luc29uL21pY2hhZWwuaGFsbEB3YmQtdXMuY29tL2IwNzU2MjgwZDhiYzMwZGJkZTliZDZjMmZlZTIwNjdhLzE3MDc0MjcxNjkuNjY=#key=db3852251c3b4c6004df3be580a42dec>  FAQ<https://wbd-us.universitysite.com/UniversitySiteWBD-US/Data/default/Resources/00/00/616/QR_-_Email_Banner.pdf>

Just change the parts in italics to match your actual issue.  Should work just fine, I would think.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

Sam Castree Law, LLC
3421 W. Elm St.
McHenry, IL 60050
(815) 344-6300

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 3:15 PM Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
I believe the question was about relatedness of the goods and services, though, not distinctiveness of the mark. I have been mulling whether one could find a way to import the similar standard into relatedness of goods though.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
300 Fayetteville Street
Unit 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com<mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
(919) 800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.chesteklegal.com__;!!NROYQQ!fLT4Wd09-AsmCvTd7I8RK6o4CFo4PVAUC5cws-8GaFluZYUy6aWkquTQtS9CWxmpVhnPG0dJtW0MyI6G-GGqA0C7oZtL28U6$>
On 2/8/2024 12:34 PM, Sam Castree via E-trademarks wrote:
Dear Diana,

I've had this issue a handful of times, although usually the examiner only provides maybe 2 or 3 examples.  I provide a dozen or two counterexamples, and I lead with this paragraph:

"Applicant acknowledges that the PTO's allowance of prior third-party registrations is not per se binding on registrations by later applicants.  Nevertheless, third-party registrations can be relevant to show whether a mark, or a portion thereof, is descriptive or suggestive.  TMEP § 1207.01(d)(iii); see also, e.g., Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U. 797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).  Moreover, the Federal Circuit “encourages the PTO to achieve a uniform standard for assessing registrability of marks.” In Re Nett Designs, 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir., 2001). Thus, in the interest of maintaining uniform standard of registrability, Applicant submits that [word], when applied to [goods], is at least suggestive, rather than merely descriptive."

It's worked pretty well for me.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

Sam Castree Law, LLC
3421 W. Elm St.
McHenry, IL 60050
(815) 344-6300

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 1:36 PM diana lo-dp.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lo-dp.com__;!!NROYQQ!fLT4Wd09-AsmCvTd7I8RK6o4CFo4PVAUC5cws-8GaFluZYUy6aWkquTQtS9CWxmpVhnPG0dJtW0MyI6G-GGqA0C7oVVNU-5p$> via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
Interested in whether anyone has successfully persuaded TTAB that their volume of evidence in a 2(d) outweighs the examiner's. Overall issue is that the USPTO appears to have inconsistent practice history. Examiner has refused registration because an identical mark exists in another class, and there are a variety examples of companies providing both types of goods. On the other hand, there are a substantial number of counter-examples of coexistence, i.e., Company 1 sells goods in one of the classes, Company 2 sells goods in the other class, mark is identical, and they coexist, without 2(d) ever being issued.  Examiner has issued 2(d) and is sticking by it, indicating that not bound by what other examiner do. The evidence in terms of USPTO records is conflicting, and the USPTO practice is inconsistent, with many records on both sides. Does something like this get resolved on each examiner's whim, or is there something more predictable and orderly? Thank you!

Diana Palchik
palchik.net<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/palchik.net__;!!NROYQQ!fLT4Wd09-AsmCvTd7I8RK6o4CFo4PVAUC5cws-8GaFluZYUy6aWkquTQtS9CWxmpVhnPG0dJtW0MyI6G-GGqA0C7oQvrZzr2$>
--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com__;!!NROYQQ!fLT4Wd09-AsmCvTd7I8RK6o4CFo4PVAUC5cws-8GaFluZYUy6aWkquTQtS9CWxmpVhnPG0dJtW0MyI6G-GGqA0C7odBqxl_y$>

--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com__;!!NROYQQ!fLT4Wd09-AsmCvTd7I8RK6o4CFo4PVAUC5cws-8GaFluZYUy6aWkquTQtS9CWxmpVhnPG0dJtW0MyI6G-GGqA0C7odBqxl_y$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240208/86c57ac3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image639895.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11368 bytes
Desc: image639895.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240208/86c57ac3/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image796765.png
Type: image/png
Size: 642 bytes
Desc: image796765.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240208/86c57ac3/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image297700.png
Type: image/png
Size: 622 bytes
Desc: image297700.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240208/86c57ac3/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image201040.png
Type: image/png
Size: 611 bytes
Desc: image201040.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240208/86c57ac3/attachment-0003.png>