[E-trademarks] Challenge Examiner's Reliance on Non-U.S. Websites

Sat May 18 15:50:34 EDT 2024

I would also make the commonsensical point that foreign based websites are not evidence that U.S. consumers would consider the relevant goods are related. Consumers in Country X may find that snow cones and day spa services are related, but that doesn't mean U.S. consumers would make the connection.

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Orvis via E-trademarks
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2024 2:26 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Orvis <orvispc at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Challenge Examiner's Reliance on Non-U.S. Websites

I have challenged such evidence with an analogy to Mucky Duck. Mucky Duck relatedness cannot rely on Section 44 registrations because there is no evidence of use in the US. The same should apply to a foreign based website.

May 18, 2024 2:17:05 PM Richard Schafer via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>:
You should probably review the Bayer-Belmora FLANAX litigation, as well.
Best regards,
Richard A. Schafer | Schafer IP Law
P.O. Box 230081 | Houston, TX 77223
M: 832.283.6564 | richard at schafer-ip.com<mailto:richard at schafer-ip.com>
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Janet Satterthwaite via E-trademarks
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2024 12:03 PM
To: Rick Bigelow via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Janet Satterthwaite <jsatterthwaite at potomaclaw.com<mailto:jsatterthwaite at potomaclaw.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Challenge Examiner's Reliance on Non-U.S. Websites
These are cites from a TTAB brief on an opposition objecting to introduction of foreign confusion  evidence.  I did not write the brief and have not read the cases,  but they may be helpful
Double J of Broward Inc. v. Skalony Sportswear GmbH, 21 USPQ2d 1609, 1612-13 (TTAB 1991); Johnson & Johnson v. Salve S.A., 183 USPQ 375, 376 (TTAB 1974) (foreign use of mark creates no rights in mark in U.S.). See also Oland’s Breweries [1971] Ltd. v. Miller Brewing Co., 189 USPQ 481, 489 n.2 (TTAB 1975) (use or promotion of a mark confined
to a foreign country, including Canada, is immaterial to ownership and registration in U.S.), aff’d, Miller Brewing Co. v. Oland’s Breweries, 548 F.2d 349, 192 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1976). Concerning possible exceptions, see Article 6bis of the Paris Convention; Person’s Co. v. Christman, 900 F.2d 1565, 14 USPQ2d 1477, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (knowledge of foreign use, in itself, does not preclude good faith adoption and use in U.S.); Double J of Broward Inc. v. Skalony Sportswear GmbH, 21 USPQ2d 1609, 1612- 13 (TTAB 1991); See TBMP section 414(13).

Janet F. Satterthwaite|Partner/ Chair, Trademark Practice|Potomac Law Group, PLLC

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1025

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-486-1578
jsatterthwaite at potomaclaw.com<mailto:jsatterthwaite at potomaclaw.com>|www.potomaclaw.com<https://www.potomaclaw.com>
https://www.potomaclaw.com/professionals-janet-f-satterthwaite

[https://ukwest1-mediap.svc.ms/transform/thumbnail?provider=spo&inputFormat=png&cs=fFNQTw&docid=https%3A%2F%2Fglobebpcrm.sharepoint.com%3A443%2F_api%2Fv2.0%2Fdrives%2Fb!TQZR2-2SPE2ijySca0RSk9GWpi3pTptJqpI2GM317RV0fn8ZfIBsSZ9rpY5T6aYk%2Fitems%2F0154SFYISYVY4G5S2PLJG32IIOCE4C4SJE%3Fversion%3DPublished&access_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.eyJhdWQiOiIwMDAwMDAwMy0wMDAwLTBmZjEtY2UwMC0wMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAvZ2xvYmVicGNybS5zaGFyZXBvaW50LmNvbUAwOThlYzVmNi1lNGNjLTQwMmItODU5Ny1iZTQ2MjA1MmM4ZTIiLCJpc3MiOiIwMDAwMDAwMy0wMDAwLTBmZjEtY2UwMC0wMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAiLCJuYmYiOiIxNjQ2MzMwNDAwIiwiZXhwIjoiMTY0NjM1MjAwMCIsImVuZHBvaW50dXJsIjoidGZHMFVZcW9jTGFSQlp3M0duWi9OUGhwaVBoUXNBTHlqc2g5bmMvOTEwRT0iLCJlbmRwb2ludHVybExlbmd0aCI6IjExNyIsImlzbG9vcGJhY2siOiJUcnVlIiwidmVyIjoiaGFzaGVkcHJvb2Z0b2tlbiIsInNpdGVpZCI6IlpHSTFNVEEyTkdRdE9USmxaQzAwWkROakxXRXlPR1l0TWpRNVl6WmlORFExTWpreiIsIm5hbWVpZCI6IjAjLmZ8bWVtYmVyc2hpcHx1cm4lM2FzcG8lM2Fhbm9uIzA0ZTRhMjdjODNlY2QzNmJmYjk1MTUzYTBlYmI0OWFlYTg2YjgxY2IwYzRiNjI4MmZiYjM1NDdiZTQ1OGEwZmUiLCJuaWkiOiJtaWNyb3NvZnQuc2hhcmVwb2ludCIsImlzdXNlciI6InRydWUiLCJjYWNoZWtleSI6IjBoLmZ8bWVtYmVyc2hpcHx1cm4lM2FzcG8lM2Fhbm9uIzA0ZTRhMjdjODNlY2QzNmJmYjk1MTUzYTBlYmI0OWFlYTg2YjgxY2IwYzRiNjI4MmZiYjM1NDdiZTQ1OGEwZmUiLCJzaGFyaW5naWQiOiJ4RGFRR084UVhFNlNQK0RXSjJnWExRIiwidHQiOiIwIiwidXNlUGVyc2lzdGVudENvb2tpZSI6IjIiLCJpcGFkZHIiOiI3NC45Ni4yMDIuMTY0In0.bHVQeUl3TFNnejFLTVMzeERRV2JRaGhmK1luUHNSNmtwVG82cFgwZytVbz0&cTag=%22c%3A%7B6E38AE58-4FCB-4D5A-BD21-0E11382E4924%7D%2C2%22&encodeFailures=1&width=717&height=213&srcWidth=717&srcHeight=213]
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is private, confidential, and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Steve Zemanick via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2024 11:04 AM
To: Rick Bigelow via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Steve Zemanick <Steve at fourreasonslegal.com<mailto:Steve at fourreasonslegal.com>>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Challenge Examiner's Reliance on Non-U.S. Websites

WARNING: External email, do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender’s full email address and expect the attachments.

Happy weekend listmates,

I’m hoping someone has suggestions for challenging an Examiner’s reliance on third-party websites to demonstrate relatedness when the websites in question are for non-U.S. entities.  It seems to me that without a showing that these entities are conducting business in the U.S., the evidence is irrelevant or at least non-probative.  Citations or examples of past submitted arguments are most welcome.

Thank you as always.

Steve Zemanick

Four Reasons Legal

8074 E 34th Ave

Denver, CO 80238

steve at fourreasonslegal.com<mailto:steve at fourreasonslegal.com>

720.937.6599

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Communication from this firm normally contains confidential and privileged material, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited, and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you received this in error, please do not read it or any attachments.  Please delete the communication and its attachments, and any copies that may exist, and inform the sender that you have done so. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240518/e7a89ed8/attachment.htm>