[E-trademarks] TTAB case cites for why Amazon is not a good example of relatedness of goods

Fri Sep 27 12:24:49 EDT 2024

I will just take up all of your time to gripe that we still have to rely 
on Mucky Duck for this kind of argument. For restaurants and drinks we 
have a "something more" standard, which, inexplicably, doesn't apply in 
any other field when it should. I am so tired of refusals citing 
behemoth companies' products as proof of relatedness, and only a meager 
number of webpages accepted as adequate evidence when an industry has 
millions of vendors. We need a significant update in the citable 
jurisprudence that comports with reality.

There, I've said it.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
300 Fayetteville St.
Unit 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

On 9/27/2024 11:11 AM, Davis, Ted via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Here’s some less of the same:
>
> [M]any of the third-party registrations are owned by supermarkets that 
> sell their own brand of virtually every product. In that marketing 
> milieu, consumers do not perceive the supermarket house brand, 
> appearing on a wide variety of products, as necessarily signaling that 
> all such branded products are commercially related products. 
> Otherwise, giving such third-party registrations probative value would 
> in effect create a “per se” rule that all products and services 
> available in a modern supermarket are related. In this regard, the 
> fact that applicant has applied to register a wide variety of products 
> does not change the perception of consumers or give the third-party 
> registrations any added probative value.
>
> /In re Land O Sky, LLC/, No. 76633815, 2010 WL 183227, at *6 (T.T.A.B. 
> Jan. 4, 2010) (nonprecedential).
>
> Precedential pro-applicant case law on this issue is scarce, but, if 
> you’re willing to cite to an opinion otherwise affirming a Section 
> 2(d) refusal, /In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co/., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1467, 1470 
> n.6 (T.T.A.B. 1988), has some faintly useful language.
>
> Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
> TheodoreH.Davis Jr.
> TDavis at ktslaw.com
> <mailto:TDavis at ktslaw.com>Kilpatrick Townsend&Stockton LLP
> 1100 Peachtree Street NE|Suite 2800|Atlanta,GA30309-4528
> *T* 404 815 6534| *M* 404 213 4967| *F* 404 541 3172
>
> Kilpatrick Townsend&Stockton LLP
> 3 Times Square|New York,NY10036
> *T* 212 775 8704| *M* 404 213 4967| *F* 404 541 3172
> My 
> Profile<http://www.ktslaw.com/en/People/D/DavisTheodoreH>|vCard<http://www.ktslaw.com/vcard/TheodoreH.Davis.vcf>
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Friday, September 27, 2024 10:17 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law>; Franco, Laura <LFranco at mintz.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] TTAB case cites for why Amazon is not a 
> good example of relatedness of goods
>
> **CAUTION: External Email**
>
> Here you go:
>
> Third-party registrations in the nature of house marks used for a wide 
> variety of items are of little value by themselves to show that the 
> various goods for which they are registered are all related.  
> Similarly, here where the website evidence shows house marks used on a 
> wide variety of goods, it is not so probative of this factor.
>
> /In re Marko Schuhfabrik GmbH/, Serial No. 79040612 (T.T.A.B. December 
> 23, 2009) (non-precedential).
>
> *Kevin Grierson***********
>
> 	
>
> |
>
> 	
>
> Partner
>
>
> 	
>
> Mobile:
>
> 	
>
> 757-726-7799 <tel:757-726-7799>
>
> Fax:
>
> 	
>
> 866-521-5663 <fax:866-521-5663>
>
> Email:
>
> 	
>
> kgrierson at cm.law <mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>
>
> */Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law/*
>
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Franco, Laura via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2024 11:14 PM
> *To:* e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> *Cc:* Franco, Laura <LFranco at mintz.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] TTAB case cites for why Amazon is not a good 
> example of relatedness of goods
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
> Hi colleagues,
>
> I know this has been discussed before, but I can’t find it in the 
> archives (sorry!).  I’m sure you’ve all had a 2(d) refusal where 
> applicant’s goods and the cited registration goods are completely 
> unrelated, yet because the examiner finds that both types of goods are 
> sold under a big box brand like Home Depot, Target, Amazon, etc., the 
> examiner says that they are related.
>
> Does anyone have citations or actual office action responses you’d be 
> willing to share (or point me in the right direction) to counter this 
> absurd position?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Laura
>
> *Laura********** Franco*
>
> /Member/
>
> Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
>
> 44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
>
> 	
>
> ,
>
> 	
>
> San Francisco
>
> 	
>
> ,
>
> 	
>
> CA
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 94104
>
> +1.415.432.6011 <tel:+1.415.432.6011>
>
> LFranco at mintz.com <mailto:LFranco at mintz.com>
>
> 	
>
>  |
>
> 	
>
> Mintz.com <http://mintz.com/>
>
> mintz.com <https://www.mintz.com/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
> The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
> to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s)
> and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not
> the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the
> email to the intended recipient, be advised you have received this
> message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
> or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
> Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo sender immediately, and destroy all copies
> of this message and any attachments.
>
> '
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the 
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 
> Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient 
> intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any 
> attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged 
> information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the 
> information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY 
> PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 
> 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments 
> without reading or saving in any manner.
> '
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240927/98179432/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3654 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240927/98179432/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5049 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240927/98179432/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240927/98179432/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240927/98179432/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240927/98179432/attachment-0004.png>