Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

Thomas D. Foster, APC (Foster) sought to register the trademark "US SPACE FORCE" for various goods and services. The application was filed on March 19, 2018, shortly after President Donald J. Trump announced the creation of a new military branch called the Space Force. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examining attorney refused the registration, citing a false suggestion of a connection with the United States under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the examining attorney’s refusal, concluding that the mark falsely suggested a connection with the United States. Foster requested reconsideration, arguing that the Board erred by not crediting the filing date of the intent-to-use application as the constructive use date and by relying on evidence post-dating the filing date. The Board denied reconsideration, maintaining that Foster was not the prior user and that there was ample evidence supporting the false connection analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate timing for assessing a false suggestion of a connection includes evidence up to the time of examination, which in this case extended through the Board’s December 12, 2022 decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings that the mark "US SPACE FORCE" was the same as or a close approximation of a name or identity used by the United States and that it pointed uniquely and unmistakably to the United States. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the mark falsely suggested a connection with the United States and was therefore unregistrable under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act. View "In Re FOSTER" on Justia Law

PT Medisafe Technologies, a medical glove manufacturer, applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for registration of a color mark for use on medical examination gloves. The proposed mark was described as the color dark green (Pantone 3285 c) applied to the entire surface of chloroprene examination gloves. The PTO’s examining attorney found the color was not inherently distinctive and could not be registered without showing acquired distinctiveness. Medisafe attempted to prove acquired distinctiveness but was ultimately rejected by the examining attorney, who determined the mark was generic and had not acquired distinctiveness.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) reviewed the examining attorney’s decision. The Board applied a modified version of the H. Marvin Ginn test, tailored for color marks, as set out in Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Freud America, Inc. The Board defined the genus of goods as all chloroprene medical examination gloves and found the relevant public to include all purchasers of such gloves. The Board agreed with the examining attorney that the dark green color was common in the industry and could not identify a single source, thus deeming the mark generic. The Board also found Medisafe’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness unconvincing and affirmed the refusal to register the mark.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court affirmed the Board’s application of the Milwaukee test and found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that the mark was generic. The court held that the dark green color was so common in the industry that it could not serve as a source indicator, making it ineligible for registration on either the principal or supplemental registers. The court did not address the issue of acquired distinctiveness, as a generic mark cannot acquire distinctiveness. View "In Re PT MEDISAFE TECHNOLOGIES " on Justia Law

Heritage Alliance offers voter guides under the names “iVoterGuide” and “iVoterGuide.com.” In January 2019, the American Policy Roundtable (APR) filed for registration of the marks “iVoters” and “iVoters.com.” Heritage opposed APR’s registration, claiming that APR’s marks would likely be confused with Heritage’s marks, for which Heritage claimed priority of use. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) found that Heritage’s prior-use marks were not protectable because they were highly descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness, and dismissed the opposition.The Board determined that Heritage had begun using its iVoterGuide marks well before APR’s first use date. However, the Board found that APR effectively conceded likelihood of confusion. Despite this, the Board ruled that Heritage’s prior-use marks were not protectable as trademarks because they were highly descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness. The Board found that the marks were highly descriptive as they clearly described the service offered, and that Heritage’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness was insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court affirmed the Board’s findings that the iVoterGuide marks were highly descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness. The court found that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the descriptive nature of the marks and the limited additional evidence of acquired distinctiveness. The court concluded that the Board’s decision to dismiss the opposition was correct and affirmed the dismissal. View "HERITAGE ALLIANCE v. AMERICAN POLICY ROUNDTABLE " on Justia Law

Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (DFG) has operated loan financing and check cashing businesses under the name MONEY MART since the 1980s. In 2010, DFG began expanding its services to include pawn brokerage and pawn shop services, using the MONEY MART mark in commerce for these services starting in 2012. DFG registered two marks in 2013, which were officially registered in 2014. Brittex Financial, Inc. (Brittex) has operated pawn shops in Texas under the names MONEY MART PAWN and MONEY MART PAWN & JEWELRY since the 1990s and has common law rights in these marks.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) initially denied Brittex’s petition to cancel DFG’s registrations, concluding that DFG had priority due to its earlier use of the MONEY MART mark for loan financing services. Brittex appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB’s decision, finding that pawn services are not covered by loan financing services. On remand, the TTAB held that Brittex had priority for pawn services and that DFG could not rely on the zone of natural expansion doctrine to claim priority. The TTAB also found a likelihood of confusion between the marks and partially granted the petition for cancellation, requiring the deletion of "pawn brokerage and pawn shops" from DFG’s registrations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the TTAB’s decision. The court held that the zone of natural expansion doctrine is purely defensive and cannot be used to establish priority offensively. The court also found that DFG’s tacking argument was forfeited as it was not raised before the TTAB. Additionally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s findings on the likelihood of confusion, including the similarity of the marks and the strength of Brittex’s mark. The court affirmed the TTAB’s partial cancellation of DFG’s trademark registrations. View "DOLLAR FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. v. BRITTEX FINANCIAL, INC. " on Justia Law

Bullshine Distillery LLC applied to register the mark BULLSHINE FIREBULL for alcoholic beverages. Sazerac Brands, LLC opposed the registration, alleging a likelihood of confusion with its FIREBALL marks for liqueurs and whiskey. Bullshine counterclaimed, seeking cancellation of Sazerac’s registrations, arguing that "fireball" was a generic term for a type of alcoholic drink.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) found that "fireball" was not generic at the time of registration or at the time of trial. The Board also determined that there was no likelihood of confusion between the FIREBALL marks and Bullshine’s BULLSHINE FIREBULL mark. Specifically, the Board found that while Sazerac’s FIREBALL mark was commercially strong, it was conceptually weak, the marks were dissimilar, the goods were purchased without great care, and Bullshine did not act in bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Board applied the correct legal standard in determining that "fireball" was not generic at the time of registration. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that "fireball" was not generic, including the lack of evidence that competitors used the term and the association of the term with specific products rather than a generic category.The court also affirmed the Board’s determination of no likelihood of confusion, finding that the Board’s analysis of the fame and conceptual strength of the FIREBALL mark, as well as the similarity of the marks, was supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the Board did not err in its findings and affirmed the decision in favor of Bullshine. View "Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC" on Justia Law

Joseph Phelps Vineyards has produced and sold wines bearing the trademark INSIGNIA since 1978. In 2012, Fairmont received federal registration for the mark ALEC BRADLEY STAR INSIGNIA for cigars and cigar products. On Vineyards’ petition for cancellation, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denied the petition, stating that: while it appears that Petitioner’s INSIGNIA branded wine has met with success in the marketplace, we are not persuaded on this record that Petitioner’s mark is a famous mark. The Federal Circuit vacated. TTAB erred in its legal analysis, in analyzing the “fame” of INSIGNIA wine as an all-or-nothing factor and discounting it entirely in reaching the conclusion of no likelihood of confusion as to the source, contrary to law and precedent. TTAB did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances standard, which requires considering all the relevant factors on a scale appropriate to their merits. View "Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2004, the Patent and Trademark Office issued JobDiva’s 917 registration for the service mark JOBDIVA for “personnel placement and recruitment” services. In 2005, it issued JobDiva’s 235 registration for a service mark for “personnel placement and recruitment services; computer services, namely, providing databases featuring recruitment and employment, employment advertising, career information and resources, resume creation, resume transmittals and communication of responses thereto via a global computer network.” JobDiva’s software provides a database of employment applications and employs automated “harvesters” to find potential job candidates. It analyzes resumes and helps hiring managers directly communicate with job candidates; it also recommends openings to job candidates and provides automated resume feedback. JobDiva’s software-as-a-service is delivered over the Internet without downloading software. Users pay for the computing as a service rather than owning the machines and software. The Board cancelled JobDiva’s marks in a proceeding that JobDiva initiated, challenging a registration owned by Jobvite. The Board granted Jobvite’s counterclaim stating, “[a] mark shall be deemed to be ‘abandoned’ . . . [w]hen its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use,” 15 U.S.C. 1125, and that JobDiva provided software, not “personnel placement and recruitment” services. The Federal Circuit vacated. The question is whether JobDiva, through its software, performed personnel placement and recruitment services and whether consumers would associate JobDiva’s registered marks with personnel placement and recruitment services, regardless of whether the steps of the service were performed by software. View "In re: JobDiva, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Church, within five miles of the Illinois–Wisconsin border, began selling caps and shirts, emblazoned with the phrase “ADD A ZERO” as part of a fundraising campaign. The Church obtained two federal trademarks for the “ADD A ZERO” mark, based on actual use of the marks in commerce, not intent to use the marks in commerce. In 2009, Adidas sought a clothing trademark for the phrase “ADIZERO.” The Trademark Office refused the application for likelihood of confusion with the Church’s “ADD A ZERO” marks. Adidas brought an action; the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelled the marks, based on the Church’s failure to use the marks in commerce before registration. The Board considered the Church’s proffered evidence of a cancelled check with a printed Wisconsin address for the sale of two “ADD A ZERO”-marked hats for $38.34 in February 2005, before the Church applied for its marks, but concluded that the “de minimis” sale did not evidence the requisite “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Lanham Act defines commerce as all activity regulable by Congress; the Church’s sale to an out-of-state resident fell within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. View "Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG" on Justia Law

Georgallis applied to the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark MAYARI in standard characters for use on wine in International Class 33. Oakville opposed the registration, alleging that Georgallis’s mark would likely cause confusion with Oakville’s previously registered and used mark MAYA in equivalent-to-standard characters, also for use on wine in International Class 33. After considering: similarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; similarity of the goods; similarity of trade channels; conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made; fame of the prior mark; similar marks in use on similar goods; absence of actual confusion; right to exclude others from use; extent of potential confusion; and federal wine labelling requirements, the Board found that factors two, three, and four favored a finding of likelihood of confusion, that the first factor favored a finding of no likelihood of confusion, while the other factors were neutral. The Board found the goods to be “identical,” despite “a substantial difference in price” and other “differences in the specific nature of the wines,” but found that, overall, “the marks create significantly different commercial impressions” and dismissed Oakville’s opposition. The Federal Circuit affirmed; substantial evidence supported the finding of dissimilarity. View "Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Cordua owns and operates five restaurants branded as “Churrascos,” the first of which opened in 1988. The restaurants serve South American dishes, including grilled meats; the menu describes chargrilled “Churrasco Steak” as “our signature.”.Cordua obtained the 321 registration for the service mark CHURRASCOS (in standard character format) in 2008, for use in connection with “restaurant and bar services; catering.” In 2011, Cordua filed a trademark application, seeking protection of the stylized form of CHURRASCOS for use in connection with “Bar and restaurant services; Catering.” The trademark examiner rejected the application as merely descriptive and on the basis that “the applied-for mark is generic for applicant’s services,” barring registration under Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1).. The examiner concluded that the term “churrascos” “refer[s] to beef or grilled meat more generally” and that the term “identifies a key characteristic or feature of the restaurant services, namely, the type of restaurant.” The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed and held that Cordua’s underlying 321 Registration had no bearing on whether the stylized form of CHURRASCOS was generic. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the stylized form of CHURRASCOS generic as applied to restaurant services and, therefore, trademark-ineligible View "In re: Cordua Restaurants, Inc." on Justia Law