ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1158381 09/09/2021

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System.

ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1158381

Filing date:

09/09/2021

Proceeding Party

Correspondence Address

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

91255611

Plaintiff Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc.

DOUGLAS R WOLF WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS PC 600 ATLANTIC AVENUE BOSTON, MA 02210 UNITED STATES Primary Email: drwtrademarks@ Secondary Email(s): jlwtrademarks@, azstrademarks@ 617-646-8000

Submission Filer's Name Filer's email Signature Date Attachments

Brief on Merits for Plaintiff John L Welch jlwtrademarks@ /johnlwelch/ 09/09/2021 91255611 Brief at Final Hearing.pdf(1283871 bytes )

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc., Opposer,

v. Marquardo, Craig Richard,

Applicant.

Mark: SCOOPERFEST Serial No. 88/562,554 Opposition No. 91255611

OPPOSER DANA-FARBER'S BRIEF AT FINAL HEARING

John L. Welch Amanda B. Slade Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. 600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210 617/646-8000 jlwtrademarks@ azstrademarks@

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. ii

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.......................................................................1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ..............................................................2

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................3

IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................7 A. Dana-Farber is Entitled to Bring This Statutory Cause of Action .........8 B. Dana-Farber Has Priority of Use ...........................................................9 C. Confusion is Likely Between the Involved Marks ................................9 1. The services of the parties are identical or closely related .........11 2. The parties' services are presumably offered in the same trade channels to the same general consumers ....................................12 3. The consumers of the involved services will exercise no more than ordinary care .......................................................................12 4. The mark SCOOPER BOWL is inherently distinctive and commercially strong ...................................................................13 5. The marks at issue are confusingly similar.................................13 Appearance and Sound ......................................................14 Connotation ........................................................................15 Commercial Impression .....................................................16 The Marks in Their Entireties ............................................16 6. The balancing of the DuPont factors favors Dana-Farber ..........16

V. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................16

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, 965 F.3d 1370, 2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 10837 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................. 8

Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1698 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..................................................................... 14, 15

Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 11277 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................. 8

Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................... 8

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1912 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................................................................... 10

Envirotech Corp. v. Solaron Corp., 211 U.S.P.Q. 724 (TTAB 1981) ................................................................................... 14

Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 192 U.S.P.Q. 24 (CCPA 1976) ..................................................................................... 10

Gen. Motors Corp. v. Aristide & Co., 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1179 (TTAB 2008) ............................................................................... 10

Grandpa Pidgeon's of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller, 177 U.S.P.Q. 573 (CCPA 1973) ................................................................................... 14

In re Chatam Int'l Inc., 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 10

In re Detroit Athletic Co., 128 U.S.P.Q.2d 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 14

In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 10

In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (CCPA 1973) ....................................................................... 10, 13, 16

In re Int'l Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 U.S.P.Q. 910 (TTAB 1978) ................................................................................... 11

In re Melville Corp., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1386 (TTAB 1991) ............................................................................... 11

ii

In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1375 (TTAB 2006) ............................................................................... 15

In re Viterra Inc., 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1905 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 12

In re White Swan Ltd., 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (TTAB 1099) ................................................................................. 13

King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen, Inc., 182 U.S.P.Q. 108 (CCPA 1974) ..................................................................................... 9

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014)........................................................................................................ 8

Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 213 U.S.P.Q. 185 (CCPA 1982) ..................................................................................... 9

Monsanto Co. v. Enviro-Chem. Corp., 199 U.S.P.Q. 590 (TTAB 1978) ................................................................................... 12

Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 14, 15

Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 90 U.S.P.Q. 106 (TTAB 1975) ..................................................................................... 14

Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1735 (TTAB 1991) ............................................................................... 14

Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 12

Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imp. Co., 213 U.S.P.Q. 594 (TTAB 1982), aff'd, 217 U.S.P.Q. 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983)................. 15

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)........................................................................................................ 9

STATUTES

15 U.S.C. ? 1052................................................................................................................. 9

15 U.S.C. ? 1052(d) ................................................................................................... passim

15 U.S.C. ? 1057(b) ............................................................................................................ 9

15 U.S.C. ? 1063................................................................................................................. 9

iii

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download