Posts Tagged: "DuPont factors"

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion that vacated a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that a trademark registration from GPS vehicle tracking company Spireon was likely to be confused with three trademarks from supply chain management company, Flex LTD. The appeals court found that the TTAB made several significant errors and thus vacated and remanded the case. Flex LTD opposed Spireon’s FL FLEX trademark due to likely confusion with three of its marks, FLEX, FLEX (stylized), and FLEX PULSE. The TTAB determined whether there was a likelihood of confusion using the Dupont factors. The Board found that Flex’s marks were inherently distinctive under the first factor, and using the second, third, and thirteenth Dupont factors concluded that there was overlap between the two companies’ marks and ruled that Spireon registered its mark in bad faith.

Trademark applicant Charger Ventures LLC has lost its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) finding that SPARK LIVING is likely to be confused with an earlier-registered mark, SPARK. The precedential decision was authored by Judge Reyna. Both marks cover real estate services, but Charger amended its application to specify residential real estate services, whereas the earlier mark specified services related to commercial real estate property. Charger also disclaimed the term “LIVING” in response to the examiner’s request. However, the examiner ultimately issued a final office action refusing the application on the grounds that “a comparison of the respective marks show[s] that they are comprised either in whole or significant part of the term ‘SPARK,’”…and both marks are for real estate services, with ‘overlapping identifications of leasing and rental management services.’”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday upheld a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirming an examiner’s refusal to register the mark OXIPURITY for chemical products. The court agreed with the TTAB that OXIUPURITY is likely to be confused with the previously registered mark, OXYPURE, for ““hydrogen peroxide intended for use in the treatment of public and private potable water systems and supplies.”

Under U.S. trademark law and court precedent, determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion involves weighing a number of factors (13 factors to be exact), known as the “Dupont factors,” set out in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). The CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals) is a predecessor court to the Federal Circuit. As noted by the Federal Circuit, not all the DuPont factors may be relevant or of equal weight in a given case and any one of the factors may control a particular case. Under 35 U.S.C. §101, patent-eligible inventions include any process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter and any new and useful improvement thereof. There are, in addition, three judicially created exceptions to the broad recitation of Section 101: laws of nature; natural phenomena; and abstract ideas…. If the goal of Section 101 is to act as a gatekeeper, rather than a roadblock, the factors approach seems appropriate to employ in a patentability analysis.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that denied registration of Stratus Networks, Inc.’s trademark (the STRATUS mark) on grounds of likelihood of confusion with UBTA-UBET Communication Inc.’s registered trademark (the STRATA mark). The CAFC reviewed the Board’s factual findings for each of the considered DuPont factors, determined that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, and found no legal error in the Board’s determination.

Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. (“Oakville”), doing business as Dalla Valle Vineyards, appealed from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) dismissing its opposition to a trademark application filed by Georgallis Holdings, LLC (“Georgallis”) to register a MAYARI mark for use on wine. Oakville had previously registered the mark MAYA, also for wine. Because there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the TTAB that there would be no likelihood of confusion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a registration of the mark MAYARI for wine products, affirming the TTAB’s decision and dismissing Oakville’s opposition.