View a Sample Chapter

Similarity of the Marks§ 4:9.1the family. It is thus necessary to consider the use, advertisement,and distinctiveness of the marks, including assessment of thecontribution of the common feature to the recognition of themarks as of common origin. 199“A family of marks may have a synergistic recognition that isgreater than the sum of each mark.” 200 “[T]he question is notwhether applicant’s mark is similar to opposer’s individual marks,but whether applicant’s mark would be likely to be viewed asa member of opposer’s . . . family of marks.” 200.1 A family of marksdoes not have unlimited strength; the degree of relatedness ofproducts remains a significant factor. 200.2 The family concept coverstrade dress in addition to marks. 201 A “couple” of marks is not afamily. 202 Nor are marks which merely share a common element. 203The proponent must prove that the common characteristic is distinctive.204 Evidence of significant third-party use of the family feature199. J&J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d1889, 1891–92 (Fed. Cir. 1991); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d1715, 1720 n.38 (T.T.A.B. 2007) (examples of family usage); Reynolds &Reynolds Co. v. I.E. Sys., Inc., 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1749, 1751 (T.T.A.B. 1987)(“advertising, promotion and use of two or more of opposer’s marksconjointly in a manner calculated to impress upon the relevant publicthat ACCU marks used in opposer’s field of endeavor indicate source inopposer”); McDonald’s Corp. v. McKinley, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895, 1899(T.T.A.B. 1990) (“Mc”).200. Quality Inns Int’l v. McDonald’s Corp., 695 F. Supp. 198, 212, 8U.S.P.Q.2d 1633, 1643 (D. Md. 1989) (“Mc”) (emphasis added).200.1. 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1715, 1720 (T.T.A.B. 2007)(emphasis added).200.2. Id.201. Walt Disney Co. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp., 830 F. Supp. 762, 29U.S.P.Q.2d 1047, 1050 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (“consistent overall look”); AMGen. Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 814–15, 65U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) (“One claiming family trade dressprotection must articulate a specific trade dress and demonstrate that ithas consistently used that trade dress. . . .”).202. Land-O-Nod Co. v. Paulison, 220 U.S.P.Q. 61, 66 (T.T.A.B. 1983); EvansProds. Co. v. Boise Cascade Corp., 218 U.S.P.Q. 160, 162 (T.T.A.B. 1983);AM Gen. Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 816, 65U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 1014 (7th Cir. 2002).203. Colony Foods, Inc. v. Sagemark Ltd., 735 F.2d 1336, 222 U.S.P.Q. 185, 186(Fed. Cir. 1984); Consol. Foods Corp. v. Sherwood Med. Indus., Inc., 177U.S.P.Q. 279, 282 (T.T.A.B. 1973).204. Marion Labs., Inc. v. Biochemical/Diagnostics, Inc., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1215,1220 (T.T.A.B. 1988) (TOXI suggestive for drug detection products); Gen.Instrument Corp. v. Autotote Ltd., 220 U.S.P.Q. 283, 286 n.4 (T.T.A.B.1983); Miles Labs. Inc. v. Int’l Diagnostic Tech., Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 438,443 (T.T.A.B. 1983), aff’d in part sub nom. Int’l Diagnostic Tech., Inc. v.Miles Labs., Inc., 746 F.2d 798, 223 U.S.P.Q. 977 (Fed. Cir. 1984);(Kirkpatrick, Rel. #28, 11/12)4–47