View a Sample Chapter

§ 4:9.2 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSIONworks to frustrate the proponent’s claim. 205 “A family of products in aparticular field does not necessarily connote a family of marks.” 205.1While not technically a “family” feature, a significant commonportion of a group of marks may be given weight as the “dominant”and “unifying” feature of the marks. 206 Even where the owner has notproved a family of marks as such, if it uses several variations of its coremark, consumers may become so accustomed to the varied usage thatthey naturally perceive an infringer’s mark as yet another variationfrom the same source. 207On appeal of a refusal to register due to confusing similarity witha prior registered mark, “the focus of the likelihood of confusionanalysis must be the mark applicant seeks to register, not othermarks applicant may have used or registered. In other words, afamily-of-marks argument is not available to an applicant seekingto overcome a likelihood of confusion refusal.” 207.1§ 4:9.2 Words/DesignsIn composite word and design marks, the word portion is usuallydeemed dominant. 208 The word generally is the more easily rememberedportion and is used in communications such as product requests.209 The design element of a mark would not be used by word-ofmouth,of course, and it may not be used in textual material such asSpraying Sys. Co. v. Delavan, Inc., 975 F.2d 387, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1181,1187 (7th Cir. 1992) (JET descriptive for spray nozzles and could not serveas a family surname); AM Gen. Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d796, 814, 815, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 1012, 1013 (7th Cir. 2002).205. Con-Stan Indus. v. Nutri-Sys. Weight Loss Med. Ctrs., 212 U.S.P.Q. 953,957 (T.T.A.B. 1981); cf. J&J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932F.2d 1460, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1892 (Fed. Cir. 1991).205.1. AM Gen. Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 816, 65U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 1014 (7th Cir. 2002).206. Nina Ricci S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enters., Inc., 889 F.2d 1070, 1073, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d1901, 1903 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., 237 F.3d 891, 899, 57U.S.P.Q.2d 1617 (7th Cir. 2001) (“the common thread”); see Raypak, Inc. v.Dunham-Bush, Inc., 216 U.S.P.Q. 1012, 1015 (T.T.A.B. 1983).207. Humana, Inc. v. Humanomics, Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1696, 1700 (T.T.A.B.1987), citing Varian Assocs. v. Leybold-Hereues Gesellschaft, 219 U.S.P.Q.829, 833 (T.T.A.B. 1983); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Consorzio del Gallo Nero,782 F. Supp. 457, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1579, 1582–83 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (GALLO);Am. Optical Corp. v. Siemens AG, 213 U.S.P.Q. 510, 516 (T.T.A.B. 1982).207.1. In re Cynosure, Inc., 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1644, 1644 (T.T.A.B. 2009).208. CBS, Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 U.S.P.Q. 198, 200 (Fed. Cir.1983); Helene Curtis Indus., Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 13 U.S.P.Q.2d1618, 1621 (T.T.A.B. 1989).209. In re Decombe, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1812, 1814 (T.T.A.B. 1988); In re Carriage,Inc., 189 U.S.P.Q. 648 (T.T.A.B. 1975); In re Big Wrangler Steak House,4–48