View a Sample Chapter

§ 4:14 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSIONto the junior user’s mark, the senior user’s marks must be usedconjointly and in such a manner that they have come to be associatedby the relevant public. Otherwise, the marks at issue must becompared to one another separately. 356 No conflict was found in thefollowing cases:PROFESSIONALand POWERHANDLE forlawnmowers andmower motorsFASHION TANand ALO-FACE forskin care itemsMISTY andROTO-POWER foragricultural sprayersand dustersversusversusversusPOW-R-PRO for powerlawnmowers, 357FACIAL FASHIONSfor cosmetics, 358ROTOMIST foragricultural sprayingand dustingmachines. 359Conflict was found in the following cases:UNIVAC andREMINGTON fordata processing andtransmissionequipmentDR. SCHOLL’S andAIR-PILLO forfootwear insolesversusversusREMVAC for electronictelemetering and controlapparatus, 360DR. AIR for footwearinsoles. 361356. W. Union Tel. Co. v. Graphnet Sys., Inc., 204 U.S.P.Q. 971, 975 (T.T.A.B.1979); see Hart Schaffner & Marx v. Marks, Ltd., 229 U.S.P.Q. 544, 546(T.T.A.B. 1986) (noting “nothing inherent in these marks themselves” tosuggest an association).357. Toro Mfg. Corp. v. Kearney-Nat’l, Inc., 168 U.S.P.Q. 383 (T.T.A.B. 1970),aff’d, 480 F.2d 905, 178 U.S.P.Q. 406 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (oppositiondismissed).358. Aloe Creme Labs., Inc. v. Johnson Prods. Co., 183 U.S.P.Q. 447 (T.T.A.B.1974) (opposition dismissed).359. H.D. Hudson Mfg. Co. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 230 F.2d 445, 109U.S.P.Q. 48 (C.C.P.A. 1956) (opposition dismissed).360. Sperry Rand Corp. v. Remvac Sys. Corp., 172 U.S.P.Q. 415 (T.T.A.B. 1971)(registration refused).361. Schering-Plough HealthCare Prods., Inc. v. Ing-Jing Huang, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d1323 (T.T.A.B. 2007) (citing cases) (applicant failed to prove third-party useof AIR and DR. marks for relevant goods).4–74