TEMPUR-PEDIC MANAGEMENT v. FKA DISTRIBUTING CO., 91185706 (TTAB 7-27-2011)
Opposition No. 91185706 to application Serial No. 77288137United States Patent and Trademark OfficeTrademark Trial and Appeal Board
Oral Hearing: February 9, 2011Mailed: July 27, 2011Page 1
Ariana G. Voight of Michael Best Friedrich LLP for TempurPedic Management, Inc. and Dan Foam ApS.
Matthew R. Mowers of Brooks Kushman PC for FKA Distributing Co.
Before Cataldo, Wellington, and Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
FKA Distributing (applicant) filed an intent-to-use application to register the standard character mark TEMP-RITE for the following:
Foam rubber material for use in stuffing pillows and cushions in International Class 17;
Pillows and cushions; mattresses; mattress toppers; mattress cushions in International Class 20;Page 2
Polymers, namely, woven polymeric fibers and non-woven polymeric fibers for use in stuffing pillows and cushions in International Class 22; and Pillow accessories, namely, cases, covers, slips; mattress pads; mattress covers in International Class 24.[fn1]
Registration has been opposed by Tempur-Pedic Management, Inc. and Dan Foam ApS (opposers) on the ground of priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Opposers allege that since long prior to the filing date of applicant’s application, they have used TEMPUR and TEMPUR- formative marks,[fn2] including TEMPURPEDIC, TEMPUR design, TEMPUR MED, TEMPUR, TEMPUR-PLUS3, TEMPURAP and TEMPURAIR in connection with the manufacturing, marketing, sale and distribution of mattresses, cushions and pillows made of elastic viscous foam; that opposers own registrations for these marks; that opposers developed their products using a secret and proprietary formula and process which they identify by the mark TEMPUR; that opposers have expended tremendous time, effort, and money in advertising and promoting their unique products made with proprietary TEMPUR material under the TEMPUR-PEDIC mark and other TEMPUR- formative marks; that the TEMPUR-PEDIC mark and namePage 3
and TEMPUR- formative marks are famous among the purchasing public and the trade; and that applicant’s mark TEMP-RITE, is confusingly similar in appearance, sound and connotation to opposers’ TEMPUR-PEDIC mark and TEMPUR- family of marks; that applicant’s mark, if used in connection with the goods identified in the application, is “likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and to deceive as to the source of Applicant’s goods and to induce purchasers to believe that the goods of Applicant emanate from Opposers. . .”
Applicant, in its answer, “acknowledged the existence” of opposers’ pleaded registrations but otherwise denied the salient allegations of the notice of opposition.
The Record and Objections
The record consists of the pleadings and file of the involved application. Opposers submitted the testimony deposition (with exhibits) of Daniel R. Setlak, the Vice-President of Marketing for Tempur-Pedic North America. Opposer also submitted, under a notice of reliance, the following: certified copies of the pleaded registrations; records from other Board proceedings in which opposers asserted rights in their marks against third parties; copies of various articles discussing opposer’s goods and other excerpts from printed publications; and applicant’sPage 4
responses to admission requests, interrogatories and document requests.[fn3]
Applicant submitted, under a notice of reliance, the following: a copy of its registration (Registration No. 3610060) for the mark TEMPRITE; copies of two more registrations (Nos. 198350[fn4] and 3090305[fn5]) for the mark TEMPRITE for thermometers, which both, according the notice of reliance, “stand in the name of a related entity,” Taylor Precision Products, Inc. (see footnote 7); printouts from several websites involving third-party marks; copies of articles from printed publications; copies of printed and online dictionary definitions for the terms “temp” and “temper”; copies of opposers’ responses to interrogatories, document production requests, and admission requests; and a copy of opposers’ privilege log.
Opposers filed a motion to strike several materials (identified by the parties as exhibits) submitted by applicant under its notice of reliance. The Board, in an order dated May 20, 2010, overruled opposers’ objections to many of the materials but deferred the motion to strike with respect to Exhibits 29 and 32. In its trial brief and confirming as much at oral hearing, applicant stated that itPage 5
withdrew any reliance upon Exhibit 32 (a copy of opposers’ privilege log). Brief, p. 5.
The Exhibit 29 materials that opposers object to are essentially documents that were produced by them during discovery. Opposers cite to Rule 2.120(j) and correctly point out that documents produced under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34,i.e., in response to requests for production, cannot be introduced solely by notice of reliance. Applicant, on the other hand, argues that the materials were properly introduced because they were responsive to its Interrogatory No. 3 asking opposers whether they have “ever conducted. . .any market survey or other analysis or investigation that. . .relates in any way to recognition or awareness of opposer’s marks. . .” In a supplemental response to this interrogatory, opposers did not identify any particular documents but stated their parent company “has caused to be conducted on their behalf brand awareness surveys over the telephone.” Applicant argues that the documents were responsive to this interrogatory and should be accepted into the record.
We agree with opposers and the Exhibit 29 materials are hereby stricken because they have not been properly authenticated or otherwise introduced into the record. We note that opposers introduced documents produced by applicant in response to opposers’ document requests afterPage 6
obtaining an admission from applicant that said documents were admissible and authenticated (see footnote 3;. Applicant was presumably therefore aware of this vehicle for introducing documents produced by an opponent. See also TBMP ? 704.11(1).
The opposition has been fully briefed.
The Parties
Opposers Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Dan Foam ApS are related companies. Opposers, through a predecessor-in-interest, first used the TEMPUR-PEDIC mark in 1992 in connection with elastic viscous foam mattresses and pillows. Opposers have since expanded their product line to include various cushions, pillows, linens and other bedding products. Opposers’ mattresses and pillows are made of their proprietary elastic viscous foam, which was originally developed by NASA for use in the space program.
As to applicant, FKA Distributing Co., it does business as “Homedics, Inc.” and, in addition to the subject application, owns a registration for the mark TEMPRITE for “electric and non-electric massage apparatus; massaging apparatus for personal use” in International Class 10.[fn6] Although the subject application is based on an allegation of intent to use, it appears the TEMP-RITE mark is already in use by applicant on at least some of the identifiedPage 7
goods, e.g., pillows and fabric layer sheets made of viscous elastic foam.[fn7] These goods are advertised for sale on the Homedics website and were previously advertised on the Linens and Things website.
Standing and Priority
Opposers have made of record certified copies showing status and title of their pleaded registrations, including the following owned by opposer Dan Foam ApS: Registration No. 1853088 issued September 6, 1994 (renewed) for the mark TEMPUR-PEDIC for “mattresses, cushions and furniture pads made of elastic viscous foam”; and Registration No. 1926469 issued October 10, 1995 (renewed) for the mark TEMPUR for “mattresses, cushions and furniture pads made of elastic viscous foam.”
The record also demonstrates that opposers Tempur-Pedic Management, Inc. and Dan Foam ApS are related companies.
In view thereof, we find that opposers have established their standing to oppose registration of applicant’s mark.Page 8Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Company,670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185 (CCPA 1982).
In addition, because the pleaded registrations are of record, there is no issue as to opposer Dan-Foam ApS’ priority with respect to the marks and the goods identified therein. KingCandy Co., Inc. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc.,496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108 (CCPA 1974). Furthermore, through the testimony of Mr. Setlak, opposer Tempur-Pedic Management, Inc. has established common law rights and its priority of use with respect to the marks TEMPUR and TEMPURPEDIC vis-?-vis applicant’s mark; specifically, it has been using these marks on mattresses and cushions prior to the filing date of the subject application.
Likelihood of Confusion
Our likelihood of confusion determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the facts in evidence that are relevant to the likelihood of confusion factors set forth inIn re E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, however, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods and/or services. Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard PaperCo., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
We also note at the outset that while we have considered opposers’ rights in all of its pleaded registeredPage 9
marks, we focus our likelihood of confusion analysis and discussion based on opposers’ registrations for the two marks, TEMPUR-PEDIC and TEMPUR, vis-?-vis applicant’s TEMP-RITE mark.[fn8]
The fame of opposers’ TEMPUR-PEDIC mark
We next turn to the du Pont factor of fame, because the fame of the prior mark plays a dominant role in likelihood of confusion cases featuring a famous mark. Bose Corp. v.QSC Audio Products Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton,214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894 (Fed. Cir. 200); and Kenner ParkerToys, Inc. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Fame for likelihood of confusion purposes arises “as long as a significant portion of the relevant consuming public . . . recognizes the mark as a source indicator.” Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve ClicquotPonsardin Maison Fondee En 1722, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In this case, the relevant consumers would be the general public.
Upon careful review of the record, we find that opposers’ TEMPUR-PEDIC mark has become famous; however, we do not find the same for opposers’ TEMPUR mark or any of thePage 10
other TEMPUR- formative marks. That is, the bulk of opposers’ evidence regarding fame is directed solely to the TEMPUR-PEDIC mark and supports a finding in this regard but there is insufficient evidence showing that any of opposers’ other pleaded marks have acquired any degree of fame. As to the TEMPUR-PEDIC mark, opposers have used it for nearly 20 years and currently offer their products in over 7000 retail locations across the United States, including bedding and furniture stores. Throughout these years, opposers have extensively advertised their TEMPUR-PEDIC products nationally in consumer magazines, newspapers, direct mail promotions to consumers, on television, the internet and radio. Opposers’ domestic revenues and advertising expenses have been very substantial. Likewise, opposers have received unsolicited media publicity regarding their TEMPURPEDIC products, including being featured on national television programs.
We find, therefore, that the evidence clearly establishes that TEMPUR-PEDIC is a famous mark in connection with mattresses and bedding products. Accordingly, having found the TEMPUR-PEDIC famous, this factor weighs in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion as to this mark.
The similarity or dissimilarity of the goods, tradechannels and purchasers
At least one or several goods in each of the application’s four international classes of goods beingPage 11
opposed are identical or closely related goods to those covered by opposers’ registrations. Again, the application identifies pillows, cushions, mattresses, mattress toppers and cushions (in International Class 20) which are either identical or closely related to the goods identified in opposers’ pleaded registrations, i.e., “mattresses, cushions and furniture pads made of elastic viscous foam.” Applicant’s pillow accessories and mattress pads and covers (in International Class 24) are closely related inasmuch as they are accessories or otherwise clearly complementary goods with opposers’ mattresses, cushions and pads. Finally as to applicant’s “foam rubber” material (in International Class 17) and “woven and non-woven polymeric fiber” material (in International Class 22), all for use in stuffing pillows and cushions, these too are related to opposers’ cushions. There is no restriction in the application and we must presume that applicant’s cushion stuffing materials will be used in all types of cushions, including opposers’ cushions.
As to the channels of trade and purchasers, we must also presume that they will be the same for the identical goods, i.e., mattresses and cushions. Genesco Inc. v. Martz, 66 USPQ2d 1260, 1268 (TTAB 2003) [“Given the in-part identical and in-part related nature of the parties’ goods, and the lack of any restrictions in the identifications thereof as to trade channels and purchasers, these clothingPage 12
items could be offered and sold to the same classes of purchasers through the same channels of trade”]. In this case, the trade channels for opposers’ and applicant’s mattresses and cushions would include retail mattress stores and furniture stores which sell mattresses, and the class of purchasers would be ordinary consumers. Likewise, applicant’s mattress and cushion accessories and other goods identified in the application will also be sold to “retail store customers interested in bedding products.” Applicant’s Interrogatory Response No. 14. Thus, all of applicant’s goods and opposers’ goods will be found in the same trade channels and will be sold to the same purchasers.
The factors of the identity of the goods, trade channels and purchasers favor a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Nature and degree of Third-party use of similarmarks
We now turn to the sixth du Pont factor requiring us to consider evidence pertaining to the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. “The purpose of a defendant introducing third party uses is to show that customers have become so conditioned by a plethora of such similar marks that customers have been educated to distinguish between different such marks on the bases of minute distinctions.” Palm Bay Imports Inc., 73 USPQ2d at 1694.Page 13
The proceeding record includes copies of several third-party registrations for marks containing the element TEMP covering mattresses, cushions and other bedding products, as well as evidence showing use of said marks.[fn9] These marks include the following:
TEMPSOMA
Registration No. 2640891 for “pillows and cushions. . .bedding, namely, mattress pads,” and mark advertised at www.memory-mattress.com, www.sleepinnovations.com, and www.amazon.com;[fn10]
TempSmart
Registration No. 3083803 for “pillows, mattress toppers, foam mattresses, bed mattresses. . .pillow cases and covers, mattress pads and covers,” and mark advertised at www.zinus.com;[fn11]
TEMPRAKON
Registration No. 2986150 for “pillows. . .duvets,” mark is advertised at www.allergybuyersclubshopping.com and www.spaceconnection.com);[fn12] and
COOL TEMP Registration No. 3700280 for “mattress component, namely, mattress ticking,” mark is advertised at www.mealeysfurniture.com.[fn13]Page 14
When asked about the first two of aforementioned registered marks, opposers’ witness, Daniel Setlak, testified on cross-examination that opposers were not concerned with either TEMPSOMA or TEMPSMART being used in connection with the respective goods.
Q. TEMPSMART is not objectionable for use as a trademark for pillowcases and covers, mattress pads and covers, correct?
A. Correct.
[Setlak 94:18-21]
Q. TEMPSOMA as a trademark for memory foam mattresses is not objectionable to Tempur-Pedic, correct?
A. Correct.
[Setlak 106:24-107:01]
However, as to the third mark, TEMPRAKON, Mr. Setlak testified that opposers were unaware of this mark and that “our team will take a hard look at it.”[fn14] He explained,
Q. . . .Is [the TEMPRAKON mark] objectionable or not?
A. I think it’s objectionable, yes.
Q. On what grounds? For what reasons?
A. For the reasons that it’s, as you cited, pillows are sleep-related products and we sell pillows under the ? in the TEMPUR-PEDIC mark. Importantly, the presence of the letter R following the root, the core, “Temp.” That combination of TEMP and R, that is concerning.
Q. You just said that you had no proprietary position of the word “Temp” as a formative; correct?
A. By itself. But “Temp” with R is a different matter.
Q. “Temp” and R is a different matter. Do you have any data that shows that you have any brand recognition for “Temp” followed by another formative with the word (sic) R?
A. No, I don’t have data but that’s my educated opinion.
[Setlak 98:15-99:09]Page 15
In his testimony, Mr. Setlak stated that opposers regularly monitor for any third-party marks similar to their TEMPUR- formative marks. He further testified, and the record corroborates, that opposers have been active in policing their TEMPUR- formative marks. In particular, through proceedings at the Board, opposers have been successful in opposing registration of the marks TEMPER-PETIC, TEMPERTRONIC and TEMPERCOIL, and cancelling registrations of the marks TEMPERRELIEF and TEMPERFLOW.
With regard to opposers’ policing efforts in connection with the mark TEMPERFLOW, a settlement agreement was executed between opposers and Relief-Mart, Inc., the owner of the TEMPERFLOW registration.[fn15] By way of the agreement, Relief-Mart agreed to allow its registration be cancelled pursuant to Section 7(e). However, also pursuant to the agreement, opposers agreed not to object to Relief-Mart’s use and registration of the mark TEMPFLOW. Mr. Setlak, who was involved in the underlying settlement negotiations on behalf of opposers, stated that the agreement was “consistent with [opposers’] trademark enforcement policies.”
Based on the evidence involving third-party uses of TEMP- formative marks in connection with bedding or mattress goods, including opposers’ policing efforts, we cannot sayPage 16
that such usage is so prevalent that consumers have become conditioned to distinguish TEMP- formative marks based on minimal differences. Accordingly, this factor remains neutral in our analysis. Nevertheless, the extent of third-party uses does show it is not uncommon for others to adopt marks with a TEMP prefix in connection with bedding and mattress-related goods. As discussed in the following section, the prefix TEMP is not an arbitrary term in connection with bedding and mattress products.
The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks
To determine whether the marks are similar for purposes of our likelihood of confusion analysis, we must compare the marks in terms of appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In addition, it is well-settled that, in articulating reasons for reaching a conclusion on the issue of likelihood of confusion, while the marks are compared in their entireties, including any descriptive or disclaimed portions thereof, “there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided that the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties. Indeed this type of analysis appears to be unavoidable.” In re National Data Corp.,753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985).Page 17
We keep the above principles in mind when comparing the parties’ marks. In particular, we note the relevance of the latter principle involving placing more or less emphasis on a particular element of the mark, as well as the third-party uses of marks with the prefix TEMP for mattress and bedding products. These particular points are important because the only commonality between applicant’s TEMP-RITE mark and opposer’s marks is that they begin with the same first four letters, TEMP. The term “Temp” means “temperature” either by itself or as an abbreviation therefor.[fn16] And, with respect to bedding products, it is not uncommon for manufacturers to tout their products’ ability to help maintain a desirable body temperature while sleeping or using the products. The record shows third parties, as well as applicant, advertise their bedding or pillow products’ heat control qualities, e.g., “work with your body to control temperature and humidity”[fn17] or as “the only temperature-regulating fabric certified by the Space Foundation”[fn18] or “inner layer of smart fabric adjusts to your individual needs, `not too hot, not too cold’.”[fn19] The highly suggestive or descriptive nature of the term “Temp”Page 18
is buttressed by the fact that several third parties have used and/or registered marks beginning with that term (or those first four letters) in connection with mattresses, pillows, or other bedding products.
With respect to applicant’s mark, the term TEMP is separated by a hyphen from the term RITE, a phonetic equivalent of the word “right.” Thus, when considered in connection with applicant’s identified goods, the combination of the two terms and overall commercial impression of applicant’s mark is that the “right” (or desired) temperature is being achieved with (or in) applicant’s bedding, pillow and cushion products. Again, applicant certainly plays on this connotation in its advertisements.
Opposers’ marks, on the other hand, convey different commercial impressions. There is no conclusive evidence as to how consumers will perceive the TEMPUR or TEMPUR-PEDIC marks and while it is possible the marks may evoke a “temperature” quality to opposers’ goods, we find it more likely the marks’ commercial impression will be based on the term “temper” which is defined as “to modify by the addition of a moderating element” or “to bring to a desired consistency, texture, hardness, or other physicalPage 19
condition.”[fn20] This is buttressed by opposers’ advertisements which, for example, tout the TEMPUR “pressure-relieving material”[fn21] ; that the TEMPUR goods “support[] your body by conforming to your exact shape” and provide a “balance of pillowy comfort combined with responsive support we’re famous for.”[fn22] The record reflects that opposers use their mark in a suggestive manner to clearly highlight their mattresses’ and cushions’ qualities of providing “tempered” or balanced body support rather than any possible suggestive meaning involving temperature. The addition of the second element PEDIC in opposers’ famous mark, TEMPER-PEDIC, further distinguishes it from applicant’s TEMP-RITE mark.
In sum, despite sharing the same first four letters, the meanings and commercial impressions of the parties’ marks are different. Even if we were to find that TEMP and TEMPUR create a similar, highly suggestive meaning, it would not be a unique intended projection by companies selling mattresses and other bedding goods. See Mead Johnson Company v. PeterEckes, 195 USPQ187, 191 (TTAB 1977) (while the parties may have adopted the “cal” or “kal” suffix toPage 20
connote low caloric content, and while opposer may have priority of use and may have achieved notoriety, “this cannot preclude others engaged in marketing competitive, related, or similar goods from adopting and registering marks projecting a similar suggestion if they are otherwise readily distinguishable in sound and appearance”). See alsoStouffer Corporation v. Health Valley Natural Foods Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1900, 1903 (TTAB 1986) (LEAN LIVING for chicken, crepes, lasagna and enchiladas is not similar to LEAN CUISINE for frozen entrees because the only similarity between the marks is the suggestive word “lean”).
Opposer argues that applicant’s mark, when spoken, sounds like TEMPUR because the first syllable (“temp”) is followed by a second term beginning with the letter “r”, thus bringing it closer to opposers’ TEMPUR mark as well as its famous TEMPUR-PEDIC mark. We disagree. Although the first syllable will clearly be pronounced the same in the parties’ marks, we find that consumers will likely enunciate two separate syllables or terms in applicant’s mark, TEMP-RITE. And, to the extent consumers are familiar with the spelling of applicant’s mark, the hyphen will be understood as a separation or “stop” between the two terms, TEMP and RITE. When spoken in their entireties, the marks are noticeably different aurally. Moreover, as discussed, thatPage 21
common first syllable of the marks is a suggestively weak term.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the first syllable of the parties’ marks being the same, we find the marks differ substantially in appearance, meaning and commercial impression.
Balancing of factors.
Because applicant’s TEMP-RITE mark is so different from opposers’ marks, we find that there is no likelihood of confusion by the contemporary use of the marks. We reach this conclusion despite the fame of opposers’ TEMPUR-PEDIC mark, the fact that the parties’ goods are identical or otherwise closely related, and that the goods are sold in the same channels of trade and to the same classes of consumers. In other words, the dissimilarity of the marks simply outweighs the other factors.See Kellogg Co. v. Pack’Em Enterprises Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545, 1550 (TTAB 1990), aff’d, 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also StoufferCorporation, 1 USPQ2d at 1906 (“while the fame of opposer’s mark and the identity of the parties’ goods and their channels of trade tend to favor opposer’s case, we are not persuaded that these circumstances are sufficient to refuse registration to applicant in view of our finding that LEAN CUISINE and LEAN LIVING, applied to the goods herein are not confusingly similar in sound,Page 22
appearance or commercial impression”). Applicant’s mark conveys a very different commercial impression from that created by opposers’ marks; that is, applicant’s mark is highly suggestive of its goods’ ability to provide a desired temperature and, as shown by the evidence, it is not uncommon for manufacturers to use marks with the prefix TEMP to help convey such qualities. Simply put, consumers are not likely to confuse the parties’ marks because the common element TEMP is suggestively weak and the overall commercial impressions of the marks are different.
Decision: The opposition is dismissed with prejudice.
[fn1] Serial No. 77288137, filed September 25, 2007. [fn2] Opposers pleaded a “family” of TEMPUR marks; however, they did not pursue this argument in their trial briefs and confirmed at oral hearing that they are not relying on any rights in a TEMPUR family of marks. We therefore consider opposers’ assertion of rights in the TEMPUR family of marks to have been waived. [fn3] Applicant admitted the admissibility and authenticity of the documents. See Admission No. 68. [fn4] Issued on May 12, 1925, renewed. [fn5] Issued on September 5, 2006. [fn6] Registration No. 3610060, issued April 21, 2009. [fn7] Applicant did not take any testimony and thus there is little evidence regarding its activities or relationship with other entities. Specifically, applicant’s assertion in its brief that it is a related company of Taylor Precision Products, Inc. is not supported by the evidence. However, pursuant to its interrogatory responses and documents produced by applicant which were submitted into the record by opposers, there is evidence that applicant advertises and sells some of the goods identified in the application under the mark TEMP-RITE through the “Homedics” website (www.homedics.com). See opposers’ Notice of Reliance Exhibit 69, submitted for the described purpose of showing “how applicant uses its mark at issue in this proceeding.” [fn8] We have selected these registrations on the basis that they are for marks and/or cover goods that, when considered vis-?-vis the applied-for mark and identified goods, are most likely to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See, e.g.,In re Max Capital Group Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243This Opinion is Not a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: January 13, 2017 UNITED STATES…
This Opinion is not a? Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: January 12, 2017 UNITED STATES…
This Opinion is not a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: January 12, 2017 UNITED STATES…
This Opinion is Not a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: January 12, 2017 UNITED STATES…
This Opinion is Not a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: January 11, 2017 UNITED STATES…