"The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Hughes, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Cunningham joining, held that the TTAB correctly found the parties' services highly similar under the second DuPont factor but erred in applying an inconsistent and overly narrow standard when analyzing third-party marks under the sixth DuPont factor. The appeal originates from trademark opposition proceedings initiated by CC Serve Corp. to challenge Apex Bank's intent-to-use applications for the word and design marks ASPIRE BANK for banking and financing services."
"In its final decision, the TTAB sustained CC Serve's opposition under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, finding that consumer confusion was likely between Apex's proposed marks and CC Serve's existing registration for ASPIRE in connection with credit card services. The Board's analysis focused on three of the 13 DuPont factors, concluding that the first factor, concerning similarity of marks, and the second factor, concerning similarity of services, weighed in favor of CC Serve."
Apex Bank sought registration of the word and design marks ASPIRE BANK for banking and financing services. CC Serve Corp., owner of a 1998 registration for ASPIRE for credit card services, opposed under Section 2(d), claiming likelihood of confusion. The TTAB sustained the opposition after finding the marks similar and the services highly similar under DuPont factors one and two, and found third-party use under factor six did not support Apex. The Federal Circuit affirmed the conclusion on service similarity but vacated and remanded the Board's factor six analysis for applying an inconsistent and overly narrow standard.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]