July 3, 2023
Authored and Edited by Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Robert Evans†
In Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd., No. 22-1578 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the TTAB’s decision sustaining Flex’s opposition to the registration of Spireon’s FL FLEX mark on the ground of likelihood of confusion with Flex’s earlier registered marks, FLEX, FLEX (stylized), and FLEX PULSE.
Likelihood of confusion is a question of law, based on underlying factual findings related to thirteen factors (“the DuPont factors”) set out in In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973). The Board analyzed several DuPont factors and concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion. Spireon appealed.
The Federal Circuit held that the Board failed to consider all relevant evidence regarding the sixth DuPont factor: the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. The Board erred in excluding evidence of fifteen third-party registrations on the grounds they were composite marks (marks containing multiple words). Those marks were relevant to whether the word “flex” (shared by FL FLEX and Flex’s marks), has a commonly understood descriptive or suggestive meaning in the field and whether there is a crowded field of marks “in use.” Proof of use or non-use is material because the sixth DuPont factor only considers similar marks “in use” on goods. The Federal Circuit held that while Spireon bears the burden of producing evidence of relevant registrations, Flex, as the party that filed the opposition, bears the burden of proving non-use of those third-party marks. Finally, the Federal Circuit held that the Board erred in its analysis by mistakenly comparing Spireon’s mark FL FLEX to FLEX PLUS (which is not owned by Flex), instead of FLEX PULSE, one of Flex’s registered marks.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Articles
Injunctive Relief for Standard Essential Patents in International Jurisdictions
March/April 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.