April 20, 2020
Authored and Edited by Kathryn R. Judson; Katie W. McKnight; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Stratus Networks, Inc., v. UBTA-UBET Communications Inc., No. 2019-1351 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s decision denying registration of Stratus’s trademark on the grounds of a likelihood of confusion with UBTA’s registered trademark.
Stratus and UBTA are both telecommunication providers. Stratus filed an application seeking to register its STRATUS mark. UBTA opposed the registration alleging a likelihood of consumer confusion with its registered STRATA mark.
The Board considered the thirteen DuPont factors and concluded that six of the factors were relevant to UBTA’s opposition. In weighing these factors, the Board determined that the marks were similar in appearance and sound and that Stratus’s mark would likely cause consumer confusion when used in association with its services.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s likelihood of confusion determination. The Court found that the “absence of explicit findings on a given DuPont factor does not give rise to reversible error” where “the Board considered that factor and the corresponding arguments and evidence.” The Court held that the Board’s decision as a whole was supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the Court found that the Board did not commit legal error by declining to make an express finding as to each DuPont factor, noting that while the Board must consider each factor, it “may focus its analysis on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of goods.” With respect to the eight DuPont factor, the Court noted that although the record showed that the parties’ marks coexisted for over six years without evidence of actual confusion, and the parties offered “similar services in similar trade channels,” the parties’ services did not geographically overlap. The Court explained that because consumers were not exposed to both trademarks during the relevant time periods, the actual confusion factor is less significant to a likelihood of confusion analysis, and held that the Board did not legally err in its decision on actual confusion.
Copyright © 2020 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
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.