直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Federal Circuit Overturns TTAB Decision, Clarifies Goods and Services Standard

December 19, 2014

Authored and Edited by Danielle Wright Bulger; Eleanor Atkins

On Tuesday, the Federal Circuit overturned a U.S. Patent and Trademark decision holding that a hospital’s trademark for a residential, health improvement program can co-exist with a mark used for a research foundation’s fitness program. In the precedential option, the court held that the mark TAKETEN, used by St. Helena Hospital for a 10-day preventative medicine program, was not likely to cause confusion with TAKE 10!, an initiative encouraging schools to provide physical activity programs, sponsored by the International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation.

In considering the DuPont factors for likelihood of confusion, the court agreed that the first factor (the similarity of the marks) favored a finding of likelihood of confusion, but held that substantial evidence was lacking to support a refusal to register based on the dissimilarities in the goods and services and the high degree of consumer care.

The court clarified the standard for assessing the similarity of goods and services where the relatedness of the goods is not obvious: “In situations like the present, in which the relatedness of the goods and services is obscure or less evident, the PTO will need to show ‘something more’ than the mere fact that the goods and services are ‘used together.’” The PTO cannot refuse registration simply because goods and services are similar; there must be a “persuasive evidentiary showing” of that the goods and services are commercially related.

Tags

likelihood of confusion

Copyright © 2014 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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Seminar

IAM and WTR Live: Australasia IP Forum 2026

August 11, 2026

Melbourne

Webinar

U.S. Patent Case Law Update 2026

July 23, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Articles

This Article Was Written Entirely by AI — Welcome to Synthetic Patent Litigation

July/August 2026

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP