April 2, 2019
Authored and Edited by Jonathan Uffelman; Margaret A. Esquenet
The Federal Circuit recently reminded the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that when analyzing whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two marks, it must consider all likelihood-of-confusion factors for which there is record evidence.
The case concerned Guild Mortgage Company’s (“Guild Mortgage’s”) application to register the GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY mark, covering mortgage banking services:
The Examining Attorney refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark GUILD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, covering “investment advisory services.” The thirteen factors set out in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. are typically examined in any analysis of likelihood of confusion:
Here, the Examining Attorney found that confusion was likely because the marks, nature of the services, and trade channels were all similar. The Board affirmed.
On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Guild Mortgage argued that the Board had failed to address its argument and evidence directed to factor eight: the “length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.” Specifically, Guild Mortgage had submitted the declaration of its President and CEO, stating that Guild Mortgage and Guild Investment Management had coexisted in the same geographic market, Southern California, for over forty years without any evidence of actual confusion.
The Federal Circuit reversed. The Court found that although the Board stated it had considered the factors for which there was argument and evidence, its opinion did “not mention factor 8, let alone address Guild Mortgage’s argument and evidence directed to that factor.” Further, the fact that Guild Mortgage and Guild Investment Management’s services were similar and move in similar channels of trade was also relevant in assessing whether the absence of actual confusion indicates a likelihood of confusion. Because these arguments weighed in favor of finding that confusion was not likely, the Court found the Board’s error was not harmless. The Court did not say what weight the evidence should be given, only that it was error not to consider it.
The case is In re Guild Mortgage Company, Case No. 2017-2620 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2019).
likelihood of confusion, DuPont, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), 2019 Top Insights
Copyright © 2019 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.