% BULKY DOCUMENTS
`
`(exceeds 300 pages)
`
`Proceeding] Serial No: 9 1 094961
`
`Filed: 02- 12-2007
`
`Title: Opposer’s/Petitioner’s Motion for
`Summary Judgment
`
`Part 1 of 2
`
`

`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL/BOARD _
`
`TTAB
`74 /‘W 334,1
`
`_
`
`Opposition No. 91094961
`Opposition No. 91095203
`
`Cancellation No. 92029390
`Cancellation No. 92029476
`
`)
`
`3
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`VALENTINO COUTURE, INC.,
`VAL
`.
`.
`.
`
`ENTINOSPA,
`
`Opposers/Petitioners,
`
`V-
`
`FLORENCE FASHIONS (JERSEY),
`LIMITED,
`
`Applicant/Respondent.
`
`OPPOSERS/PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Opposers and Petitioners, Valentino Couture, Inc., a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of Delaware and a wholly owned subsidiary of Valentino S.p.A., an Italian
`
`corporation, (collectively “ Valentino”), pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure and Rule 2.127 of the Trademark Practice Rules (37 C.F.R. § 2.127), by and
`
`through its undersigned counsel, hereby move this Board for summary judgment in its
`
`favor sustaining the oppositions and refusing Application Nos. 74/188,331 (for
`
`GIOVANNI VALENTINO in International Classes 18 and 25) and 74/188,334 (for
`
`GIANNI VALENTINO in International Class 25), both filed by the Applicant, Florence
`
`Fashions (Jersey) Limited (“Florence Fashions”). Valentino also moves this Board for
`
`summary judgment in its favor sustaining the cancellations of Registration Nos.
`
`2,103,658 (for GIOVANNI VALENTINO in International Class 25) and 2,130,804 (for
`
`GIANNI VALENTINO in International Class 18), both owned by the Respondent,
`
`Florence Fashions. This motion is being filed prior to the commencement of the first
`
`testimony period and is timely.
`
`02-12-2007
`U.S. Patent & TMOfc/TM Mail Rcpl Dt. #2
`
`

`
`As set forth more fully in the attached memorandum, declarations and exhibits,
`
`this motion is made on the grounds that considering the undisputed facts, there is a
`
`likelihood of confusion between Valentino’s registered marks for VALENTINO,
`
`VALENTINO V and VALENTINO GARAVANI & V LOGO and Florence Fashions’
`
`marks GIOVANNI VALENTINO and GIANNI VALENTINO for use on and in
`
`connection with identical goods.
`
`This motion is accompanied by Valentino’s Memorandum in Support of its
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment and the Declarations of Thomas D. Lyford and Carmine
`
`Pappagallo with exhibits.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: February 12, 2007
`
`By:ggWV"’Q«/M
`
`/
`
`I
`
`G. Franklin Rothwell, Esq.
`Brian E. Banner, Esq.
`Anne M. Sterba, Esq.
`Thomas D. Lyford, Esq.
`Attorneys for Opposers/Petitioners
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck P.C.
`1425 K St., N.W.; Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-783-6040
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR
`
`OPPOSERS/PETITIONERS
`
`VALENTINO COUTURE, INC.
`
`VALENTINO, S.P.A.
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the following
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was served this 12”‘ day of February, 2007
`
`by First Class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid on the following counsel for Applicant:
`
`Susan Neuberger Weller, Esq.
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C.
`701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`’ 4//%'\
`T’atrick Collares
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VALENTINO COUTURE, INC.,
`
`VALENTINO S.P.A.,
`
`Opposers/Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`FLORENCE FASHIONS (JERSEY),
`
`LIMITED,
`
`Applicant/Respondent.
`
`
`\/Q/\/%%%\./Q/\/%%
`
`%/
`
`Opposition No. 91094961
`Opposition No. 91095203
`
`Cancellation No. 92029390
`
`Cancellation No. 92029476
`
`MEMORANDUM OF OPPOSERS/PETITIONERS IN SUPPORT
`OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`G. Franklin Rothwell, Esq.
`
`Brian E. Banner, Esq.
`Anne M. Sterba, Esq.
`Thomas D. Lyford, Esq.
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck P.C.
`1425 K St., N.W.; Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-783-6040
`
`Attorneys for Opposers/Petitioners
`VALENTINO COUTURE, INC.
`VALENTINO S.P.A.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ...................................... .. 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ .. 8
`
`A.
`
`B
`
`C.
`
`D
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................................................... .. 8
`
`VALENTINO HAS STANDING ...................................................................................... .. 9
`
`VALENTINO HAS PRIORITY ..................................................................................... .. 10
`
`LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION EXISTS BETWEEN THE MARKS .............................. ..11
`
`No Genuine Issues of Material Fact Exist — The VALENTINO Family of
`Marks Are Famous .......................................................................................... ..12
`
`No Genuine Issues of Material Fact Exist — The Goods Are Identical ........ .. 16
`
`No Genuine Issues of Material Fact Exist — The Marks Are Confusingly
`Similar ............................................................................................................... .. 19
`
`The Channels Of Trade Used By Both Parties Are Legally Identical ......... .. 21
`
`Valentino’s Policing Preserves And Enhances The Strength Of Its
`VALENTINO Family Of Marks..................................................................... .. 22
`
`Florence Fashions’ Bad Faith Is Presumed ................................................... .. 24
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... .. 25
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Brookfield Communs., Inc. v. West Coast Entm ’t Corp, 174 F.3d 1036, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999)....24
`
`Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Asso., 81 1 F.2d 1490 (Fed
`Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................................................. ..21
`
`Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life ofAmerica, 970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ......... .. 16
`
`Cunningham v. Laser GolfCorp., 222 F. 3d 943, 945 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................ ..9
`
`Herbko Int’l Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................. ..22
`
`Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc., 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1733 (T.T.A.B.
`2001) .......................................................................................................................................... ..9
`
`In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & C0,, 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ............... ..11, 12, 19
`
`In re Elbaum, 211 U.S.P.Q. 639 (T.T.A.B. 1981) ....................................................................... ..16
`
`In re Smith & Mehafley, 31 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1531 (T.T.A.B. 1994) .................................................. ..21
`
`Internet Inc. v. Corporation for Nat ’I Research Initiatives, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1435 (T.T.A.B.
`1996) .......................................................................................................................................... ..9
`
`Interstate Brands Corp./McKee Foods Corp., 53 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1910 (T.T.A.B. 2000) ................ .. 19
`
`Kellogg Co. v. Pack ‘Em Enters., Inc., 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 (T.T.A.B. 1990), aff’d, 951 F.2d
`330 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................................. ..9
`
`Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 353 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert.
`denied, 506 U.S. 862 (1992) .............................................................................................. ..16, 19
`
`King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 1402 (C.C.P.A. 1974)............. ..11
`
`Mattel, Inc. v. Funline Merchandise C0,, Inc., 2006 TTAB LEXIS 478 (T.T.A.B. November
`7, 2006) .................................................................................................................................... .. 16
`
`McDonald ’s Corp. v. McBagel’s Inc., 649 F. Supp. 1268, 1274 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ..................... ..23
`
`Miles Labs. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements, Inc., 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1445, 1453 (T.T.A.B. 1986).15
`
`Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises, Inc., 889 F.2d 1070, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ....... ..15, 20
`
`On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. et al., 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..... ..22
`
`Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En I 722, 396 F.3d 1369
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................................................... .. 12
`Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., 134 USPQ 504, 508 (C.C.P.A 1962) ............ .. 15
`
`Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., 222 U.S.P.Q. 741, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................... 8
`
`Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................... .. 12
`
`Revco D.S., Inc. v. Parfums Stern-Val, Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9320 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).... 7, 13
`
`Speciality Brands, Inc. v. Coflee Bean Distributors, Inc., 748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ......22, 25
`
`
`
`

`
`Stern ’s Miracle—Gro Prods., Inc. v. Shark Prods., Inc., 823 F. Supp. 1077, 1087
`(S.D.N.Y.1993)........................................................................................................................ ..25
`
`Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting, Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................. .. 8
`
`Tzflany & Co. v. Classic Motor Carriages Inc., 10 USPQ 2d 1835, 1843 (T.T.A.B. 1989) ........ ..21
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. §1063 ............................................................................................................................. ..9
`
`15 U.S.C. §1064 ............................................................................................................................. ..9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.116(a) ....................................................................................................................... ..8
`
`Lanham Act ............................................................................................................................ ..11,12
`
`Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act ............................................................................................. ..2, 3, 4
`
`Section 1(b) of the Lanham Act ..................................................................................................... .. 5
`
`Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act ..................................................................................................... .. 8
`
`Section 44(d) of the Lanham Act ................................................................................................... .. 3
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ...................................................................................................................... .. 8
`
`TMEP§ 1207.01(b) ..................................................................................................................... ..19
`
`TREATISES
`
`3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 20:07 (4th ed. 9 11
`2006) .................................................................................................................................... ..
`,
`
`iv
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Opposers/Petitioners, Valentino Couture, Inc., a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of Delaware and a wholly owned subsidiary of Valentino S.p.A., an Italian
`
`corporation, (collectively “Va1entino”) submit
`
`this memorandum in support of their
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on the undisputed material facts, Va1entino’s
`
`Cancellations (Nos. 92029390 and 92029476) and Oppositions (Nos. 91094961 and
`
`91095203) should be sustained, and Applicant Florence Fashions (Jersey) Limited’s
`
`(“Florence Fashions’”)
`
`registrations for
`
`its GIOVANNI VALENTINO (Reg. No.
`
`2,103,658) and GIANNI VALENTINO (Reg. No. 2,130,804) marks should be cancelled
`
`and its applications for its GIOVANNI VALENTINO (Apn. No. 74/188,331) and
`
`GIANNI VALENTINO (Apn. No. 74/188,334) marks should be refused.
`
`Valentino has designed and sold high end fashion products (including clothing
`
`and accessories, bags and leather goods) under its VALENTINO mark starting in 1960
`
`and through the present day. Through extensive marketing, promoting and advertising in
`
`the United States under the VALENTINO mark, the opening of boutiques in the United
`
`States and worldwide under the VALENTINO brand and trade name, and substantial
`
`cooperative advertising with exclusive stores such as Bergdorf Goodman, Neiman
`
`Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue in the United States, the mark VALENTINO has become
`
`and remains a famous and exclusive mark for apparel and related merchandise emanating
`
`from Valentino from the 1960s through today. Since 1960, Valentino has added other
`
`marks
`
`incorporating the VALENTINO mark to its
`
`trademark portfolio (e.g.,
`
`VALENTINO V and VALENTINO GARAVANI & V) and has used its VALENTINO
`
`
`
`

`
`family of marks to identify the technical excellence and exclusivity of its products sold
`
`under its mark, and to distinguish its products from fashions sold by others.
`
`In 1991, Florence Fashions filed four applications for the marks GIOVANNI
`
`VALENTINO and GIANNI VALENTINO — marks
`
`that
`
`incorporate the mark
`
`VALENTINO made famous by Valentino. Two of those applications matured into
`
`registrations; the other two remain pending in the United States Patent & Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”).
`
`The undisputed material facts establish, as a matter of law, that Valentino has
`
`standing; Valentino has priority; and a likelihood of confusion exists between a party
`
`having a VALENTINO family of marks and another party registering and applying for
`
`registration of marks which incorporate the famous VALENTINO mark, for identical
`
`goods (namely, clothing and accessories, bags and leather goods). Accordingly,
`
`Valentino is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`II.
`
`1.
`
`Valentino owns
`
`the following family of trademarks
`
`including the
`
`VALENTINO mark for a broad array of clothing and accessories, bags and leather goods,
`
`watches and retail services, all of which have been duly registered in the United States:
`
`a.
`
`VALENTINO (Reg. No. 910,955)
`
`issued April 6, 1971 for
`
`“articles of clothing and accessories, namely, dresses, belts, gloves, scarves, shoes,
`
`swimwear and ties” in International Class 25. The application resulting in Valentino’s
`
`Reg. No. 910,955 was filed on February 10, 1970 under Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act,
`
`having a date of first use and first use in commerce of April 1960.
`
`See Lyford
`
`

`
`Declaration (“Lyford Decl.”)
`
`1] 3; Ex.
`
`1.
`
`Valentino also owns
`
`the following
`
`VALENTINO registrations for goods/services in International Classes 18, 25 and 35, all
`
`of which have filing dates decades prior
`
`to Florence Fashions’
`
`filing dates:
`
`VALENTINO (Int. Cl. 35) (Reg. No. 956,665); VALENTINO (Int. Cl. 18) (Reg. No.
`
`1,140,394); VALENTINO (Int. Cl. 25) (Reg. No. 1,153,226); and VALENTINO (Int. Cl.
`
`25) (Reg. No. 1,268,029). See Lyford Decl. 111] 4-7; Ex. 2-5.
`
`b.
`
`VALENTINO V (Reg. No. 1,268,030) issued February 21, 1984
`
`for “articles of clothing and accessories, namely, jumpers, sweaters, dresses, skirts,
`
`blouses, suits, jackets, coats, shirts, trousers, vests, jeans, slacks, shorts, swimwear, hats,
`
`lingerie,
`
`ties, belts, scarves, hosiery and gloves” in International Class 25.
`
`The
`
`application resulting in Valentino’s Reg. No. 1,268,030 was filed on October 31, 1979
`
`under Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act, having a date of first use and first use in
`
`commerce of August 1979. See Lyford Decl.1l 8; Ex. 6.
`
`c.
`
`VALENTINO GARAVANI & V LOGO (Reg. No. 1,419,190)
`
`issued December 2, 1986 for “valises, garment bags for travel, handbags, shoulder bags,
`
`clutch bags, brief cases, attaché cases, umbrellas, and small
`
`leather goods, namely,
`
`passport cases, wallets, key cases, billfolds, vanity cases sold empty and credit card
`
`holders” in International Class 18, having a priority date of June 22, 1983 under Section
`
`44(d) of the Lanham Act. The application resulting in Valentino’s Registration No.
`
`1,419,190 was filed on September 19, 1983. See Lyford Decl. 11 9; Ex. 7. Valentino also
`
`owns the following VALENTINO GARAVANI & V LOGO registrations for goods in
`
`International Classes 14 and 25, each of which have filing dates years prior to Florence
`
`Fashions’ filing dates: VALENTINO GARAVANI & V LOGO (Int. Cl. 14) (Reg. No.
`
`

`
`1,418,315) and VALENTINO GARAVANI & V LOGO (Int. Cl. 25)
`
`(Reg. No.
`
`1,422,015). See Lyford Decl.1[1l 10, 11; Ex. 8-9.
`
`2.
`
`Florence Fashions owns the following United States registrations:
`
`a.
`
`GIOVANNI VALENTINO (Reg. No. 2,103,658) issued October 7,
`
`1997 for “bath robes; boots; boots for sports; overcoats; dressing gowns; bed jackets;
`
`gloves; hosiery; jackets; knitted pullovers; pullovers, jerseys, sweaters, jumpers, knitted
`
`cardigans; leggings, mittens; trousers; pants; pajamas; shoes; sandals; scarves; mufflers;
`
`shawls; knitted vests; shirts; slippers; socks; swimsuits; underwear; waistcoats;
`
`ties;
`
`neckties; cravats; bowties, night gowns, negligees; and headwear” in International Class
`
`25. The application resulting in Florence Fashions’ Reg. No. 2,103,658 was filed on July
`
`25, 1991 under Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act, claiming a date of first use and first use
`
`in commerce of 1991. See Lyford Decl.11 12; Ex. 10.
`
`b.
`
`GIANN1 VALENTINO (Reg. No. 2,130,804) issued January 20,
`
`1998 for “attache cases; bandoliers, brief cases; garment bags for travel; handbags; straps
`
`for luggage; thongs; music cases, namely, a type of brief case designed to carry musical
`
`scores; pocket wallets; drawstring pouches; purses; rucksacks; satchels; school bags;
`
`travelling bags; individual pieces of luggage and luggage sets; cosmetic cases sold empty;
`
`cases for men’s toiletries sold empty; valises; animal hides;
`
`trunks for travelling;
`
`umbrellas; parasols; walking sticks; whips; harnesses; and saddlery; all made of leather or
`
`imitation of leather” in International Class 18. The application resulting in Florence
`
`Fashions’ Reg. No. 2,130,804 was filed on July 25, 1991 under Section 1(a) of the
`
`Lanham Act, claiming a date of first use and first use in commerce of 1991. See Lyford
`
`Dec1.1l13;Ex.11.
`
`

`
`3.
`
`Florence Fashions’ GIOVANNI VALENTINO mark (Reg. No. 2,103,658)
`
`registered on October 7, 1997; its GIANNI VALENTINO mark (Reg. No. 2,130,804)
`
`registered on January 20, 1998. See Lyford Decl. 111] 12, 13; Ex. 10-11. Valentino timely
`
`filed its Petition for Cancellation of both marks on June 14, 1999. See Lyford Decl. 1[1]
`
`21, 22; Ex. 19, 20.
`
`4.
`
`Florence Fashions filed the following intent-to-use trademark applications
`
`with the USPTO:
`
`a.
`
`GIOVANNI VALENTINO (Apn. No. 74/188,331) for two classes
`
`of goods, namely, “attache cases; bandoliers; brief cases; garment bags for travel;
`
`handbags; straps for luggage;
`
`thongs; pocket wallets; drawstring pouches; purses;
`
`rucksacks; satchels; cosmetic cases sold empty; cases for men’s toiletries sold empty;
`
`valises; animal hides; trunks for travelling; umbrellas; parasols; walking sticks; whips;
`
`harnesses; and saddlery; all made of leather or imitation of leather” in lntemational Class
`
`18 and “shoulder belts; namely, belts which run across the body from front to back and
`
`which are attached to belts about the waist” in lntemational Class 25. Florence Fashions’
`
`Apn. No. 74/188,331 for GIOVANNI VALENTINO was filed on July 25, 1991 under
`
`Section l(b) of the Lanham Act. See Lyford Decl.1] 14; Ex. 12.
`
`b.
`
`GIANNI VALENTINO (Apn. No. 74/188,334) for “bath robes;
`
`boots; ski boots; boots for sports; coats; dressing gowns; gloves; hosiery; jackets; jerseys;
`
`jumpers; knitted pullovers; knitted cardigans; mittens;
`
`leggings, overcoats; pants;
`
`pullovers; pajamas; sandals; scarves; mufflers; knitted caps; knitted vests; shawls; shirts;
`
`shoes; skirts; slippers; socks; sweaters; swimsuits; trousers; underwear; waistcoats; ties;
`
`neckties; bow ties; cravaths; night gowns; bed jackets; negligees; and headwear” in
`
`
`
`

`
`International Class 25.
`
`Florence Fashions’ Apn. No. 74/188,334 for GIANNI
`
`VALENTINO was filed on July 25, 1991 under Section 1(b) of the Lanham Act. See
`
`Lyford Decl.1[ 15; Ex. 13.
`
`5.
`
`Florence Fashions’ GIOVANNO VALENTINO application (Apn. No.
`
`74/ 188,331) was published for opposition on March 1, 1994, and Valentino timely filed
`
`its Notice of Opposition on June 29, 1994. See Lyford Decl. 1] 23; Ex. 21. Florence
`
`Fashions has not filed an Allegation of Use for Apn. No. 74/ 188,33 1. See Lyford Decl. 1]
`
`14; Ex. 12.
`
`6.
`
`Florence Fashions’ GIANNI VALENTINO application (Apn. No.
`
`74/ 188,334) was published for opposition on January 21, 1994, and Valentino timely
`
`filed its Notice of Opposition on June 21, 1994. See Lyford Decl. 1] 24; Ex. 22. Florence
`
`Fashions has not filed an Allegation of use for Apn. No. 74/188,334. See Lyford Decl. 1]
`
`15; Ex. 13.
`
`7.
`
`Florence Fashions’ registrations and applications at issue in this case (Reg.
`
`Nos. 2,103,658 and 2,130,804 and Apn. Nos. 74/188,331 and 74/188,334) were all filed
`
`in 1991 claiming the earliest date of use of 1991. See Lyford Decl. 1H[ 12-15; Ex. 10-13.
`
`8.
`
`Florence Fashions admits that April 3, 1992 is the date of first use and the
`
`date of first use in commerce of its GIANNI VALENTINO and its GIOVANNI
`
`VALENTINO registrations. See Lyford Decl. 1] 16; Ex. 14.
`
`9.
`
`The family of VALENTINO trademarks (described in paragraph 1 above)
`
`were registered and in bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade many years prior to
`
`the earliest date of use claimed by Florence Fashions. See Lyford Decl. 1111 3-15; Ex. 1-
`
`13. Valentino has continuously used its VALENTINO family of marks for clothing and
`
`
`
`

`
`accessories in International Class 25 since April 1960 in the United States, decades
`
`before the earliest date of use claimed by Florence Fashions. See Pappagallo Declaration
`
`(“Pappagallo Decl.”) 111] 4-6, Ex. A (de Boni Declaration (“de Boni Decl.”))1l1[ 5-31, Tabs
`
`6-17. Valentino also has a priority date of May 2, 1977 for its VALENTTNO mark (Reg.
`
`No. 1,140,394) for umbrellas in International Class 18 and June 22, 1983 for its
`
`VALENTINO GARAVANI & V mark (Reg. No. 1,419,190) for bags and leather goods
`
`in International Class 18, many years before Florence Fashions’ alleged earliest date of
`
`use for its International Class 18 goods. See Lyford Decl. 1111 3, 9; Ex. 1, 7. Priority,
`
`therefore, is not an issue.
`
`10.
`
`The VALENTINO mark is famous. Valentino has used its VALENTINO
`
`mark to identify the excellence of the products sold under its VALENTINO marks and to
`
`distinguish its products from those offered by others since 1960. See Pappagallo Decl. 111]
`
`3, 4, Ex. A, B. Valentino has used its VALENTINO marks for a variety of goods in
`
`International Classes 18 and 25 for several decades.
`
`Id.
`
`In fact, the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Southern District of New York has taken judicial notice of the fame of
`
`Valentino’s namesake, Valentino Garavani. See Revco D.S., Inc. v. Parfums Stern-Val,
`
`Inc., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9320 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
`
`11.
`
`Valentino has two pending applications that have been suspended due to a
`
`likelihood of confusion or potential likelihood of confusion with the Florence Fashions’
`
`applications/registrations.
`
`Specifically,
`
`an
`
`application filed by Valentino for
`
`VALENTINO (Apn. No. 75/982,220) in International Classes 25, 34 and 35 was
`
`suspended on March 15, 2006 pending the outcome of Florence Fashions’ applications
`
`for
`
`its GIOVANNI VALENTINO mark (Apn. No. 74/188,331),
`
`its GIANNI
`
`

`
`VALENTINO mark (Apn No. 74/188,334) and was denied registration under Section
`
`2(d) of the Lanham Act based on Florence Fashions’ GIOVANNI VALENTINO mark
`
`(Reg. No. 2,103,658); and an application filed by Valentino for VALENTINO (Apn. No.
`
`76/184,572) in International Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 27 was also
`
`suspended on June 6, 2006 pending the outcome of,
`
`inter alia, Florence Fashions’
`
`application for its GIOVANNI VALENTINO mark (Apn. No. 74/188,331) and was
`
`denied registration under Section 2(d) based on Florence Fashions’ GIANNI
`
`VALENTINO registration (Reg. No. 2,130,804). See Lyford Decl. {[1] 17, 18; Ex. 15, 16.
`
`12.
`
`The USPTO’s examination of Va1entino’s applications for VALENTINO
`
`(Apn. Nos. 75/982,220 and 76/184,572) cannot continue until
`
`this opposition and
`
`cancellation proceeding is resolved. See Lyford Decl. 111] 17, 18; Ex. 15, 16.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Standard for Summary Judgment
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact
`
`and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`56(c); Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting, Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 1562 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1987). The standard for summary judgment under Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c) applies in
`
`opposition and cancellation proceedings.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.116(a).
`
`It is against public
`
`interest to conduct useless trials, and where the time and expense of a full trial can be
`
`avoided by the summary judgment procedure, such action is favored. Pure Gold, Inc. v.
`
`Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., 222 U.S.P.Q. 741, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`

`
`Valentino will establish, as a matter of law, that there is no genuine issue of
`
`material fact that: (1) it has standing; (2) it has priority in its pleaded registrations; and (3)
`
`contemporaneous use of the parties’ respective marks on their respective goods would be
`
`likely to cause confusion, mistake and/or deceive consumers. See Hornblower & Weeks,
`
`Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc., 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1733 (T.T.A.B. 2001). These issues
`
`are appropriate for resolution by summary judgment. See, e.g., Kellogg Co. v. Pack ‘Em
`
`Enters., Inc., 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 (T.T.A.B. 1990), afi"a', 951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
`
`(affirming grant of summary judgment on the issue of likelihood of confusion); Pure
`
`Gold, 222 U.S.P.Q. at 743 (affirming grant of summary judgment on the issue of
`
`likelihood of confusion); Hornblower & Weeks, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1733 (summary
`
`judgment granted with respect to priority and likelihood of confusion).
`
`B.
`
`Valentino has Standing
`
`Standing is established if the party either opposing or petitioning to cancel a
`
`registration has a good faith belief that it will be damaged by the registration of the mark
`
`it has opposed or the registered mark it has petitioned to cancel. See 15 U.S.C. §§1063,
`
`1064. See also Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp, 222 F.3d 943, 945 (Fed. Cir. 2000); 3 J.
`
`Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 20:07 (4th ed.
`
`2006). This is a threshold inquiry directed solely to establishing an opposer’s or a
`
`petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. The purpose in requiring standing is to prevent
`
`litigation where there is no real controversy between the parties, i. e., where an opposer or
`
`a petitioner is no more than a mere intermeddler. See Internet Inc. v. Corporation for
`
`Nat’l Research Initiatives, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1435 (T.T.A.B. 1996).
`
`

`
`Valentino owns federal registrations for VALENTINO for, inter alia, clothing,
`
`accessories and retail store services; for VALENTINO V for, inter alia, clothing and
`
`accessories; for VALENTINO GARAVANI & V for, inter alia, clothing, bags, leather
`
`goods and jewelry. See Lyford Decl. 1H] 3-11, Ex. 1-9. Florence Fashion owns federal
`
`registrations for the marks GIOVANNI VALENTINO for,
`
`inter alia, clothing and
`
`GIANNI VALENTINO for, inter alia, bags and leather goods. See Lyford Decl. [[1] 12,
`
`13, Ex. 10, 11. Florence Fashions also seeks federal registrations for the same marks for
`
`additional goods, namely, GIOVANNI VALENTINO for, inter alia, bags and leather
`
`goods and GIANNI VALENTINO for, inter alia, clothing. See Lyford Decl. 1H] 14, 15,
`
`Ex. 12, 13. Valentino is interested in canceling the registrations of and preventing other
`
`registrations of marks that include their famous mark, VALENTINO, for identical goods.
`
`Also, Va1entino’s
`
`applications
`
`for VALENTINO (Apn. No.
`
`75/982,220)
`
`and
`
`VALENTINO (Apn. No. 76/184,572) have been suspended pending the outcome of, inter
`
`alia, Florence Fashions’ applications for its GIOVANNI VALENTINO mark (Apn. No.
`
`74/188,331) and/or its GIANNI VALENTINO mark (Apn. No. 74/188,334). See Lyford
`
`Decl. 1] 17, 18. Therefore, Valentino is more than a mere interrneddler, and no material
`
`facts are in dispute regarding Valentino’s standing to oppose the applications and cancel
`
`the registrations at issue.
`
`C.
`
`Valentino has Priorit_v_
`
`Va1entino’s registrations are “prima facie evidence of the validity of the of the
`
`registered [VALENTINO] mark and of the registration of the [VALENTINO] mark, of
`
`[Valentino’s] ownership of the [VALENTINO] mark, and of [Valentino’s] exclusive
`
`right to use the registered [VALENTINO] mark in commerce on or in connection with
`
`10
`
`

`
`the goods or services specified in the certificate.” 15 U.S.C. §1057(b) et seq. No other
`
`proof is required. See King Candy Co. v. Eunice King ’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400,
`
`1402 (C.C.P.A. 1974). Valentino’s ownership of valid and subsisting registrations in its
`
`family of registered marks, namely, VALENTINO, VALENTINO V and VALENTINO
`
`GARAVANI & V, conclusively establishes its priority in these opposition and
`
`cancellation proceedings.
`
`Valentino’s rights in its family of registered marks, namely, VALENTINO,
`
`VALENTINO V and VALENTINO GARAVANI & V, date back at least to the filing
`
`dates of the applications, namely, February 10, 1970, October 31, 1979 and September
`
`19, 1983, respectively. See Lyford Decl. 1111 3-11, Ex. 1-9. Therefore, the undisputed
`
`material
`
`facts establish that Valentino’s registrations have priority over Florence
`
`Fashions’ registrations and applications.
`
`D.
`
`Likelihood of Confusion Exists Between the Marks
`
`The touchstone of a claim under the Lanham Act is whether there is a likelihood
`
`of confusion. Likelihood of confusion depends on whether the purchasing public would
`
`mistakenly assume that the junior user’s goods or services originate with, are sponsored
`
`by, or are in some way associated with the goods sold by the senior user under its mark.
`
`3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23.78 (4th
`
`ed.2006)
`
`To determine the likelihood of confusion issue,
`
`the Board considers, where
`
`appropriate, the thirteen factors set forth in In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`
`F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Significantly, in asserting likelihood of confusion
`
`11
`
`

`
`under the Lanham Act, no one factor is determinative and each case must be decided on
`
`its own facts. Id.
`
`In this proceeding, Florence Fashions’ registrations and applications for the marks
`
`GIOVANNI VALENTINO and GIANNI VALENTINO are likely to cause confusion
`
`with the registered VALENTINO family of marks and should be canceled and/or refused
`
`registration as a matter of law because — the dominant portion of the marks, namely,
`
`VALENTINO, is identical in sight, sound, and meaning; the marks encompass identical
`
`goods; those identical goods will travel in the same or similar trade channels; Valentino’s
`
`diligent policing of its marks strengthened those marks; and Florence Fashions’ bad faith
`
`is presumed.
`
`1.
`
`No Genuine Issues of Material Fact Exist — The VALENTINO Family
`of Marks Are Famous
`
`“Fame of [an Opposer’s] mark, [if it exists,] plays a ‘dominant role in the process
`
`of balancing the DuPont factors.’” See Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000). Famous marks enjoy a wide latitude of legal protection since they are more
`
`likely to be remembered and associated in the public mind than weaker marks and are
`
`thus more attractive as targets for would-be-copyists. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve
`
`Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En I 722, 396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Over the last forty years, Valentino has introduced numerous product lines under
`
`variations of the VALENTINO mark forming a VALENTINO family of marks such as
`
`VALENTINO; VALENTINO V; and VALENTINO GARAVANI
`
`(“VALENTINO
`
`Marks”). See Pappagallo Decl. Ex. A, de Boni Decl. fi[ 23. These marks are used on a
`
`wide variety of apparel, accessories and other products, including women’s dresses, suits,
`
`coats, sweaters, handbags, leather goods, clothing, men’s suits, shoes, etc. Id.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Since at least 1960, the VALENTINO mark for clothing and related goods is
`
`famous in the United States for its fashions due to its extensive promotion and trade
`
`recognition in the fashion industry. The VALENTINO Marks remain famous today. The
`
`fame of the VALENTINO Marks is derived from the fame and re