2*
`
`is
`
`White &Case LLP
`1155 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10036-2787
`
`+ 1 212 819 8200
`Tel
`Fax + 1 212 354 8113
`wvvw.whitecase.com
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`~ T rA B
`
`September 13, 2004
`
`BY EXPRESS M-AlL
`
`Box TTAB
`
`Commissioner For Trademarks
`‘ H A
`.
`I '
`
`Arlington, Virginia 2220
`
`Opposer: Federated Department Stores, Inc.
`Applicant: Ashley Nettye, Inc.
`Opposition No.: 91158634
`
`Dear Sirs:
`
`The following documents were filed electronically by the Applicant through “ESTTA”
`on September 13, 2004:
`
`1. App1icant’s Opposition to Summary Judgment
`
`2. Declaration of Stuart Pollack with Exhibits A-F
`
`3. Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser with Exhibits A-H
`
`4. Motion to Strike Declarations
`
`Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the receipt confirming the submission of the
`above documents.
`
`O9-13-2004
`U.S. PITCH! & TMO1‘c/TM Mall fiupt Dt. 422
`
`
`ANKARA
`ALMATV
`HO CHI MINH CITY
`PARIS
`PRAGUE
`
`HELSINKI
`HAMBURG
`FRANKFURT
`DUSSELDORF
`DRESOEN
`BUDAPEST
`BRUSSELS
`BRATISLAVA
`BERLIN
`BEIJING
`BANGKOK
`PALO ALTO
`HONG KONG ISTANBUL JOHANNESBIJRG LONDON LOS ANGELES MEXICO CITY MIAMI MILAN MOSCOW MUMBAI NEW YORK
`RIYADH
`ROME
`SAN FRANCISCO
`SAO PAULO
`SHANGHAI
`SINGAPORE
`STOCKHOLM
`TOKYO
`WARSAW
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`9/13/2004 5:24 PM (2K)
`NEWYORK 4303219 vl [43os219_1 .DOC]
`
`

`
`7‘ Cominissioner for Trademarks
`
`In order to ensure that the exhibits are clear, enclosed herewith are copies of the above
`mentioned documents and exhibits.
`
`Please date and stamp the enclosed post card to acknowledge receipt.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`Matthew Bart
`
`Legal Assistant
`
`/370%
`
`Enclosures
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING UNDER 37 CFR 1.8
`
`"Express Mail" mailing number EL499528145US
`Date of Deposit: September 13, 2004
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the
`United States Postal Service "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee"
`service under 37 CFR 1.8 on the date indicated above and is addressed
`
`to Commissioner For Trademarks, Arlington, VA 22202.
`
`Name: Matthew Bart
`
`Signature:
`
`M4/étéx,
`
`9/13/2004 5:24 PM (ZK)
`NEWYORK 4308219 vl [43082l9_l.DOC)
`
`
`
`

`
`QSPTO. ESTTA. Receipt
`
`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Home I Site Index I Search I Guides I Contacts I eBusiness I eBiz alerts I News I Help
`
`Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`Your submission has been received by the USPTO.
`The content of your submission is listed below.
`You may print a copy of this receipt for your records.
`
`Receipt
`
`ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA14982
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/13/2004
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Party
`
`91158634
`
`Defendant
`
`ASHLEY NETTYE, INC.
`ASHLEY NETTYE, INC.
`463 Seventh Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10018
`
`JAMES W. DABNEY
`PENNIE & EDMONDS LLP
`
`1155 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`
`
`1. Applicant's Opposition to Summary Judgment 2. Declaration of Stuart
`Pollack w/ Exhibits 3. Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser w/ Exhibits 4.
`Motion to Strike Declarations
`
`Submission
`
`Jacqueline Lesser
`jlesser@whitecase.com
`/Jacqueline Lesser/
`fi 09/13/2004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant's Opposition to Summary Judgement.pdf ( 32 pages)
`Declaration of Stuart Po11ack.pdf ( 2 pages)
`Exhibit A Part 1 to Declaration of Stuart Pollack.pdf ( 28 pages )
`Exhibit A part 2 to Declaration of Stuart Pollack.pdf (21 pages )
`Exhibit B to Declaration of Stuart Po11ack.pdf ( 8 pages)
`Exhibit C to Declaration of Stuart Pol1ack.pdf (4 pages)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`http://estta.uspto.gov/com/receipt.j sp?iname=6RUMDZ2U2KNV-1 05
`
`9/13/2004
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`1:1SPTO. ESTTA. Receipt
`
`35
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Attachments
`
`Exhibit D to Declaration of Stuart Pollack.pdf ( 2 pages)
`Exhibit E B Collection Label.pdf ( 1 page )
`Exhibit F-B Kids Hang Tag.pdf ( 1 page )
`Exhibit F-B Kids Label.pdf ( 1 page )
`Exhibit F-B Kids on garment l.pdf ( 1 page)
`Exhibit F-B Kids on garment 2.pdf ( 1 page )
`Exhibit F-B Kids on garment 3.pdf ( 1 page )
`Exhibit F-B Kids on garment 4.pdf ( 1 page )
`Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 2 pages )
`Exhibit A to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 9 pages)
`Exhibit B to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 6 pages )
`Exhibit C to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 7 pages )
`Exhibit D to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 3 pages )
`Exhibit E to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 5 pages )
`Exhibit F to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 31 pages )
`Exhibit G Part 1 to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 21 pages)
`Exhibit G Part 2 to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 20 pages)
`Exhibit H Part 1 to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 27 pages )
`Exhibit H Part 2 to Declaration of Jacqueline Lesser.pdf ( 32 pages )
`Motion to Strike Declaration.pdf ( 4 pages )
`
`Return to ESTTA home page Start another ESTTA filing
`
`I
`
`.HOME I INDEXI SEARCH I eBUS|NESS I CONTACT US I PRIVACY STATEMENT
`
`http://estta.uspto.gov/com/receipt.jsp?iname=6RUMDZ2U2KNV-105
`
`9/13/2004
`
`
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`-___-_-__....---..-..._-_____--_.-_..___-.._-----_-.._-..--_---_--__ X
`
`Federated Department Stores, Inc.,
`
`Ashley Nettye, Inc.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`Applicant.
`
`Oppdsition No. 91 158634
`
`APPLICANT’S OPPOSITION TO
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`WHITE & CASE, LLP
`1 155 Avenue oil the Americas
`New York, New; York 10036
`(212) 819-8200
`Jonathan E. Moékin
`Jacqueline
`
`NEWYORK 4245543 v3 [424ss4s_3.Doc] (ax)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I!<
`
`Table of Contents
`
`.1232
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................l
`
`I.
`
`FACTS .............................................................................................................................. ..2
`
`II. ARGUMENT......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Summary Judgment Standard ......................................................................................7
`Opposer Has No General Rights In the Merely Descripti
`Term “b kids" ................ 8
`
`Federated Has Not Met its Burden of Proof on the Issue f Priority. ....................... 14
`
`Federated Has Not Met Its Burden of Proving Likelihood of Confusion. .................19
`
`Conclusion.................................................................................................................24
`
`NEWYORK 424554: va (424ssu_3.noc1 (zx)
`
`
`
`'~
`..._.
`
`»
`p..—
`.._.;:.'s«....I.2?.‘.~.
`
`(tit
`
`

`
`atIQ‘,
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`In re A La Vieille Russie, Inc., 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895 (T.T.A.B. 2001) ..........................................l2
`
`AMFInc. v. Am. LeisureProds, Inc.,474F.2d 1403, 177U.S.P.Q. L68 (C.C.P.A. 1973)..........21
`Accu PersonnelInc. v. AccustaflSys. Inc., 38 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1443 (T.’1'l.A.B. 1996).........................8
`Am. Optical Corp. v. Am. Olean Tile C0,, 185 U.S.P.Q. 405 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) ............................l3
`
`Application ofE.I. duPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d, 1357, 177
`
`............................................7
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .....................
`.....................................2, 19
`(C.C.P.A. 1973) .........................................................................
`Banflf Ltd v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 638 F. Supp. 652 (S.D.N Y. 1986) .........................8, 9
`Banfif Ltd. v. FederatedDept. Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d486 (2d Cir. 19118) .................................9, 13
`BeIlSouth Corp. v. Planum Tech. Corp., 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1555 (T.T.Al.B. 1988) ...........................19
`
`.S.P.Q. 563
`
`BigStar Entm’I, Inc. v. Next BigStar, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 185 (S.D}N.Y. 2000) .......................22
`Estate ofBiro v. Bic Corp., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1382 (T.T.A.B. 1991)...............................................16
`
`InreBonniKeller CollectionsLtd, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1224 (T.T.A.B. IJ87) ....................................12
`In re Boston Beer Co.Ltd. P'shp., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......12,' 17
`In re Burndy, 300 F.2d 938, 133 U.S.P.Q. 196 (C.C.P.A. 1962) .......L..........................................20
`
`Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1 73, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d
`1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..............................................................................................................23
`
`.S.P.Q.2d 1503
`Commodore Elecs. -Ltd. v. CBMKabushiki Kaisha Opposition, 26
`(T.T.A.B. 1993) ..................................................................................................................7, 16
`
`CopeIands'Enters Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 945 F.2d 1563, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 295 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ..........7
`
`In re Dayco Prods., Eaglemotive Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1910 (T.T.A.B. 1988) ................................21
`
`Dyneer Corp. v. Auto. Prods. pIc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1251 (T.T.A.B. 1 95) ................................7, 17
`
`NEWYORK mssu V3 [mss«_:u:oc) (2K)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`ll
`
`
`
`In re E.I. Kane, Inc., 221 U.S.P.Q. 1203 (T.T.A.B. 1984) ......................................................... ..17
`
`In re Electrolyte Labs. Inc., 929 F.2d 645, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ...................... ..21
`
`Era Corp. v. Elec. Realty Assocs., Inc., 211 U.S.P.Q. 734 (T.T.A.B. 981) .................................18
`
`.P.Q.2d 1635 (Fed.
`GHMumm & Cie v. Desnoes & Geddes, Ltd, 917 F.2d 1292, 16 U.
`Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................................................19
`
`.S.P.Q. 697
`Georgia—Pacific Corp. v. Great Plains Bag Co., 614 F.2d 757, 204
`(C.C.P.A. 1980) ......................................................................................................................20
`
`. 528 (Fed. Cir.
`H. Marvin Ginn. Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n ofFire Chiefs‘, Inc., 228 U.S.P.
`1986) .......................................................................................................................................12
`
`In re J.M Originals Inc., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1393 (T.T.A.B. 1987) ...................................................21
`
`Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Prods., 866 F.2d 1386, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1736 (Fed. Cir.
`1989) ............................................................................................................................... ..22, 23
`
`Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enters., 951 F.2d 330, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1142
`
`ed. Cir. 1991) ............... ..23
`
`In re Kwik Lok Corp., 217 U.S.P.Q. 1245 (T.T.A.B. 1983) ....................................................... ..17
`
`Larami Corp. v. Talk to Me Programs, Inc., 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1840 (T.
`
`.A.B. 1995) .....................l4
`
`Liqwacon Corp. v Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 203 U.S.P.Q. 305
`.T.A.B. 1979) ..................18
`Lloyd's Food Prods., Inc. v. Eli's, Inc., 987 F.2d 766, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 2027 (Fed. Cir.
`1993) ....................................................................................................................................... ..7
`
`In re Melville Corp., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1386 (T.T.A.B. 1991) ....................................................... ..2l
`
`In re Melville Corp., 228 U.S.P.Q. 970 (T.T.A.B. 1986) ..................................................... ..10, 12
`
`Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Stryker, 179 U.S.P.Q. 433 (T.T.A.B. 1 73)................................... ..15
`
`NASA v. Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1671 (T.T.A.B. 1 87) .....................................19
`
`In re Nat’! Shooting Sports Found, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. 1018 (T.T.A.
`
`. 1983)........................;....14
`
`Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enters., Inc., 889 F.2d 1070, 12 U.S. Q.2d 1901 (Fed Cir.
`1989) .......................................................................................................................................19
`
`mswvonx 424554: va [424ss«_3.noc1 (2K)
`
`(11)
`
`
`
`

`
`(I
`
`
`
`.Q. 40 (C.C.P.A.
`Otto Roth & Co. v. Universal Foods Corp, 640 F.2d 1317, 209 U.S.
`1981), on remand, 215 U.S.P.Q. 1140 (T.T.A.B. 1982) .....................................................8, 14
`
`In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 U.S.P.Q. 917 (T.T.A.B. 1984) ..........................................15
`
`Perma Ceram Enters., Inc. v. Preco Indus., Ltd., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 113 (T.T.A.B. 1992)..............14
`
`Plus Prods. v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 541 (T.T.A.B. 19 3) .....................................21
`
`In re Redken Labs, Inc., 170 U.S.P.Q. 526 (T.T.A.B. 1971) ........................................................16
`
`In re Remington Prods. Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1714 (T.T.A.B. 1987)..............................................10
`
`S. Industries Inc. v. Lamb-Weston Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293 (T.T.A.
`
`. 1997) .......................16, 18
`
`Sanyo Watch Co. v. Sanyo Elec. Co., 691 F.2d 1019, 215 U.S.P.Q. 8 3 (Fed. Cir. 1982) .......7,-23
`
`Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coflee Bean Distribs., Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 23 U.S.P.Q. 1281
`(Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................................................................2l
`
`.Q.2d 1793 (Fed.
`Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Panill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 4 U.S.
`Cir. 1987) ..................................................................................................................................7
`
`In re Taylor & Francis (Publishers), Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1213 (T.T.
`
`.B. 2000) ........................14
`
`Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 U.S.P.Q. 693 C.C.P.A. 1976) .................21
`
`In re The Paint Prods. C0,, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1863 (T.T.A.B. 1988) ....
`
`..........................................15
`
`Towers v. Advent Software, Inc., 913 F.2d 942, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .............8, 9,
`14, 20
`
`United Foods‘ Inc. v. .I.R. Simplot Co., 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1172 (T.T.A.B. 1987) ................................22
`
`Universal Foods Corp. v. Otto Roth & Co., 215 U.S.P.Q. 1140 (T.T A.B. 1982) ..................10, 14
`
`Visa Int’! Serv. Assn v. Life-Code Sys, Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 740 (T.T.
`
`.B. 1983) .....................,.....8
`
`Wagner Elec. Corp. v. Raygo Wagner, Inc., 192 U.S.P.Q. 33 (T.T.
`
`.B. 1976) ...........................15
`
`In re Whataburger Sys., Inc., 209 U.S.P.Q. 429 (T.T.A.B. 1980)................................................10
`
`In re Wickerware, Inc., 227 U.S.P.Q. 970 (T.T.A.B. 1985) .........................................................12
`
`mzwvonx 424554: vs [424ss4I_3.Doc] (zx)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`(1
`
`Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki C0,, 840 F.2d 1572, 6 U.S.P.Q 2d 1001 (Fed. Cir.
`1988) ................................................................................
`....................................................23
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C.§ 1127 ............................................................................................................................16
`
`Fed. R Civ. P. 56(a), sea»)...........................................................................................................16
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ................................
`
`.............................................................................13, 16
`
`Fed. R Evid 901 ..........................................................................................................................13
`
`NEwvo1u<424ss4:v3[4245su_3.Doc'1(2x)
`
`(iv)
`
`

`
`
`
`NEWYORK 424554: V3 (424ss4x_:.noc) (210
`
`
`
`
`
`Federated Department Stores, Inc.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`Ashley Nettye, Inc.,
`
`:
`Applicant.
`...............................................................-- X
`
`Oppo ition No. 91158634
`
`APPLICANT’S OPPOSITION TO
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`WHITE & CAS , LLP
`1155 Avenue 0 the Americas
`
`(212) 819-8200
`
`Jonathan E. Mo kin
`
`Jacqueline Less
`
`

`
`
`
`Applicant, Ashley Nettye, Inc. (“ANI”) submits the following opposition to Federated
`
`Department Stores, Inc.’s (“Federated”) motion for surmnary judgme t.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`One week before its scheduled trial period, Federated has mo ed for summary judgment
`
`arguing simply that the descriptive use of the unregistered term “b
`
`ds” (without stylization or
`
`other distinguishing features) in certain advertising and undocumente signage by its
`
`Bloomingdale’s stores -- the “b” standing for Bloomingdale’s, an ini 'al to which Federated
`
`claims no independent rights—-gives Federated rights sufficient to pre ent registration of ANI’s
`
`earlier filed, and pending application for a highly stylized B Kids an Design logo. Although
`
`Federated contends that as a matter of law it has priority of the use 0 the descriptive term, and
`
`that it has proven a likelihood of confusion, its papers lack any expl
`
`ation of how either ofthese
`
`necessary elements have been proven so as to warrant summary jud
`
`ent, much less how they
`
`may be proven at trial. Federated has made no claim that “b kids” i
`
`inherently distinctive, or
`
`to sustain its burden of proof. As such, Federated’s motion should e denied.
`
`Although completely ignored in Federated’s papers, there are a substantial number of
`
`material facts in dispute that render summary judgment inappropriat on both issues of priority
`
`and likelihood of confusion . First, and selectively ignored by Feder ted, its claimed rights in “b
`
`kids” a nondistinctive designation are solely in an application, filed ubsequent to the application
`
`opposed. Relying merely on an application, it is Federated’s burden to prove the factual issue of
`
`distinctiveness to support either a finding of priority, or the likeliho d of confusion.
`
`Because the factual issue of distinctiveness is disputed, sum ary judgment on either
`
`issue ofpriority or likelihood of confusion is inappropriate. Indeed,
`
`NEWYORK 424554: vs [4z4ss4:_3.Doc] (zx)
`
`e record presented here --
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`the only record that Federated can present at trial -- would support s mary judgment against
`
`
`
`Federated, dismissing the case. At the close of discovery Federated h s no evidence upon which
`
`it may rely that “b kids” is inherently distinctive or has acquired disti ctiveness. Unable to meet
`
`its burden of proving distinctiveness, Federated cannot sustain its bur en ofproofunder Section
`
`2(d) and its opposition may be dismissed.
`
`Finally, although Federated devotes little attention to analyzin likelihood of confusion,
`
`and certainly does not consider most of the factors set out in Applicat on ofE.I. duPont
`
`DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d, 1357, 1361, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567 (C.
`
`.P.A. 1973); since the
`
`marks here share only descriptive or generic elements in which the o poser has no rights, Federal
`
`Circuit precedent establishes as a matter of law that there can be no li elihood of confusion.
`
`Indeed, since Federated only claims rights in the “b kids” as a servic mark for retail services,
`
`the impossible burden Federated faces is to show that a prospective c stomer of one of ANl’s
`
`washable suede garments in a Nordstrom’s or J.C. Penney’s store, up n seeing ANI’s highly
`
`stylized B-Kids and Design Logo on an garment label will think that hey are in opposer’s
`Bloomingdale’s store, or a store otherwise ofiering services from op oser. No facts or law
`
`support that conclusion, and opposer’s motion should accordingly be denied.
`
`I. FACTS
`
`
`
`ANI is the preeminent U.S. manufacturer of washable suede uterwear and apparel which
`it sells through national department stores under its trademark and tr ding name BERNARDO,
`
`as well as under subsidiary brands, including B Collection, and the s
`
`lized B Kids Design Logo.
`
`Declaration of Stuart Pollack (“Pollack Decl.” ) at 111 3 and 4. Appli ant’s washable suede
`
`apparel is exclusive to it, and ANI has developed substantial good
`
`11 in this product, as well as
`
`in its women, men’s and children apparel lines sold nationally, throu
`
`stores such as
`
`NEWYORK 4245548 V3 [424$548_3.DOC] (2K)
`
`'2'
`
`
`
`

`
`Nordstrom’s, Macys, Sears and J.C. Penney. Pollack Decl. at 1 4. B RNARDO is a registered
`
`trademark of applicant. Pollack Decl. at ‘.1 5. One of app1icant’s sub idiary lines, B
`
`COLLECTION for which applicant also owns a registration, for juni r wear, is sold in such
`
`establishments as J.C. Penney, and has been available for the past tw years. Pollack Decl. at 1]
`
`7. Drawing on the stylized design element ofANI’s registered B C LLECTION mark, ANI
`created a children's wear extension, using a similar stylized “B” logo (but in a more juvenile
`
`format) with the descriptive term “kids”. Pollack Decl. at $1 7. The 1 go stylization is virtually V
`
`identical to the “B” in ANI’s B COLLECTION Pollack Decl. at 11 6. The term “kids” is
`
`disclairned. The logo also contains a childlike drawing with a crown
`
`d smiley face. The two
`
`marks appear as follows:
`
`
`
`NEWYORK 424554: vs [4245$4I_3.DOC] ax)
`
`-.
`
`.x.a—-..,-;.'-‘_...~-..-.
`
`»
`
`:2; ,.’,’;}3\
`
`_, ,._._, _" ,
`
`. ___1- _._.‘:;u__
`
`_
`
`
`
`

`
`-s
`
`Federated has not objected to ANI’s use or registration of B COLLE
`
`5Z W oE‘ ‘P? U3
`
`COLLECTION and the B Kids Logo Design products have been and are currently offered for
`
`sale. Pollack Decl. 1] 7. Federated has admitted it has no evidence th t these sales have led to
`
`any confusion. See Declaration of Jacqueline M. Lesser, dated Septe ber 10, 2004 (“Lesser
`
`Decl.”) at W 7 and 8.‘
`
`It was only upon publication ofANl’s stylized B Kids Desi
`
`Logo that Federated,
`
`while extending its time to oppose, filed an application to register the phrase "b kids" for retail
`
`services claiming as it has acknowledged (mistakenly) a service mar usage dating back to 1997.
`
`
`
`BLOOMlNGDALE’S indicating a sale in its chi1dren’s department a (1 showing the descriptive
`
`use of “b kids” to describe the location ofthe children's department?
`In response to ANI’s discovery requests, Federated’s verified esponse admitted that there
`were no sales of any products under the designation “b kids”, Lesser Decl. at 1] 3. These
`
`all after discussion with Federated’s outside counsel. Lesser Decl. at
`
`1] 4; 5; 7; Bailey Tr. at 13-
`
`16; 45-49). Discovery revealed that the 1997 use claimed by Federat d for a retail service mark
`rvice mark, but apparently based on Bloomingda1e’s circular
`
`use was actually not a use as a se
`
`advertisements for a concedely abandoned line of toddler clothing la eled B
`B KIDS, and referred to in tiny print random circulars produced by loomingdale’s as “b kids.”
`Lesser Decl. at 1H[ 7 and 8; Bailey Tr. at 49-50, Beckmann Tr. at 19- 1. Federated has not
`
`LOOMINGDALE’S
`
`——?.
`I “Bailey Tr." refers to transcript pages from the deposition ofElizabeth Bailey, Federated s designated 30(b)6 witness taken on
`arm, taken on June 15, 2004.
`June 14, 2004; “Beckmann Tr.” refers to transcript pages from the deposition ofKathy Bee
`
`NEWYORK 4243548 V3 [424.':S45_J.DOC] (2K)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`amended either its application or its Notice of Opposition to clarify
`
`at rights it actually
`
`purports to claim. 3
`After initially admitting that it had no use, Federated subseque tly argued that any use of
`
`“b kids” in the years 1997 to 2001 was related to an abandoned privat
`
`label
`
`BLOOM1NGDALE’S B KIDS used for infant clothing. Lesser Decl. at 1[ 1| 7 & 8; Bailey Tr. at
`
`49; 67. Beckmann Tr. at 19-21. That BLO0MlNGDALE’S brande private label line was
`
`as the kids department, the children’s department — or Young World, the internal name ofthe
`
`department. Lesser Decl. at W 7 and 8; Bailey Tr. at 50; Beckmarm r. at 25-26, 35; In fact,
`Federated’s 30(b)6 witness, Elizabeth Bailey is identified
`interrog tory responses as an
`
`employee in the Young World Department. Lesser Decl. at 1[ 3.
`
`Internal records supporting service mark use of “b kids” are s arce or nonexistent. There
`
`are no records when any signs were purchased or created. Lesser De 1. 1 7; Bailey Tr. at 96.
`
`Federated is relying on the memory ofthe witnesses. There is no ad ertising budget for the so-
`
`called b-kids department. Lesser Decl. at 1 7, Bailey Tr. at 76-66; F derated concedes it has no
`
`means oftracking the “use” of “b kids.” Although a small number f the stores seem now to
`
`have some signage in the children’s department, it is unclear when
`
`
`ese signs were first used,
`
`
`
`3 Federated's contradictory discovery responses alone raise material factual issues which
`
`NEWYORK 4245543 V3 [424554I_3.DOC] (ZK)
`
`lude summaryjudgment.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`and they appear only a small minoritylofthe Bloomingdale’s stores. L sser Decl. 1] at 7. Bailey
`
`Tr. at 96. Following her deposition, and as part ofthe summary jud
`ent papers, Federated’s
`30(b)6 deposition witness conceded that ofthe few signs she has seen she first saw in 2004.4
`
`There is no “unified” look, logo sheet or style guide for those signs L sser Decl. at 1111 7; Bailey
`
`Tr. at 19; 94; 97-98. No one within Federated or its B1oomingda1e’s
`
`ivision checks to see if a
`
`store has a “b kids” sign, or how, or when it appears. Lesser Decl. at
`
`7; Bailey Tr. at 54-56
`
`To the extent the term is used at all, it apparently is used simply to he p direct customers who
`
`already know they are in at Bloomingdale’s store to find the children’ or Young World
`department. I The sign appears for example on the floor landing ofth flagship store to let a
`
`customer know that he or she has reached the children’s department. Lesser Decl. at 1l1[ 7&8;
`
`
`
`Bailey Tr. at 21-22; Beckmann Tr. at 29-30. The few signs are used,
`
`between different departments ofBloomingda1e’s stores, not to distin
`
`services from the services of other clothing stores. As conceded by
`
`derated’s papers, all
`
`consumer source identification is with the well known Bloomingdale s name. S.J.Brf. at 1.
`
`Just prior to the close of discovery, Federated acknowledged
`
`at it does not intend to
`
`call any experts, and does not intend to produce a survey in the case.
`CV}<1: OH: 5W 9..EBOD-- 5
`
`Federated has no financial docum
`
`ca3W '5‘gt0°
`
`esser Decl. at 11 5.
`
`'3‘0 ‘W(D3’'105noO-
`
`
`3* §0:"I
`
`
`figures for a now defunct line of“b kids” clothing. Lesser Decl. at {I 7; Bailey Tr. at 62, 65, 67
`
`and 68. Federated has not conducted any study of consumer percept ons of “b kids”. Lesser
`
`Decl. at {[1] 7 and 8; Bailey Tr. at 52; Beckmarm Tr. at 32. There h
`
`
`been no evidence produced
`
`in discovery, and certainly none supporting Federated’s motion for s
`is the key issue: whether consumers now recognize “b kids” as an i dication of source. Instead,
`
`
`ary judgment on what
`
`4 See Declaration of Elizabeth Bailey Submitted in Support of Summary Judgment ‘ I-‘ede ated withdrew from its Notice of
`Opposition a claim that it has a “b” family of marks.
`
`NEWYORK 424554: vs [42-1S54I_3.DOC) (ix)
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`11. ARGUMENT.
`
`.
`
`A.
`
`Summm Judgment Standard
`
`The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will grant summary j dgment if on the pleadings,
`9.3 5InI: 3 asO W 383E. 57%”«-9 3O23"
`"§
`
`affidavits, and competent evidence submi
`
`L?9-- §H0 iIn 3
`
`
`
`Federated now claims “analogous use” of its claimed mark, claiming '
`
`priority of rights is
`
`based on “rights” on clothing sold in 1997 and advertising relating th etc.
`
`that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cop lands’ Enters Inc. v. CNV,
`
`Inc., 945 F.2d 1563, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Commodo e Elecs. Ltd. v. CBM
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha Opposition, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1503 (T.T.A.B. 1993). Entry of summary
`
`judgment is appropriate only where there are no genuine disputes as t material facts and
`
`judgment may be rendered as a matter of law. Sweats Fashions, Inc.
`
`. Panill Knitting Co., 833
`
`F.2d 1560, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The evidence must
`
`viewed in alight
`
`A favorable to the non-movant and all justifiable inferences are to be dr wn in its favor. Lloyd’s
`
`Food Prods., Inc. v. Eli ‘s, Inc., 987 F.2d 766, 767; 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 20 7, 2029 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`The nonmoving party “need only present evidence from which a jury might return a verdict in its
`
`favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). I sues of fact are not to be
`
`tried by summary judgment. Dyneer Corp. v. Auto. Prods. plc., 37
`
`.S.P.Q.2d 1251, 1254
`
`(T.T.A.B. 1995).
`
`Federated, as a Section 2(d) opposer bears the burden ofproo on both a priority of rights
`
`and that confiision is likely. See Sanyo Watch Co. v. Sanyo Elec. Co. 691 F.2d 1019, 1022, 215
`
`U.S.P.Q. 833, 834 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Where, as here, the opposer is r ying on a unregistered
`
`mark, it also must prove distinctiveness of the term, either inherentl or by acquired
`
`NEWYORK mssu vs [4z4ss«_:.noc) (zx)
`
`'7'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`640 F.2d 1317, 209 U.S.P.Q. 40 (C.C.P.A. 1981), on remand, 215 U.
`
`.P.Q. 1140 (T.T.A.B.
`
`1982). As discussed below, Federated has not explained how the co bination ofthe initial “b”,
`
`in which it has no right, with the generic term “kids”, has come to
`
`stinguish its services.
`
`Without even attempting to meet this burden, not only is summary ju gment for Federated
`
`inappropriate, but as the record shows, such evidence is completely 1 king, and thus Federated’s
`
`claims must fail as a matter of law. The Board in reviewing the recor here may indeed grant
`
`summary judgment against Federated. See e.g., Accu Personnel Inc.
`
`. AccustaflSys. Inc., 38
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1443, 1446 (T.T.A.B. 1996); Visa Int’! Serv. Assn. v. Life Code Sys., Inc., 220
`
`U.S.P.Q. 740 (T.T.A.B. 1983).
`
`
`
`Without the benefits of a registration, Federated has no pres
`
`ptive service mark rights,
`
`but must show that its mark is either inherently distinctive or has acq ' ed distinctiveness as an
`
`indication of source. Towers, 913 F. 2d at 945, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1041; Otto Roth & Co., 640
`
`F.2d 1317, 209 U.S.P.Q. 40.
`
`Federated makes no overt claim to any level of distinctivenes and does not even attempt
`
`to characterize the clearly descriptive term as inherently distinctive. Federated admits that the
`
`NEWYORK 414554: v: [42A554I_3.DOC] (2K)
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`.,
`
`.~;.-,.,..:
`
`..';.A. ,;-_..-;=»:»Jr$x.:_.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`“b” as Federated has in past admitted, is used by many parties for clo ' g and apparel.5 Id. at
`
`654. The trademark register has many registrations for “B” covering b th apparel and retail
`
`services. Lesser Decl at 1] 9. “Kids” is clearly a generic term as appli d to children’s clothing.
`
`
`
`Federated also admits the combined term is only used descript vely in connection with
`
`and directly joining its well known Bloomingdale’s mark, to describ the location of the
`
`children's department within its subsidiary Bloomingdale's store. Brf.
`
`t 1. Such a descriptive
`
`use, with a house mark would not ordinarily give rise to separate trad mark or service mark
`
`rights. See Towers, 913 F.2d at 945, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1041. Federate itself has conceded, in
`
`similar circumstances that comparable signage for “b wear” directin customers to its junior
`
`department was not an indication of source. See Banfii Ltd. v. Feder ted Dept. Stores, Inc., 841
`F.2d 486, 487-88 (2d Cir. 1988).
`I
`
`
`
`Nothing in the record presented supports Federated’s content on that its use of “b kids”
`
`is any different from its former use ofthe admittedly non-source indi ating “b wear,” for signage
`
`in the Bloomingdale’s junior department. While Bloomingdale’s ma sell a substantial quantity
`
`of children’s clothing, with such famous brands as Liz Claiborne®, a d Ralph Lauren® (Lesser
`
`Decl. at 1] 1] 7 and 8; Bailey Tr. at 74, Beckmarm at Tr. 9), and may r ly on the fact that
`
`Bloomingdale’s ® is a famous mark, there is no record evidence eve suggesting that consumers
`
`associate “b kids” with Federated or its Bloomingdale’s division --
`
`
`
`of other retail stores having a prominent “B” in their names, such as urdine’s, or Boscov’s, or
`
`Bergdorfs, or Bolton's. It is axiomatic that matter may not be prote ted as a mark unless it is
`
`used "in a manner calculated to project to purchasers or potential p
`
`
`
`hasers a single source or
`
`5 Federated withdrew from its Notice of Opposition a claim that it has a “b” family of mar
`
`.
`
`NEWYORK 4245548 VJ (424§S4B__3.DOC| (2K)
`
`'9'
`
`
`
`

`
`»
`
`origin for the goods in question." In re Remington Prods. Inc., 3 U.S .Q.2d 1714, 1715
`
`(T.T.A.B. 1987). See, e.g., In re Melville Corp., 228 U.S.P.Q. 970, 9 0 n.2 (T.T.A.B. 1986); In
`
`re Whataburger Sys., Inc., 209 U.S.P.Q. 429, 430 (T.T.A.B. 1980) Ju tso, no one would
`
`contend that that the “gifi wrap window” serves as a trademark or se
`
`ice mark for wrapping
`
`paper, or gift wrapping services. Similarly, a “b kids” sign in a Burdi e’s, or Boscov’s or
`Bolton’s would likewise serve the purely functional purpose ofdirecting consmners who already
`know in what store they are where to find children’s clothing.
`
`No evidence has been submitted that the “b kids” term serves as any indication of
`
`source. No advertising figures are submitted, and as conceded by Federated, none exist. Lesser
`
`Decl. at 117; Bailey Tr. at 32. From responses to discovery, it is clear tfiat Federated does not even
`
`track the use of the term:
`
`the few signs that may exist are not used c nsistently, and there is no
`
`oversight