634l»82876
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TTAB
`
`is being
`this paper
`I hereby certify that
`deposited with the United States Postal Service as
`first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
`
`) ) ) ) ) )
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 78/281,660
`Published April 27, 2004 in the Official Gazette
`Trademark: LYNX MASTER
`
`THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.,
`
`OPPOSER,
`
`V.
`
`LYNX INDUSTRIES, INC.
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, Virginia 223134451
`)
`) on this date.
`
`APPLICANT.
`
`OPPOSITION No. 91/160,673
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`BRIEF OF OPPOSER THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP INC.
`
`FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY
`
`
`
`20 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Telephone: 312.577.7000
`Facsimile:
`312.577.7007
`
`Attorneysfor Opposcr,
`The Chamberlain Group, Inc.
`
`06-26-2006
`
`US. Patent & TMOfC/TM Mail Rcpt Dt. #22
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Pa e No.
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ................................................................................................................ .. 8
`
`A.
`
`Chamberlain's Evidence ....................................................................................................................................... .. 8
`
`B.
`
`Applicants Evidence............................................................................................................................................. .. 8
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................................................... .. 9
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... .. ll
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ......................................................................................................... .. ll
`
`A. The LIFTMASTER Mark is Famous ..................................................................................................................... .. ll
`
`1. Chamberlain Has Extensively Advertised and Promoted its LIFTMASTER Mark ................................ 12
`
`a. National Advertising....................................................................................................................................... ..12
`1) Consumer Magazine Advertisements..................................................................................................... ..13
`2) Creation of Television and Radio Advertisements .............................................................................. ..13
`3) Internet Sales and Advertising.................................................................................................................. ..16
`
`b. Trade Magazine Advertisements .................................................................................................................. ..16
`
`c. Cooperative Advertising with Distributors and Installers ..................................................................... ..18
`
`d. Exhibiting and Attendance at Trade Shows .............................................................................................. ..2O
`
`e. Product Packaging............................................................................................................................................ ..22
`
`2. The LIFTMASTER Mark Has Received Extensive Unsolicited Media Attention .............................. .. 23
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Trade Media ................................................................................................................................................. .. 23
`
`General Public Media ................................................................................................................................ ..24
`
`The LIFTMASTER Mark is Valuable Resulting in the Sale of Billions of
`3.
`Dollars of LIFTMASTER Products Since 1967............................................................................................................... ..26
`
`4. Chamberlain Aggressively Protects its LIFTMASTER Mark .................................................................... ..29
`
`B. Applicant:‘s LYNX MASTER Mark ....................................................................................................................... ..29
`
`C. A Significant Number of Relevant Consumers Surveyed Are Confused Between
`the LIFTMASTER and LYNX MASTER Marks ..................................................................................................... .. 32
`
`1. Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................... .. 32
`
`2. Results .................................................................................................................................................................... .. 35
`
`

`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................................... .. 37
`
`A. CHAMBERLAIN HAS STANDING .................................................................................................................... .. 37
`
`B. CHAMBERLAIN HAS CLEAR PRIORITY OF USE....................................................................................... .. 38
`
`C. LIKELIHOOD OF CONEUSION EXISTS BETWEEN THE LIETMASTER
`AND LYNX MASTER MARKS ................................................................................................................................... ..39
`
`1.
`
`Applicant Seeks Registration of Its Mark on Identical Goods ............................................................. ..4O
`
`The Applicant Has Adopted a Confusingly Similar Mark To The LIFTMASTER
`2.
`Mark ............................................................................................................................................................................. .. 41
`
`3. The LIFTMASTER Mark Has Been Used Continuously And Exclusively Since 1967 ........................ .. 44
`
`4. The Applicant’s Goods Travel in the Same Channel of Trade ................................................................... ..45
`
`5. The End Consumer Is Not Sophisticated Enough to Diminish Likely Confusion ................................ ..47
`
`6. Survey Evidence Overwhelmingly Demonstrates that Confusion Between the
`Marks Is Likely........................................................................................................................................................................... ..48
`
`7. Applicant Adopted Its Mark With Predatory Intent................................................................................... ..49
`
`8. Chamberlain’s Indirect and Direct Evidence of the Fame of the LIFTMASTER .................................... .51
`
`Mark Is Overwhelming and Supports its Claim of Dilution ............................................................................ ..5l
`
`9. Third«Party Registrations of the Term “MASTER” Fail to Negate Confusion ...................................... ..52
`
`10. The Remaining DuPont Factors Either Point to Likelihood of Confusion or Are Neutral .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. .. 55
`
`VII. APPENDIX
`
`Opposer’s Statement of Objections and Exhibit A
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No.
`
`CASES
`
`Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer, Inc.,
`71 USPQ2d 1301. (TFAB 2004) ................................................................................................................................... ..47
`
`AMP Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.,
`474 F.2d 1403, 177 USPQ 268(CCPA1973) ................................................................................................... ..56, 57
`
`B.V.D. Licensing v. Body Action Design, Inc.,
`6 USPQ.2d1719, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................................. ..54
`
`BellSouth Corp. v. Internet Classified ofOhio,
`N0. 1:96/CV/0769~CC, 1997 WI. 33107251, at * 20 (N.D.Ga. NOV. 12, 1997)................................................. ..51
`
`Bose Corp. V. QSC Audio Products Inc.,
`63 USPQ.2d 1303, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................................... .54
`
`Brewski Beer Co. v. Brewski Brothers Inc.,
`47 USPQ2d1281, 1283/84 (TTAB 1998) .................................................................................................................40
`
`Carlisle Chem. Works, Inc., v. Hardman e’7 Holden, Ltd,
`168 USPQ110 (CCPA 1970) .............................................................................................................................. 59, 60
`
`Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life ofAmerica,
`970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... ..43, 48, 60
`
`E.I. duPont DeNemours 0’ Co.,
`177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA1973) ........................................................................................... .. 39, 41, 45, 50, 51, 54
`
`Electronic Water Conditioners v. Turbomag Corp,
`221 USPQ 162 (TIAB 1984)..................................................................................................................................... ..51
`
`Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Company,
`314 F.2d 149, 161 (9th Cir. 1963) ............................................................................................................................. ..46
`
`Geoffrey Inc. v. Stratton,
`16 U.S.P.Q.2d at1694 (CD. Cal. 1990) ................................................................................................................. ..55
`
`Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto/Culver Co.,
`57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................ .. 41
`
`In re El Torito,
`9 U.S.P.Q.2d at 2004 ................................................................................................................................................ ..48
`
`In re Elbaum,
`211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981) ..................................................................................................................... .. 47, 49
`
`

`
`In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.,
`837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2Cl 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................. ..52
`
`In re].M. Originals Inc.,
`6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TIAB 1987) ....................................................................................................................... .. 57
`
`In re National Data Corp.,
`753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................... ..45
`
`In re Southern Belle Frozen Foods, Inc.,
`48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1849 (T.T.A.B. 1998) ...................................................................................................................... ..47
`
`Interstate Brands Corp. and Interstate Brands W. Corp. v. McKee Foods Corp.,
`53 USPQ.2Cl 1910 (ITAB 2000) ........................................................................................................ ..43, 44, 46, 49
`
`].C. Hall Company v. Hallmark Cards, Incorporated,
`340 F.2d 960,963,144 U.S.P.Q. 435, 438 (C.C.P.A. 1965) ............................................................................... .. 41
`
`Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc.,
`963 F.2d 350, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d I453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................... .. 43, 60
`
`Krim/Co Corp. v. Coca~Cola Co.,
`390 F.2d 728,156 USPQ 523 (CCPA I968) .................................................................................................. .. 43, 45
`
`Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp.,
`376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1967) ......................................................................................................... ..56
`
`Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Pizza Caesar, Inc.,
`834 F.2d 568,4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1942 (6th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................ ..52
`
`McNeilab, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp.,
`848 F.2d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1988) .......................................................................................................................................... ..51
`
`Miles Labs, Inc. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements, Inc.,
`1USPQ.2d I445, I462 (TTAB 1986) ...................................................................................................................... ..5O
`
`Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp.,
`818 F.2d 254, 2 U.S.P.Q.2CI1677, 1681 (2nd Cir. 1987) ....................................................................................... ..52
`
`Morton—Norwich Products, Inc. v. N. Siperstien, Inc.,
`222 USPQ 735, 736 (TTAB 1984) ................................................................................................................... .. 47, 49
`
`Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L v. E.T.F. Enters, Inc.,
`12 USPQ.2d1901, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................................... ..54
`
`Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc.,
`918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d1783, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ........................................................................................ ..42
`
`

`
`Olde Tyme Foods Inc. v. Roundy’s Inc.,
`961 F.2d 200, 22 USPQ2d 1542, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................... .. 57
`
`Palm Bay Import, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En
`1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................... ..43, 54, 56
`
`Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton,
`54 USPQ.2d1894,1897«98 (Fed.Cir.2000) ......................................................................................................... ..54
`
`Ritchie v. Simpson,
`50 USPQ.2d 1023, 102526 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................................ .. 39
`
`Safety~Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.,
`518 F.2d1399,1404,186 U.S.P.Q. 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975) ............................................................................. .. 41
`
`Sassafras Enterprises, Inc. v. Roshco, Inc.,
`915 F. Supp. 1,7 (U.S. Dist. Ct. 1996) ...................................................................................................................... .38
`
`Schieffelin Cr Co. v. Molson Companies, Ltd,
`9 USPQ.2d 2069, 2073 (TTAB 1989) ............................................................................................................. .. 47, 49
`
`Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co.,
`190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975) .....................................................................................
`
`............................................. ..49
`
`Spoons Restaurants Inc. v. Morrison Inc.,
`23 USOQ2d1735 (TTAB 1991), affirmed in unpublished opinion, Appeal No. 924086
`(Fed. Cir. June 5, 1992) ............................................................................................................................................ ..45
`
`Sun Microsystems Inc. v. Astro«Med Inc.,
`39 U.S.P.Q.2d. at 1147 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ......................................................................................................... .. 55, 56
`
`TBC Corp.v.Ho1saInc.,
`126 F.3d 1470, 44 USPQ2d1315 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ ..52
`
`Toro Co. v. ToroHead Inc.,
`61 USPQ2d 1164 (TTAB 2001) ............................................................................................................................... ..55
`
`United Foods Inc. v.].R Simplot Co.,
`4 USPQ2d. 1172, 1174 (TTAB 1987) ....................................................................................................................... ..57
`
`Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co.,
`746 F.2d1I2,118 (2d Cir. 1984). ...................................................................................................................................... ..51
`
`WE. Kautenberg Co. v. Ekco Products Company,
`251 F.2d 628,631,116 U.S.P.Q. 417, 419 (C.C.P.A. 1958) ................................................................................... .. 41
`
`Weight Watchers Int'l, Inc. v. Stouffer Corp.
`744 F. Supp. 1259,1272 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)............................................................................................................... .50
`
`

`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. 5 1125(c) ........................................................................................................................................................................... ..11
`
`15 U.S.C. 91063(a) ...................................................................................................................................................... .. 37,51
`
`15 U.S.C.§1052(d) ............................................................................................................................................................. ..11
`
`15 U.S.C. 5 1052(1) ............................................................................................................................................................. ..38
`
`15 U.S.C. 51145 ....................................................................................................................................................................... ..51
`
`MISCELLANEOUS
`
`J . Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4‘h Ed.)
`
`McCarthy, §23:2O........................................................................................................................................ ..44
`
`McCarthy, §23:66 ......................................................................................................................................................54
`
`McCarthy, §23:11_5 ......................................................................................................................................................49
`
`McCarthy, §23188................................................................................................................................................... ..49
`
`

`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`A. Chamberlain’s Evidence
`
`Chamberlain has made the following deposition testimony of record‘
`
`I. Mark Sghram, Vice President and General Manager for Lynx Industries and Exhibit Nos.
`MS 17.
`
`2. Sarah S. Anderson, Vice President of Marketing Communications for Chamberlain,
`and Exhibit Nos. 149. 3
`
`3. James H. Nelems, Chief Executive Officer for The Marketing Workshop Incorporated, and
`Exhibit Nos. ]N 1/6.
`
`4. Mark B. Tone, Executive Vice President for Administration for Chamberlain and Exhibit
`Nos. MT 16.
`
`Chamberlain filed the following Notices of Reliance during its testimony period?‘
`
`1. Notice of Reliance No. 1 dated December 13, 2005, consisting of the Discovery
`Deposition of Mark Schram and Exhibits 1»4 taken on March 15, 2005.
`
`2. Notice of Reliance No. 2 dated December 13, 2005 consisting of Applicant‘s
`Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1 »34.
`
`3. Notice of Reliance No. 3 and Exhibits dated December 13, 2005 containing certified
`status and title copies of three (3) of Chamberlain‘s valid and subsisting pleaded U.S.
`Trademark Registrations for the LIFTMASTER mark and Exhibits A, B, and C.
`
`4. Notice of Reliance No. 4 dated December 13, 2005 containing certified status and
`title copies of thirteen (13) of Chamberlain’s valid and subsisting foreign Trademark
`Registrations for the LIFTMASTER mark and Exhibits D — P.
`
`B. App1icant’s Evidence
`
`Applicant has made the following deposition testimony of record:
`
`1. Mark Schram, Vice President and General Manager for Lynx Industries, Inc., and Exhibit
`Nos. MS 849.5
`
`Dep. at _, Exh.__.”
`1 References to deposition testimony will be designated as, for example “
`2 The deposition testimony of Mark Schram taken during Chamberlain‘s testimony period is designated
`“Schram I Dep. at _, Exh.__."
`3 The deposition testimony of Sarah S. Anderson taken during Chamberlain‘s testimony period is designated
`“Anderson I Dep. at _, Exh.__.”
`4 Notices of Reliance and accompanying exhibits filed during Chamberlain's testimony period are
`designated “Opp. Not. of Rel.__, Exh.__."
`
`

`
`2. Sarah S. Anderson, Vice President of Marketing Communications for Chamberlain,
`and Exhibit Nos. 5051. 5
`
`3. George Mantis, President and Founder of The Mantis Group and Exhibit Nos. 13.
`
`Applicant filed the following Notices of Reliance during its testimony period?
`
`1. Notice of Reliance No. ldated February 28, 2006 consisting of Applicants Notice of Reliance
`Pursuant to 37 CRF ' 2.122(d)(2) on Third»Party Registrations and Exhibits A «J.
`
`2. Notice of Reliance No. 2 dated February 28, 2006 consisting of Applicants Notice of Reliance
`Pursuant to 37 CRF ' 2.120 (j)(3)(i) on Opposer’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 ~14.
`
`3. Notice of Reliance No. 3 dated February 28, 2006 consisting of Applicants Notice of Reliance
`Pursuant to 37 CRF ‘ 2.120(j)(3)(i) Testimony Deposition of Mark Tone and Exhibits 7» ll.
`
`4. Notice of Reliance No. 4 dated February 28, 2006 consisting of Applicants Notice of
`Reliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.l20(j)(3)(i) Discovery Deposition of Sarah S. Anderson
`and Exhibits 1»6.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Back in 1967, the Green Bay Packers won the very first Superbowl that was ever played, Thurgood
`
`Marshall was sworn in as the first Black US. Supreme Court justice, Dr. Christiaan Bernard performed the
`
`first heart transplant in Cape Town, South Africa, the Beatles released Sergeant Peppers Lonely Hearts, Club
`
`Band and Americans were going to see the Graduate and In the Heat of the Night. That same year, the
`
`LIFTMASTER brand garage door opener was introduced. In fact, at least as early as May 17, 1967, Opposer,
`
`The Chamberlain Group. Inc., (hereinafter “Chamberlain”) adopted and first used the mark LIFTMASTER
`
`to identify and distinguish its garage door openers and related products. On January 14, 1969, the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office issued the first Registration No. 863,447 of this mark for use on residential
`
`electrical garage door controllers. This Registration is still valid and subsisting and is now incontestable.
`
`(Opp. Not. of Rel. No. 3, Exh. A).
`
`5 The deposition testimony of Mark Schram taken during Applicants testimony period is designated
`“Schram H Dep. at _, Exh._.”
`5 The deposition testimony of Sarah S. Anderson taken during Applicants testimony period is designated
`“Anderson 11 Dep. at_Exh._.”
`7 Notices of Reliance and accompanying exhibits filed during Applicants testimony period are designate
`“App. Not. of Rel.__, Exh._.”
`
`

`
`Since then, the mark LIFTMASTER has been consistently used by Chamberlain both as its trademark
`
`and, to some extent, as the trade name by which it has come to be known as one of the leading garage door
`
`operator manufacturers in the world. The LIFTMASTER mark and trade name have generated substantial
`
`goodwill associated with the mark which has resulted in the further evolution of other, related marks for
`
`additional goods and servicess. Chamberlain is the owner of Registration No. 1,401,035 for the mark
`
`GARAGE MASTER; Registration No. 1,781,236 for the mark I_IFT»MASTER; Registration No. 2,034,080 for
`
`the mark ACCESSMASTER; and Registration No. 2,724,638 for the mark LIFTMASTER. Opposer contends
`
`that the primary reason that Lynx Industries, Inc. (hereinafter “Applicant”) now intends to adopt the mark
`
`LYNX MASTER and applied for registration in connection with goods identified as “electric door openers,
`
`electric garage door openers, and remote controls for garage doors” is to trade»in on the substantial goodwill
`
`associated with Chamberlain’s LIFTMASTER and LIFTMASTER related marks.
`
`Through over thirty»nine years of extensive advertising, promotion and use, the LIFTMASTER mark
`
`has become one of the most famous trademarks in the garage door opener industry with worldwide
`
`recognition.
`
`Ms. Sarah Anderson (“Sally”) has provided substantial testimony on behalf of Chamberlain. Sally
`
`began her career at Chamberlain as an Assistant Marketing Manager over twenty/seven (27) years ago on
`
`]une11, 1979. (App. Not. of Rel. No. 4 at 8:14, 9:l7«19) Through the course of her tenure at Chamberlain, Sally
`
`was promoted from Assistant Marketing Manager to Product Manager for the LIFTMASTER brand. Sally
`
`continued to move up the ranks within Chamberlain and around the year 2000, she became the Vice
`
`President of Marketing Communications, a title she still holds today. (App. Not. of Rel. No. 4 at 10:l»24).
`
`She has substantial experience in this industry and more specifically this brand.
`
`8 In fact, the house mark CHAMBERLAIN wasn’t applied to garage door openers for another 15 years after
`the mark LIFTMASTER was introduced.
`
`1 O
`
`,
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`In contrast, the Applicant did not file its Application Serial No. 78/281,660 for the mark LYNX
`
`MASTER until July 31, 2003, nearly thirty«six (36) years after Chamberlain began using the well~known and
`
`widely used LIFTMASTER mark. Not only is Applicant seeking registration of its mark on identical goods,
`
`but Applicant’s adoption of a confusingly similar mark is undoubtedly willful. Applicant has been in the
`
`garage door opener industry for over thirty years and throughout that time it was admittedly aware of the
`
`LIFTMASTER mark.
`
`In fact, Mark Schram, Vice President and General Manager for Lynx Industries, Inc.,
`
`admits that prior to adopting the LYNX MASTER mark, he was aware of Chamberlain and its use of
`
`LIFTMASTER. Mr. Schram also admits that Chamberlain manufactures the same goods identified in the
`
`subject application. (Opp. Not. of Rel. No. 1 at 43:l3~24). Mark Schram has spent his whole working career,
`
`which began in 1982, as an employee of Lynx and is now the Vice President and General Manager of Lynx
`
`Industries and is responsible for the day~to~day business of the company. (Schram I. Dep. at 421623).
`
`Given the significant legal protection afforded to the LIFTMASTER mark, Applicant’s registration of a
`
`similar LYNX MASTER mark used on identical goods in identical channels of trade will no doubt cause a
`
`likelihood of confusion among consumers. In fact, there is compelling evidence that a substantial portion of
`
`relevant consumers are confused between the LIFTMASTER and LYNX MASTER marks.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`A. Whether Applicant’s LYNX MASTER Mark so resembles Chamberlain's previously used and
`
`registered LIFTMASTER Marks for identical or virtuallyddentical goods as to be likely to cause confusion
`
`mistake or deception under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §lO52(d).
`
`B. Whether Applicant’s LYNX MASTER Mark will likely dilute the distinctive quality of the
`
`LIFTMASTER Mark under Section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. §ll25(c).9
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A. The LIFTMASTER Mark is Famous
`
`Chamberlain began using the mark LIFTMASTER in interstate commerce at least as early as
`
`May 17, 1967. The next month, on or about June 21, 1967, Chamberlain filed an application with the
`
`9 Should the Board sustain Chamberlain’s likelihood of confusion claim, Chamberlain respectfully requests
`that the Board dismiss the dilution claim without prejudice as moot.
`
`11
`
`

`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO”) for registration of its mark. Chamberlain’s
`
`application was granted and Registration No. 863,447 for the mark LIFTMASTER was registered
`
`on the Principal Register on January 14, 1969. (Opp. Not. of Rel. No. 3 Exh. A). Since that time,
`
`Chamberlain has filed all necessary renewals and Section 8 and Section 15 affidavits, and
`
`Chamberlain is the current registered owner and user of the LIFTMASTER marks (Registration
`
`Nos.: 863,447; 1,781,236; and 2,724,638) for use in connection with garage door openers and related
`
`parts and accessories including radio controls for garage and warehouse entrance doors or gates,
`
`automatic garage door openers, lights, motors, antennas, transmitters, receivers and controllers,
`
`radio receiver units, radio transmitter units, keypads and card readers, among others. (Opp. Not. of
`
`Rel. No. 3 Exh. A~C). It is undisputed that the mark LIFTMASTER as shown in Registration
`
`No.863,447 and LIFT/MASTER as shown in Registration No. 1,781,236 for "electric door openers
`
`and structural parts thereof" are validly registered and incontestable.
`
`1. Chamberlain Has Extensively Advertised and Promoted its LIFTMASTER Mark
`
`Chamberlain advertises its products, and uses the LIFTMASTER mark through a variety of methods
`
`including: (a) national advertising through consumer magazines,
`
`the creation of television and radio
`
`advertisements, and internet sales and advertising directed to the ultimate consumer; (b) trade magazine
`
`advertisements directed to the industry; (c) cooperative advertising with distributors; (d) attendance at
`industry trade shows; and (e) product packaging.
`
`
`
`a. National Advertising
`
`Chamberlain has conducted extensive national advertising throughout the period of its use of the
`
`LIFTMASTER mark.
`
`It
`
`is common practice in Chamberlain’s national advertising to identify the
`
`www.liftmaster.com website (hereinafter “the LIFTMASTER website”) and specifically to invite customers
`
`to view LIFTMASTER products on the web. (Anderson I Dep. at 62:16—24). By tying its website into a
`
`12
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`variety of advertising mediums, Chamberlain is able to maximize the impact of LIFTMASTER brand
`
`advertisin . Chamberlain’s national advertisin initiative commands a substantial bud et.
`8
`8
`
`8 1
`
`) Consumer Magazine Advertisements
`
`One of the many national advertising initiatives Chamberlain has undertaken is advertising
`
`LIFTMASTER branded products in the “Good House” edition of Good Housekeeping Magazine, which is
`
`strictly directed to the magazine’s upper income household subscribers. (Anderson I Dep. at 701197121). The
`
`circulation of the publication that ran in October and November of 2004 is estimated to be between a
`
`million and a half to two million subscribers. (Id. at 722345). In the December 2004 issue of Good
`
`Housekeeping magazine, Chamberlain took out four one»third page ads for LIFTMASTER branded
`
`products. (Id. at 6874, Exh.l9). Notably, each page of the advertisement invites readers to visit the
`
`liftmastercom website for more information about LIFTMASTER products. Id.
`
`Chamberlain has advertised in Good Housekeeping every year for the last seven or eight years.
`
`(Anderson I Dep. at 95: 9/12). Chamberlain advertises in the Good Housekeeping (Good House edition)
`
`because it caters to the LIFTMASTER target audience of homeowners. (Id. at 70117171218
`
`
`
`2) Creation of Television and Radio Advertisements
`
`Since 1995 Chamberlain has advertised LIFTMASTER garage door openers and related accessories
`
`through television commercials. These commercials have evolved and virtually every year Chamberlain's
`
`television advertising campaign has grown. (Anderson I Dep. at 80:4«15).
`
`In 2001, Chamberlain produced
`
`four new commercials featuring LIFTMASTER branded products, that often __center on a theme or tie«in a
`
`13
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`specific consumer offer. (Anderson I Dep. at 80:17~24, 81:1~6). These four commercials have aired on
`
`approximately 10,000 television spots between the years 2000 and 2005. (Id. at 821410). The format of the
`
`commercials varies from 15 seconds to 30 seconds depending on the cost and the desired frequency of the
`
`message. (Id. at 82:11/19). Not only are the LIFTMASTER branded garage door openers and accessories
`
`identified audibly, they are visually displayed for viewers as well. (Anderson -Id. at 83:15). It is notable that
`
`this television advertising campaign began at least two years prior to the Applicant’s filing of the subject
`
`Application.
`
`Chamberlaiifs expenditures for these commercials are substantia
`
`
`
`Not only does Chamberlain spend substantial money on television advertising, it carefully selects
`
`the LIFTMASTER target: audience. Chamberlain specifically targets end/consumers, both male and female
`
`homeowners in its network and cable advertisements for the LIFTMASTER brand. (Anderson I Dep. at
`
`84:l9«24, 85:1/17). Insomuch as dealers are television viewers and they see LIFTMASTER commercials, they
`
`are also target consumers. However,
`
`the primary target is the end»consumer. To ensure that the
`
`LIFTMASTER commercials are most eff