IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`T T A B
`
`Opposition No. 91160673
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`The Chamberlain Group, Inc.
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`Lynx Industries, Inc.
`
`Applicant
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1451
`
`Sir:
`
`TRANSMITTAL LETTER
`
`In regard to the above identified opposition:
`
`1. We are transmitting herewith the attached:
`
`a. Brief of the Applicant — Lynx Industries, Inc. (Filed under Seal Pursuant to Protective
`Order)
`b. Brief of the Applicant — Lynx Industries, Inc. (Redacted Copy)
`c. Certificate of Service
`
`d. Return Receipt Postcard
`
`2. With respect to additional fees:
`a.
`Attached is a check in the amount of E
`
`3. Please charge any additional fees or credit overpayment to Deposit Account No.13-2490. A duplicate
`copy of this sheet is enclosed.
`‘
`
`4. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING UNDER 37 CFR § 1.8 & 2.197: The undersigned hereby certifies that
`this Transmittal Letter and the paper, as described in paragraph 1 hereinabove, are being deposited with
`the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
`United States Patent & Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, P.O. Box 1451,
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 on this 28"‘ day of July, 2006.
`
`By: %/‘L..
`
`es M. McCarthy
`
`
`
`
`
`07-31-2006
`
`US. Patent & TMOfc/TM Mail Rcpt Dt. #22
`
`July 28, 2006
`
`McDONNELL BOEHNEN,
`HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`300 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
`CHICAGO, HLINOIS 60606
`TELEPHONE (312) 913-0001
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 78/281,660
`Published April 27, 2004 in the Ofiicial Gazette
`Trademark: LYNX MASTER
`
`The Chamberlain Group, Inc.
`
`Opposer,
`
`Lynx Industries, Inc.
`
`Applicant.
`
`Opposition No. 91/160,673
`
`\J\2€%/€€%§/%/\/
`
`BRIEF OF THE APPLICANT — LYNX INDUSTRIES, INC.
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ................................................................................. .. 8
`
`STATEMENT OF CASE .................................................................................................. .. 8
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................ .. 10
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. .. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Lynx Industries has a Growing, Thriving Business ........................................... .. 10
`
`Lynx Sells Directly to Garage Door Professional ............................................. ..
`
`1 1
`
`Lynx Advertises Directly to Garage Door Professionals ................................... .. 11
`
`Lynx Consistently Uses the LYNX Mark and Cat Head Logo .......................... .. 11
`
`Lynx Chose the LYNX MASTER Mark to Extend its Family
`Of Secondary Marks .......................................................................................... .. 12
`
`Lynx was Aware of Chamberlain’s use of the LIFTMASTER Mark ................ .. 13
`
`Chamberlain’s Use of the LIFTMASTER mark is Restricted ........................... .. 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The LIFTMASTER Mark has Three Required Elements .................... .. 13
`
`LIFTMASTER is used in Connection with Garage Door Openers ...... .. 14
`
`The LIFTMASTER Mark is Sold Through a Professional
`Network................................................................................................. .. 15
`
`The LIFTMASTER Mark is Promoted to Sophisticated
`Customers ............................................................................................. .. 16
`
`Chamberlain’s Enforcement of its LIFTMASTER Mark is
`Deficient ................................................................................................ .. 17
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Chamberlain’s Monitoring Efforts are “Informal” .................. .. 17
`
`Chamberlain Allows Third Parties to Use Similar Marks ....... .. 17
`
`Consumers do not Recognize the LIFTMASTER mark ....................... .. 18
`
`Chamberlain’s Likelihood of Confusion Survey is Unreliable ............. .. 20
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Methodology ............................................................................ .. 20
`
`Relevant Universe and Sample Collection ............................... ..21
`
`

`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Survey Universe Sampled .................................... ..21
`
`Purchasers Omitted From Universe ............................ .. 22
`
`Chosen Control ........................................................................ ..23
`
`Conflicting Results ................................................................... .. 23
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Nelems Survey has Admitted Survey Universe
`Problems ..................................................................... .. 24
`
`Admitted Survey Administration Problems ................ .. 24
`
`The Collected Data and Nelem’s Conclusions ......................... .. 25
`
`Minor Survey Inconsistencies .................................................. .. 26
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`V.
`
`ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... .. 26
`
`A.
`
`There is no likelihood of confusion ................................................................... ..26
`
`1.
`
`The LIFTMASTER and LYNX MASTER Marks are Dissimilar
`
`and Create Distinct Commercial Impressions ....................................... .. 27
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The Term MASTER Should Be Given Very Little
`Weight ...................................................................................... .. 28
`
`LIFT is Suggestive, LYNX is Fanciful .................................... .. 28
`
`LYNX MASTER Does Not Look or Sound Like
`LIFTMASTER ......................................................................... .. 29
`
`The Lynx and Chamberlain House Marks Evoke Different
`Commercial Impressions ......... .._ .............................................. .. 30
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Goods and Trade Channels are Identical ...........
`
`.......................... .. 30
`
`The LIFTMASTER and LYNX MASTER Products are Sold to
`
`Sophisticated, Discriminating Consumers Who Will Not be
`Confused ............................................................................................... .. 3]
`
`4.
`
`Chamberlain’s LIFTMASTER Mark is Weak, not Famous ................. .. 33
`
`a.
`
`Chamberlain Must Prove the Strength of the LIFTMASTER
`Brand in the Marketplace ......................................................... .. 34
`
`Advertising Directed to Professional Consumers Cannot be
`Considered as Evidence of Fame Among End-Users .............. .. 35
`
`

`
`c.
`
`End-Users of Garage Door Openers Do Not Recognize
`the Mark LIFTMASTER ......................................................... .. 36
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Third Party Uses of the Term MASTER is Common and Dilutes the
`Strength of the LIFTMASTER MARK ................................................ .. 37
`
`Chamberlain’s Survey Evidence has No Probative Value .................... .. 38
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`An inappropriate control was used to measure the
`survey noise ............................................................................. .. 40
`
`The relevant universe was improperly defined ........................ ..43
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The respondent universe is over inclusive .................. .. 43
`
`The respondent universe is under inclusive ................ .. 44
`
`The sample was not representative of the relevant
`universe .................................................................................... .. 44
`
`The survey methodology created a bias of confusion .............. .. 45
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Nelems Survey did not replicate
`marketplace reality ...................................................... .. 46
`
`The Nelems Survey artificially inflates confusion ...... .. 46
`
`The data was not properly analyzed......................................... .. 47
`
`Follow-up Question 6 is Prejudicial ......................................... ..48
`
`If Considered, The Nelems Survey Should Be Given
`Very Little Weight ................................................................... .. 48
`
`7.
`
`Lynx Did Not Act With Predatory Intent.............................................. .. 49
`
`B.
`
`Chamberlain Has Not Presented Any Evidence of Dilution .............................. .. 49
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... .. 50
`
`

`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`AmStar Corp. v. Domino ’s Pizza, Inc.,
`615 F.2d 252, 259, 205 USPQ 969 (Sm Cir. 1980) ......................................................... ..33
`
`Beer Nuts, Inc. v. Cover Club Foods Co.,
`711 F2d 934, 942, 221 USPQ 209 (10"‘ Cir. 1983) ......................................................... ..47
`
`Carl Karcher Ent. V Stars Restaurants Corp.,
`35 USPQ2d 1125, 1132, (TTAB 1995) .................................................................... ..38, 39
`
`Congra, Inc. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 784, F.Supp. 700, 7f16 (D. Neb. 1992) ................... ..41, 42
`
`Co-Rect Prods., Inc. v. Marvy! Advertising Photography, Inc.,
`780 F.2d 1324, 1330, 228 USPQ 429 (8th Cir. 1985) ...................................................... ..36
`
`Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Fluid-Quip, Inc.,
`94 F.3d 376, 381, 39 USPQ2d 1990 (7“‘ Cir. 1996) ........................................................ ..26
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc.,
`930 F.2d 277, 18 USPQ2d 1417 (3”’ Cir. 1991) ............................................................ ..31
`
`GB Electrical, Inc. v. Thomas & Betts Corp.,
`37 USPQ2d 1177 (E.D. Wis. 1995) ................................................................................ ..31
`
`Helene Curtis Indus., v. Suave Shoe Corp.,
`13 USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 1989) ..................................................................................... ..39
`
`Hilson Research, Inc., v. Societyfor Human Resource Mgt. ,
`27 USPQ2d 1423 ...........................................................
`
`............................................. ..39
`
`In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ...................................................... ..26, 37
`
`In re National Data Corp.,
`753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................. ..27
`
`Knaack Mfg. Co. v. Rally Accessories, Inc.
`955 F. Supp. 991, 42 USPQ2d 1649 (N.D.I11. 1997) ........................ ..26, 34, 35, 37, 38, 50
`
`L. J. Mueller Furnace Co. v. United Air Conditioning Corp.,
`222 F.2d 755, 106 USPQ 112 (C.C.P.A. 1955) .............................................................. ..33
`
`Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Field ’s Cookies,
`25 USPQ2d 1331, 1334, 25 USPQ2d 1321 (TTAB 1992) ...................................... ..39, 48
`
`

`
`Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements, Inc.,
`1 USPQ2d 1445, 1460 (TTAB 1986) ................................................................. ..39, 46, 47
`
`Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.,
`875 F.2d 1026, 1031, 10 USPQ2d 1961 (2d Cir. 1989) .................................................. ..50
`
`Nabisco, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co.,
`220 F.3d 43, 55 USPQ2d 1051 (2d Cir. 2000) ................................................................ ..30
`
`Oreck Corp. v. US. Floor Sys., Inc.,
`803 F.2d 166, 171, 231 USPQ 634 (5"' Cir. 1986) .......................................................... ..34
`
`Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Venue Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en
`1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................... ..27, 34,35
`
`Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., v. Teunissen,
`131 F.3d 1210, 1217, 45 USPQ2d 1187 (7"' Cir. 1997) .................................................. ..31
`
`Security Center Ltd. v. First National Security Centers,
`750 F.2d 1295, 225 USPQ 373 (5"' Cir. 1985)................................................................ ..36
`
`Sleepmaster Products Co, Inc. v. American Auto-Felt Corp.,
`113 USPQ 63 (C.C.P.A 1957) ...................................................................... ..28, 29, 33, 49
`
`Smith Fiberglass Prods., Inc. v. Anaron, Inc.,
`7 F.3d 1327, 1329, 28 USPQ2d 1614 (7"’ Cir. 1993) ...................................................... ..32
`
`.,
`Sunbeam Lighting Co. v. Sunbeam Co
`183 F.2d 969, 86 USPQ 240 (9 Cir. 1950) .................................................................... ..31
`
`Syncromatic Air Conditioning Corp. v. Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp.,
`109 F.2d 784, 44 USPQ 598, (C.C.P.A. 1940) ............................................................... ..33
`
`Telemed Corp. v. Tel-Med, Inc.,
`588 F.2d 213, 219-20, 200 USPQ 427 (7"' Cir. 1978) .............................................. ..34, 37
`
`The Chamberlain Group, Inc., v. Rexon Industrial Corporation, Ltd.
`and Power Tool Specialists, Inc., (N.D. Ill. 05—C-6542) ................................................. .. 18
`
`The Procter and Gamble Co. v. Master Kleens ofAmerica, Inc.,
`487 F.2d 550, 179 USPQ 735 (C.C.P.A. 1973) .............................................
`
`............... ..28
`
`Toro Co. v. ToroHead Inc.,
`
`61 USPQ2d 1164, 1170 (TTAB 2001) ........................................................................... ..33
`
`Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc.,
`531 F.2d 366, 377, 188 USPQ 623 (7th Cir. 1979)..-........................................................ ..34
`
`US. Navy v. United States Manufacturing Co.,
`2 USPQ2d 1254, 1258 (TTAB 1987) ............................................................................. ..44
`
`

`
`Weiss Assoc., Inc. v. HRL Assoc., Inc.,
`902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................... ..31, 33
`
`Wuv ’s International, Inc. v. Love's Enterprises, Inc.,
`208 USPQ 736 (DC D.Colo. 1980) ................................................................................. ..48
`
`STATUTES
`
`15. U.S.C. §1052(d) ..................................................................................................................... .. 10
`
`15. U.S.C. §1125(c) ...................................................................................................................... .. 10
`
`15 U.S.C.§ 1125 (c)(1) ................................................................................................................ ..34
`
`TREATISBS
`
`Gilson, Trademark Protection & Practice §2.03 ..................................................................... .. 8, 28
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition §11:17 ............................................................ .. 28
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition §18:81 ............................................................. .. 38
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition §23:96 ....................................................... .. 31, 33
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition §23:100 ........................................................... .. 31
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition §23:10l ........................................................... ..31
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 32: 159 ......................................................... .. 43
`
`Manualfor Complex Litigation .................................................................................................... .. 40
`
`Phyllis J. Weltenr, Trademark Surveys ........................................................
`
`............................... .. 46
`
`Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence .............................................................................. .. 42, 45
`
`The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3d ed. 1993 ............................................................ .. 12
`
`

`
`REDACTED
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`In addition to the description of the record provided by Chamberlain, the parties have also made
`
`the following evidence part of the record for this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Stipulation to Admit Documents as Testimony Evidence dated February 28,
`2006, consisting
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF CASE
`
`Everyone should be allowed to use the term MASTER. When used as part of a trademark,
`
`MASTER is a laudatory term that describes how the products or services being offered are the best in the
`
`market. Accordingly, public policy requires that such laudatory terms remain available for competitors to
`
`describe their products. Gilson, Trademark Protection & Practice §2.03. With this knowledge,
`
`Applicant Lynx Industries, Inc. (“Lynx”) filed an application to register the mark LYNX MASTER,
`
`seeking to expand its trademark portfolio by combining its LYNX house mark with the laudatory term
`
`MASTER.
`
`In response, The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (“Chamberlain”) opposed Lynx’s application as
`
`part of its attempt to monopolize use of the term MASTER in the garage door industry. Chamberlain
`
`doesn’t have the facts or law required to support this takeover, though, so it has resorted to old-fashioned
`
`bullying tactics and has deliberately given the Board a false impression of the evidence of record.
`
`For over 30 years, Lynx has been building a business selling garage doors, garage door parts, and
`
`garage door openers. Throughout its history, Lynx has used two primary brands to identify its products -
`
`the LYNX name and a corresponding logo featuring the head of a lynx cat.
`
`In addition to these primary
`
`LYNX marks, Lynx has also used a series of secondary marks featuring either part numbers or laudatory
`
`names such as AMBASSADOR or PRO-LINE. Today, Lynx has grown into the leading supplier of
`
`garage door parts and accessories in the United States.
`
`In an effort to expand its related garage door
`
`opener business, Lynx selected the mark LYNX MASTER for use on all of its products including a new
`
`.” Chamberlain did not produce these
`‘ References to this Stipulation are desigiated “Stip. to Admit Docs. at
`advertising tests during discovery and similarly neglected to notify the Board of the existence of this Stipulation in
`the description of the record section of its brief.
`
`

`
`REDACTED
`
`line of professionally installed garage door openers. Lynx intends to sell the LYNX MASTER products,
`
`like all of its current products, through an established network of professionals in the garage door
`
`industry. Accordingly, it trusted that its sophisticated consumers would recognize the LYNX MASTER
`
`mark as a natural extension of Lynx’s existing trademark portfolio, just as garage door openers were a
`
`natural extension of Lynx’s product line.
`
`The Opposer, Chamberlain,
`
`is also involved in the garage door industry, selling garage door
`
`openers and related accessories under the mark LIFTMASTER to professional installers. Under the guise
`
`of trying to enforce its LIFTMASTER trademark, Chamberlain is using this opposition proceeding as part
`
`of a broader effort to control all use of the term MASTER in the garage door industry. The problem with
`
`this overly aggressive stance, however, is that Chamberlain has misled the Board by over-exaggerating
`
`certain facts and openly ignoring other salient facts in order to manufacture a reasonable legal basis for its
`
`claims.
`
`In an effort to convince the Board to find in its favor, Chamberlain has filled the record with
`
`evidence of its self-appointed fame.
`
`It has told the Board about how it was the first to use the mark
`
`LIFTMASTER, how many registrations it owns, how many millions of dollars it has spent on advertising
`
`and promotional efforts, how much product it has sold, how many “unsolicited” articles have been written
`
`about the mark, and how big its booths were at trade shows. All of this evidence is true and is not
`
`disputed by Lynx. Meanwhile, Chamberlain neglected to tell the Board that despite all of its expenditures
`
`and efforts to build a famous brand, the LIFTMASTER mark is barely recognized by homeowners.
`
`Indeed, Chamberlain failed to even inform the Board that
`
`. Chamberlain also creates the false
`
`impression that it sells LIFTMASTER garage door openers directly to homeowners even though, like
`
`Lynx, it sells its LIFTMASTER branded products exclusively through a network of professional dealers,
`
`distributors, and installers. Similarly, Chamberlain creates the false impression that all of its advertising
`
`is accessible by homeowners, the eventual end-user of garage door openers, even though a significant
`
`portion of its advertising and promotion is directed solely to professionals in the garage door industry.
`
`

`
`REDACTED
`
`Chamberlain even attempts to establish the fame of the LIFTMASTER mark without informing the board
`
`the LIFTMASTER name. Finally, Chamberlain exaggerates its admittedly informal and inconsistent
`
`enforcement procedures in an effort to divert the Board’s attention from the fact that
`
`aggressive and misleading presentation of the facts by Chamberlain should not distract the Board.
`
`Chamberlain is not entitled to claim the term MASTER for its exclusive use, and this opposition should
`
`. This overly
`
`be dismissed.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`A.
`
`Whether Applicant’s allegedly weak LYNX MASTER mark so resembles Chamberlain’s
`
`previously used and registered LIFTMASTER marks for identical or virtually identical goods as to be
`
`likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception among sophisticated and discriminating consumers under
`
`Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15. U.S.C. §1052(d).
`
`B.
`
`Whether Opposer’s dilution claim should be dismissed due to its failure to establish that
`
`its LIFTMASTER marks are famous or present evidence that Applicant’s mark is causing dilution under
`
`Section 43(0), 15. U.S.C. §l l25(c).
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Lynx Industries
`
`a Growing, Thriving Business
`
`Over thirty years ago, Lynx Industries, Inc. opened its doors in Canada for the first time.
`
`(Schram I Dep. at p. 6).
`
`Initially, Lynx only used the LYNX mark in connection with garage door
`
`hardware such as springs, rollers, and hinges. But through the years business grew, and Lynx quickly
`
`expanded its product line to include garage door openers.
`
`(Schram II Dep. at p. 7).
`
`In 1987, Lynx
`
`purchased a company based in the United States, Napoleon Spring Works (“NSW”), and began to sell its
`
`entire product line throughout the United States. Id. Today, Lynx sells “every imaginable component for
`
`a garage door or garage door opener” in over 30 countries and is the largest seller of garage door
`
`10
`
`

`
`hardware in the United States. (Schram II Dep. at p. 5, 21, 23).
`
`B.
`
`Lynx Sells Directly to Garage Door Professionals
`
`Throughout
`
`its history, Lynx has sold its products exclusively through garage door dealers,
`
`distributors, and installers.
`
`(Schram II Dep. at p. 21-22). This professional customer base, in turn, sells
`
`directly to “end-users” of the products - customers such as homeowners, building owners, contractors
`
`putting up hundreds of homes, and industrial purchasers.
`
`Id. Regardless of the ultimate end user,
`
`however, by selling products exclusively through garage door dealers, distributors, and installers, Lynx
`
`assures that its products, in particular its garage door openers, are professionally installed.
`
`(Schram II
`
`Dep. at p. 22, 54). As an added safeguard, Lynx requires potential new dealers, distributors, and installers
`
`to complete an application before it will sell them any products. (Schram I Dep. at p. 73; Schram II Dep.
`
`at p. 56). Lynx uses the application to conduct a credit investigation and a background check, confirming
`
`that the applicant is indeed a professional in the garage door industry. (Schram II Dep. at p. 56-7).
`
`C.
`
`Lynx Advertises Directly to Garage Door Professionals
`
`Since Lynx only sells to professionals in the garage door industry, it also advertises primarily to
`
`garage door industry professionals. (Schram II Dep. at p. 25).
`
`In 2005, Lynx placed advertisements in a
`
`number of trade publications that are circulated to professionals in the garage door industry and that are
`
`not typically available to the general public, including Intemational Door Association (“IDA”) magazine,
`
`the Door Access Systems Manufacturers Association (“DASMA”)
`
`trade publication, Door Data
`
`magazine, and Garage Door News.
`
`(Schram I Dep. at p. 49-50; Schram II Dep. at p. 25-6).
`
`In addition,
`
`Lynx annually purchases floor space at various trade shows, such as the IDA and DASMA shows, which
`
`are open exclusively to registered and certified garage door professionals and closed to the general public.
`
`(Schram I Dep. at p. 23-26; Schram II Dep. at p. 25-6). Lynx does not advertise directly to homeowners
`
`and has no intention to do so. (Schram II Dep. at p. 25).
`
`D.
`
`Lynx Consistently Uses the LYNX Mark and Cat Head Logo
`
`Since Lynx Industries opened its doors over 30 years ago, it has continuously and consistently
`
`used two primary brands in connection with the sale of garage door parts and garage door openers - the
`
`11
`
`

`
`LYNX name and a distinctive logo design featuring the head of a lynx cat (as shown below in connection
`
`with the Napoleon Spring Works logo). (Schram II Dep. at p. 6, 17).
`
`
`
`The LYNX name and cat head logo appear prominently on every garage door opener that Lynx sells as
`
`well as the related product packaging and literature.
`
`(Id. at p. 6, Ex. MS8, MS9, MS11, MS12, MS17).
`
`As a result, Lynx has never had any reports of confusion between its products and any products from
`other sources, including Ohamberlain’s LIFTMASTER branded products. (Id. at p. 37).
`
`E.
`
`Lynx Chose the LYNX MASTER Mark to
`Extend its Family of Secondary Marks
`
`At various times over the past thirty years, Lynx has considered and used a variety of secondary
`
`brands for use in connection with the primary LYNX name and cat head logo. Like many companies,
`
`Lynx evaluated numerous laudatory terms and part numbers to compliment its primary brands, and it has
`
`actually used the marks AMBASSADOR, MODEL 455, and PRO-LINE as secondary brands for garage
`
`door openers.
`
`(Opp. Not. of Rel.
`
`1 at p. 13; Schram I Dep. at p. 10; Schram II Dep. at p. 6, 18).
`
`In
`
`addition to these secondary brands, Lynx has also considered using the laudatory term MASTER at
`
`various times over the past ten years.
`
`(Opp. Not. of Rel.
`
`1 at p. 54-55). The term MASTER was
`
`considered to be a natural extension to Lynx’s family of secondary brands since it
`
`is commonly
`
`understood as an indication of expertise in a particular field.
`
`(Schram II Dep. at p. 17; The American
`
`Heritage College Dictionary, 3d ed. 1993, Exhibit A hereto). Accordingly, mock-up advertisements
`
`featuring the LYNX MASTER mark were developed starting in 1994 or 1995.
`
`(Opp. Not. of Rel. 1 at p.
`
`54-55; Schram II Dep. at p.20-21, Ex. MSlO). The LYNX MASTER mark was considered again in 2003,
`
`when Lynx filed the present application to register the mark LYNX MASTER for use in connection with
`
`“Electric Door Openers; Electric Garage Door Openers; Remote Controls for Garage Doors.” After filing
`
`the trademark application, and in order to test the viability of the LYNX MASTER mark, another mock-
`
`12
`
`

`
`RE DACTED
`
`up out sheet was displayed at the 2004 IDA trade show in Las Vegas.
`
`(Opp. Not. of Rel.
`
`1 at p. 61-62,
`
`91-94, Ex. 4; Schram I Dep. at p. 23). Following that trade show, Chamberlain initiated the current
`
`Opposition proceeding.
`
`F.
`
`Lynx was Aware of Chamberlain’s Use of the LIFTMASTER Mark
`
`As a leading supplier of doors and door parts to the garage door industry, Lynx was of course
`
`aware of Chamberlain’s use of the mark LIFTMASTER in connection with garage door openers prior to
`
`its selection of the LYNX MASTER mark.
`
`(Opp. Not. of Rel.
`
`l at p. 46; Schram I Dep. at p. 34-36).
`
`Indeed, Lynx believes that anyone involved in the garage door industry would readily recognize
`Chamberlain as the leading supplier of professionally ‘installed garage door openers and related
`
`accessories.
`
`Id. Lynx was also aware, however, of numerous other companies and professionals in the
`
`garage door industry that used trademarks that incorporated the term MASTER, including Wayne-Daltonz
`
`and many of Lynx’s own cIients.3 Accordingly, Lynx believed that it was also allowed to use the term
`
`MASTER and the mark LYNX MASTER.
`
`G.
`
`Chamberlain’s Use of the LIFTMASTER mark is Restricted
`
`While Chamberlain has painstakingly presented evidence of
`
`the _ alleged fame of
`
`its
`
`LIFTMASTER mark, its brief is silent as to the numerous limitations generated from its manner of using
`
`the LIFTMASTER mark. Those limitations are presented here.
`
`1.
`
`The LIFTMASTER Mark has Three Required Elements
`
`Currently, Chamberlain markets and sells both residential and commercial garage door openers
`
`under the mark CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER PROFESSIONAL.
`
`2 As discussed below, Wayne-Dalton uses and owns registrations for TORQUEMASTER and DOORMASTER.
`3 Lynx’s customer list includes companies operating under the names :
`
`13
`
`

`
`REDACTED
`
`2.
`
`LIFTMASTER is used in Connection with Garage Door Openers
`
`The CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER PROFESSIONAL mark is currently used in connection
`
`with both commercial garage door openers and a series of three residential garage door openers - the
`
`Contractor Series, the Premium Series, and the Estate Series.
`
`(Anderson II Dep. at p. 240). The
`
`14
`
`

`
`REDACTED
`
`3.
`
`The LIFTMASTER Mark is Sold Through a Professional Network
`
`Although Chamberlain’s brief is vague about who purchases its LIFTMASTER branded products,
`
`Chamberlain gm sells its CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER PROFESSIONAL garage door openers
`
`through its established network of professional garage door dealers, distributors and installers. (App. Not.
`
`of Rel. 4 at p. 27; Anderson II Dep. at p. 222,.
`
`Chamberlain does not sell CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER PROFESSIONAL openers directly
`
`to end—user homeowners. (App. Not. of Rel. 4 at p. 28; Anderson II Dep. at p. 221-2).
`
`‘
`
`(Anderson II Dep. at p. 222-6; 233-4). By selling products in this way, Chamberlain is able to assure that
`
`its CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER PROFESSIONAL garage door openers are being installed and
`
`15
`
`

`
`REDACTED
`
`serviced by professionals and not
`
`41).
`
`4.
`
`The LIFTMASTER Mark is Promoted to Sophisticated Customers
`
`Since Chamberlain only sells its CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER PROFESSIONAL openers to
`
`professional installers, it makes sense that a great deal of Chamberlain’s advertising and promotion would
`
`also be directed exclusively to professionals in the garage door industry.
`
`-
`
`Furthermore, Chamberlain advertises the CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER
`
`PROFESSIONAL brand in every issue of International Home Builder Magazine,
`
`IDA Magazine,
`
`DASMA, Professional Door Dealer and Garage Door News, trade publications that are not circulated to
`
`the general public.
`
`(Anderson I Dep. at p. 95-8, 104-5). Perhaps not coincidentally, the majority of
`
`Chamberlain’s “unsolicited” media attention comes fi‘om these same trade publications.
`
`(Opp. Brief at p.
`
`23-4).
`
`In addition to Chamberlain’s extensive promotion to garage door professionals, Chamberlain also
`
`advertises the CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER PROFESSIONAL products on television, on radio, and
`
`in print advertisingthat is circulated to both the garage door industry and to the general public.
`According to Sally Anderson, Chamberlain’s Vice President of Marketing Communications,
`these
`
`advertisements are aimed at end users who she characterizes as '
`
`16
`
`

`
`REDACTED
`
`5.
`
`Chamberlain’s Enforcement of its LIFTMASTER Mark is Deficient
`
`a.
`
`Chamberlain’s Monitoring Efforts are “Informal”
`
`In contrast
`
`to Chamberlain’s
`
`formal
`
`and consistent advertising and promotion of its
`
`CHAMBERLAIN LIFTMASTER PROFESSIONAL mark, Chamberlain’s enforcement procedures for
`
`the mark are inconsistent and “informal.” (App. Not. of Rel. 3 at p. 24; App. Not. of Rel. 4 at p. 77).
`
`b.
`
`Chamberlain Allows Third Parties to Use Similar Marks
`
`If, by chance, Chamberlain becomes aware of a third party’s use of a similar mark,
`
`its
`
`enforcement efforts are similarly inconsistent.
`
`First, Chamberlain generally allows third parties to
`
`register and use the identical LIFTMASTER mark in connection with goods other than garage door
`
`‘ At the time of its 30(b)(6) deposition, Chamberlain was unaware that the following marks were currently in use in
`the United States: Flexon used and owned registrations for the marks STEELMASTER, SPEED-MASTER, and
`FLEX-MASTER in connection with roll-up doors, Rexon Industrial Corporation used and had applied to register the
`marks HOMEMASTER and MASTER CODE in connection with electric door openers, Alpine Overhead Doors
`used and owned a registration for the mark REDI-MASTER in connection with motors for raising/lowering rolling
`steel doors, American Standard used and owned a registration for the mark POWERMASTER® in connection with
`controls for opening and closing door