BULKY DOCUMENTS
`(exceeds 300 pages)
`
`Proceeding/ Serial No: 9 1 1 68287
`
`Filed:
`
`04— 1 6-2007
`
`Title: Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Part 1 of 1
`
`
`
`

`

`TTAB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`————————————————————————————————————————————————————__x
`
`BEAR USA, INC.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`CHARLES ROBERT BUNTTNG,III,
`
`:
`:
`
`Applicant.
`————————————————————————————————————————————————————__x
`
`Opposition No.: 91168287
`Serial No.: 76/599,580
`
`7 T T " “ ‘
`
`’
`
`‘ ‘
`
`~ ~
`
`lHimHillHillHill“Milli”HHHIHHHHIH
`
`04-1 6-2007
`U S Patent 9. TMOrr—JTM Mail Drn.‘ m {:11
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Bear USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Bear”,) hereby moves this Honorable Board,
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.127 and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an
`
`Order granting Summary Judgment and sustaining the instant Opposition proceeding. In
`
`support of its Motion, Bear submits its Memorandum in support of its Motion for
`
`Summary Judgement, together with the Affidavits of Thomas Hong and Timothy J. Kelly
`
`(with Exhibits), concurrently herewith.
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the
`United States Postal Service as first-class mail in an envelope addressed
`to: Commissioner for Trademarks, PO. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA
`22313-1451 on
`
`
`
`A ril 11 2007
`(Date of Deposi )
`
`-
`
`‘
`
`
` M
`
`Aprilll,2007
`Date of Signature
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V -' elly
`
`ER
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HA
`& SCINTO
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`
`New York, New York 10112
`
`(212) 218-2100
`
`Attorneys for Opposer,
`BEAR USA, INC.
`
`Dated: April 11, 2007
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Opposer’s For Summary
`
`Judgement together with its Memorandum in support thereof and the supporting affidavits
`
`of Thomas Hong and Timothy J. Kelly (with Exhibits) were served on Counsel of Record
`
`for Applicant at the address set forth below on this 11th day of April 2007, by First Class
`
`Mail:
`
`Kathleen C. Miller, Esq.
`O’BRIEN, WATTERS & DAVIS, LLP
`Fountain Grove Corporate Center 1
`3510 Unocal Place, Suite 200
`PO. Box 3759
`
`Santa Rosa, CA 95402-3759
`
`
`
`NY_MA|N 624334V1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________________________________________x
`
`BEAR U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`:
`'
`
`Opposition No.2 91168287
`Serial No.: 76/599,580
`
`CHARLES ROBERT BUNTING, III,
`
`Applicant.
`______________________________________________________x
`
`BEAR U.S.A., INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Page
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`iii
`
`.
`
`1
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`1
`
`H.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS .
`
`A.
`
`Bear and Its BEAR Trademarks
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`1
`
`. 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Applicant’s “Bad Bear Wear” Mark .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`The Record Before The Trademark Trial And Appeal Board .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 8
`
`. 9
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`The Standard For Summary Judgment
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of Material Fact As To Bear’s Priority .
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 9
`
`. 10
`
`. 10
`
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of Material Fact As To The Strength Of The
`BEAR Trademarks And The Scope Of Protection They Are To Be
`Afforded .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`D.
`
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of Material Fact As To Likelihood Of
`Confusion
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 13
`
`. 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The BEAR Trademarks are Famous and Strong .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`“Bad Bear Wear” Is Substantially Similar To The BEAR
`Trademarks .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 15
`
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of Material Fact As To The Identity
`Of The Parties’ Products .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 16
`
`.
`
`l7
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The Remaining Factors Favor Opposer
`
`E.
`
`Dilution .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`l9
`
`
`
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of Material Fact As To The Identity
`Of The Trade Channels And Potential Purchasers .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`5.
`
`There Is No Reported Evidence Of Actual Confusion, But
`Applicant Has Not Yet Sold Products Under The “Bad Bear
`Wear” Mark .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`6.
`
`Extent of Potential Confusion .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 18
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 18
`
`. 19
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 22
`
`
`
`-ii_
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 9
`
`Banflf Ltd. v. Federated Dep’t. Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1187 (2d Cir.
`1988) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`Bear USA, Inc. v. A.J. Sheepskin & Leather Outerwear, Inc. et al., 909 F. Supp. 896
`(S.D.N.Y. 1995) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Bing Chuan et al., 71 F.Supp. 2d 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), afl’d, 2000
`US. App. LEXIS 12554 (2d Cir. 2000)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`Block Drug Co. v. Den-Mat Inc., 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1315 (T.T.A.B. 1989), af’d, 17
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`CBS, Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 1581, 218 U.S.P.Q. 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 11, 16
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 6
`
`. 6
`
`. 18
`
`. 13
`
`. 11
`
`Centaur Communications Ltd. v. A/S/M Communications, Inc., 830 F.2d 1217, 4 U.S.P.Q.
`1541 (2d Cir. 1987)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Century 21Real Estate Corp. v. Century Resorts Int’l, 211 U.S.P.Q. 227 (ND. 111. 1981)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Charles ofthe Ritz Group Ltd. v. Quality King Distribs., Inc., 832 F.2d 1317, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d
`1778 (2d Cir. 1987)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 15
`
`.
`
`. 11
`
`Exxon Corp. v. National Foodline Corp., 579 F. 2d 1244, 198 U.S.P.Q. 407 (C.C.P.A
`1978) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`Ferrari S.p.A. Esercizio Fabriche Automobili E. Corse v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235, 20
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (6th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 3028 (1992)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 10
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 18
`
`Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 U.S.P.Q. 390 (Fed.
`Cir. 1983)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .. 12
`
`Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Guardian-Group Gerardi Assocs. Inc., 1993 US. Dist LEXIS
`19520, at *8, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1465 (D. Conn. Feb. 25, 1993)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 11
`
`Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`Helene Curtis Indus, Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir. 1977)
`
`Humana, Inc. v. Humanomics Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1696 (T.T.A.B. 1987)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 14
`
`. 15
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 13
`
`-m—
`
`
`
`

`

`In re Concordia Int ’1 Forwarding Corp., 222 U.S.P.Q. 355 (T.T.A.B. 1983)
`
`In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563
`(C.C.P.A. 1973)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 U.S.P.Q. 707 (T.T.A.B. 1985)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 16
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 12, 13
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 15
`
`. 15
`
`In re White Swan Ltd., 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (T.T.A.B. 1988)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`JC. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign ofthe Beefeater, 540 F.2d 266, 192 U.S.P.Q. 555 (7th Cir.
`1976) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 10
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. l3
`
`. 16
`
`Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Prods, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1736 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus, Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453 (Fed.
`Cir. 1992)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`. 10, 12
`
`Lois Sportswear, USA, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 230 U.S.P.Q. 831 (2d
`Cir. 1986)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`NASDAQ Stock Market Inc. v. Antartica S.r.l., 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1718 (T.T.A.B. 2003) .
`
`Oxford Pendaflex Corp. v. Anixter Bros, Inc., 201 U.S.P.Q. 851 (T.T.A.B. 1978)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 11
`
`. 17, 19
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 1.7
`
`Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Knox Indus. Corp., 277 F.2d 945, 125 U.S.P.Q. 576 (C.C.P.A.
`1960) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (USA), Inc., 739 F.2d 624, 222 U.S.P.Q. 741 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 15
`
`. 10
`
`Presto Products, Inc. V. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895 (T.T.A.B.
`1988)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .. 15
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 13
`
`
`
`Recot, Inc. v. MC. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Specialty Brands Inc. v. Coflee Bean Distribs., Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 223 U.S.P.Q. 1281
`(Fed. Cir. 1984)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., Inc., 833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Tiflany & Co. v. Classic Motor Carriages, Inc., 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835 (T.T.A.B. 1989)
`
`Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 US. 763, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1081 (1992) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Univ. BookStore v. Univ. ofWis. Bd. ofRegents, 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (T.T.A.B. 1994)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 13
`
`.
`
`. 9
`
`. 13
`
`. 11
`
`.
`
`. 9
`
`_iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates Inc, 902 F.2d 1546, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1840 (Fed.
`Cir. 1990)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 13
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. §1057(b) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .. 10
`
`. .. 10
`
`15 U.S.C.§1115(a)
`
`37 C.F.R §2.127(e) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 1, 8
`
`. 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(0) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) .
`
`T.B.M.P. § 528 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 1, 9
`
`
`
`_ V _
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As more fully explained herein, the facts of record here, even when Viewed in a
`
`light most favorable to Applicant, establish that there is no genuine issue as to the likelihood that
`
`the trademark “Bad Bear Wear” for “Clothing, namely t—shirts, golf shirts, polo shirts, shirts,
`
`jackets, pajamas, sweat pants, sweat shirts, boxer shorts, headwear and footwear” as shown in
`
`Application Serial No. 76/599,580, is confusingly similar to the numerous BEAR trademark
`
`registrations owned by Opposer Bear U.S.A., Inc. (“Bear”) and of record here. As such, there is no
`
`need for a trial and Bear therefore respectfully requests pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 56(a), 37 C.F.R §2.127(e), and T.B.M.P. § 528, that the Board grant summary judgment
`
`in its favor, sustaining this opposition and finally refusing Applicant’s application.
`
`11.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`Bear herein summarizes the material facts as they relate to this opposition
`
`proceeding. Bear believes that these facts, as recited below and as supported by the Affidavit of
`
`Thomas Hong are undisputed and lead to the conclusion that confusion in the marketplace is not
`
`only likely, but is inevitable.
`
`A.
`
`Bear and Its BEAR Trademarks
`
`1.
`
`Opposer, Bear, is a manufacturer and seller of clothing and footwear. See
`
`Affidavit of Thomas B. Hong (hereinafter “Hong Aff.”) at 1] 3.
`
`2.
`
`Bear’s products, which include, among other things, jackets, are sold to
`
`consumers of all ages. Although Bear’s products originally appealed primarily to teens and young
`
`adults who desired to achieve the “hip—hop” look in the clothes they wear, the high quality of
`
`Bear’s products have made them popular items with twenty-, thirty-, and forty-something outdoor
`
`and sports enthusiasts, as well as with fashion and style-conscious consumers from all walks of
`
`life. Hong Aff. 1] 3.
`
`
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Beginning as early as 1993, Bear’s predecessor in interest (the Hong
`
`family business) sold vests and parkas using the trademarks BEAR MOUNTAIN and BEAR.
`
`These products were high quality products made exclusively for the Hong family by manufacturers
`
`in China and Korea and were an immediate success. Hong Aff. at {I 4.
`
`4.
`
`In 1994, in response to that popularity, the Hong family decided to
`
`incorporate a new business under the name Bear U.S.A., Inc., which succeeded to the family’s
`
`rights in the Bear trademarks. Id.
`
`5.
`
`Over the years since its inception, Bear has developed and used a
`
`collection of distinctive BEAR trademarks in connection with the manufacture, distribution,
`
`promotion, advertising and sale of apparel of the type listed above.
`
`6.
`
`Bear’s trademarks include the marks shown in the following list of Federal
`
`trademark registrations: Registration No. 3,038,588 for the mark BEAR; Registration No.
`
`2,191,596 for the mark BEAR-MAX; Registration Nos. 2,286,759, 2,559,155 and 2,556,355 for
`
`the mark BABY BEAR; Registration No. 2,285,696 for the mark BEAR and Design; Registration
`
`Nos. 2,559,096, 2,700,829, 2,997,379, and 2,623,471 for various BEAR U.S.A. and Design marks;
`
`Registration No. 2,429,029 for the mark BEAR U.S.A., INC.; Registration No. 2,384,568 for the
`
`mark BEAR MOUNTAIN; Registration No. 2,276,955 for the mark BEAR U.S.A., Inc.;
`
`Registration No. 2,282,358 for the mark BEAR and Design; and Registration No. 2,691,242 for
`
`BEAR U.S.A. and Design. The foregoing trademarks are hereinafter referred to collectively as the
`
`“BEAR Trademarks.” Attached as Exhibits 1-15 to the Affidavit of Timothy J. Kelly (“Kelly
`
`Aff.”) submitted concurrently herewith, are Certified Status and Title Copies of the certificates of
`
`registration for above-referenced marks.
`
`7.
`
`The filing and first use dates for each of Bear’s above-referenced
`
`trademark registrations pre-dates the filing of the intent-to-use application at issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`

`8.
`
`The BEAR Trademarks are registered for a variety of goods, including,
`
`inter alia, t-shirts, jackets and footwear. A review of the certificates of registration for the BEAR
`
`Trademarks reflects the fact that the goods for which the trademarks are registered include most, if
`
`not all, of the products for which Applicant has expressed an intention to use its mark in the
`
`application opposed herein.
`
`9.
`
`Copies of photographs of representative samples of the products sold
`
`under the BEAR Trademarks are attached hereto as Exhibit 3 to the Hong Affidavit.
`
`10.
`
`Bear has established its products, each of which carry one or more BEAR
`
`Trademarks, as a very popular brand of clothing and footwear. Both the retail trade and consumers
`
`have come to expect that products carrying the BEAR Trademarks are the high-quality products
`
`manufactured solely by Bear, and have come to rely on the presence of one or more of the BEAR
`
`Trademarks on clothing and footwear as a guarantee that these products are genuine Bear products
`
`of the high-quality consumers have come to expect. Hong Aff. 1] 7.
`
`ll.
`
`Bear’s products are sold in local inner-city “mom and pop” stores, in
`
`department stores, and in select retail outlets throughout the United States. Some of these stores
`
`include (or have included) Citi Trends, ABC Variety Stores, Modell’s Sporting Goods, Bob’s
`
`Stores, Lounge, Work In Progress, Macys, Paragon, J.C. Penney, Inc., Nordstrom, Filenes, Dr.
`
`Jay's, Inc., Ramsey Outdoors, The Athlete’s Foot, Sam’s Best Buy (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma);
`
`Wal-Mart (Bentonville, Arkansas), Von Maur (28 stores throughout mid—West), Traffik (Atlanta,
`
`Georgia), Sky Fashion (Grand Prairie, Texas), Glick’s (Illinois), Fresh Wear (Illinois), Scheel’s
`
`(North Dakota), Juan Armando (Rodeo Drive, Beverly Hills), Goods (Colorado), Lark (Indiana),
`
`Tony's (Chicago, Illinois), and Dr. Denim (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). Hong Aff. 1] 8.
`
`12.
`
`The retail price of Bear’s products varies with the particular type of
`
`product offered, but generally ranges from $20 to $220 at retail. Hong Aff. 1] 9.
`
`
`
`

`

`13.
`
`Continually, since prior to the June, 2004 filing date of Applicant’s
`
`trademark application, Bear has been and still is marketing, offering for sale and selling clothing
`
`and footwear under the BEAR Trademarks, throughout the United States and the world. Since
`
`1993, worldwide retail sales of products carrying one or more of the BEAR Trademarks have
`
`totaled more than $250 million, with more than $110 million in the United States alone. Hong Aff.
`
`11 12.
`
`14.
`
`Bear has expended considerable effort and expense in promoting its
`
`apparel products and associated BEAR Trademarks. Since at least as far back as 1993, Bear has
`
`invested heavily in advertising and promoting the products carrying the BEAR Trademarks
`
`through various advertising and promotional mechanisms, including direct advertising and co-op
`
`advertising with the various stores in which its products are sold. See Hong Aff. 11 13.
`
`15.
`
`The advertising and promotional efforts undertaken by Bear has amounted
`
`to nearly $7 million over the years, and has prominently featured the BEAR Trademarks for the
`
`purpose of acquainting the public with the BEAR Trademarks and with the excellent quality of the
`
`clothing sold under those marks. Hong Aff.11 13.
`
`16.
`
`The well-known nature and popularity of products carrying the BEAR
`
`Trademarks are epitomized by the fact that BEAR® products have been requested for use by the
`
`wardrobe managers for several recording artists and celebrities, including Mary J. Blige, Junior
`
`M.A.F.I.A., Ed Lover & Dr. Dre, and have been used on episodes of such television programs as
`
`“The Fresh Prince of Bel Air”; “In The House”; and “New York Undercover. Hong Aff. 11 18.
`
`17.
`
`Also as a result of (and as a tribute to) the success of Bear and its
`
`products, Bear’s clothing and footwear have been prominently featured in editorial spreads
`
`published in several national publications including GQ (Gentlemen's Quarterly), THE SOURCE,
`
`SE VENTEEN, DNR, BLAZE, DETAILS, and VIBE. See Hong Aff. 11 19.
`
`

`

`18.
`
`BEAR®-branded products have been worn by celebrities and models, and
`
`have been featured in national advertising campaigns for well-known products such as Jeep
`
`automobiles. Hong Aff. 1] 16.
`
`19.
`
`Consumers, retailers and other clothing manufacturers have come to
`
`expect that the clothing and footwear products sold under the BEAR Trademarks originate solely
`
`with Bear. For example, Exhibit 15 to the Hong Affidavit is a letter from Joe Mangan, the Eastern
`
`Regional Manager of Columbia Sportswear Company, attesting to the success of the “Bear”
`
`program and products.
`
`20.
`
`Bear has enhanced its image and notoriety through its community efforts
`
`in connection with a program to raise awareness of and prevent youth violence, which included a
`
`link to a web site that contained links to various educational and charitable organizations that
`
`promote non-violence, as well as quotations, statistics, cards that could be sent via the Internet to
`
`promote the cause, a chat room, and the e-mail addresses of each and every United States senator.
`
`See Hong Aff.1] 23, Exh. 16.
`
`21.
`
`Bear donated nearly a quarter of a million dollars worth of its “classic”
`
`BEAR® jackets to New York City school children in 2005, and followed that with a donation of
`
`more than $500,000 worth of apparel in 2006. Hong Aff. 11 24; Exh.17.
`
`22.
`
`As a result of Bear’s extensive sales, advertising, and promotion, as well
`
`as a result of its charitable activities, the BEAR Trademarks have become famous and the
`
`purchasing public and retail trade have come to know, recognize, and rely upon the BEAR
`
`Trademarks. Furthermore, Bear has established valuable goodwill and secondary meaning in its
`
`trademarks through such use, and the BEAR Trademarks have acquired a recognized preeminence
`
`and an excellent reputation in the minds of consumers and the retail trade. Hong Aff. fil 21.
`
`23.
`
`Bear has been diligent in enforcing and protecting its BEAR Trademarks.
`
`When necessary, Bear has trademark infringement actions against infringers and counterfeiters of
`
`_5_
`
`
`
`

`

`authentic BEAR® products. These cases include: Bear USA, Inc. v. A.J. Sheepskin & Leather
`
`Outerwear, Inc. et al., 909 F. Supp. 896 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (preliminary injunction granted) (see
`
`Hong Aff. 1] 26); Bear USA, Inc. v. Alike Yi, Various John Does, et al., 95 Civ. 10223 (ex parte
`
`temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction granted; permanent injunction entered) (see
`
`Hong Aff. 1} 26); Bear USA, Inc. v. Goose Down USA, Inc., et al., 96 Civ 0761 (permanent
`
`injunction entered)(see Hong Aff. 11 26); Bear USA, Inc. v. Ben Elias Industries Corp, 96 Civ.
`
`5515 (preliminary and permanent injunctions entered)(see Hong Aff. 1] 26);
`
`24.
`
`In Bear USA, Inc. v. William Kim, et al., 97 civ. 0574 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.
`
`1997), Bear obtained a preliminary injunction and seizure order in relation to an infringing use of
`
`its BEAR MOUNTAIN trademark, and then proceeded to obtain ajury verdict on trademark and
`
`trade dress infringement, resulting in a permanent injunction and an award of more than $1 million
`
`in damages. Hong Aff. 11 27.
`
`25.
`
`In Bear USA, Inc. v. Bing Chuan et al., 71 F.Supp. 2d 237 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`1999), afl’d, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12554 (2d Cir. 2000), the District Court issued an injunction
`
`enjoining the defendants’ use of the mark BEAR MOUNTAIN on parkas and ordered a seizure of
`
`the goods. The injunction was upheld by the Second Circuit. Hong Aff. {I 28.
`
`26.
`
`Bear has also been successful in opposing the applications of numerous
`
`other parties attempting to register marks which Bear believes have the potential to cause
`
`confusion and thereby harm Bear. The records of the Trademark Office reflect that Bear has been
`
`successful in the following oppositions, to wit, the opposition was sustained or the Applicant
`
`deleted International Class 25 goods from its application: Bear USA, Inc. v. Won H0 Park,
`
`Opposition No. 106,693 (application for BEAR TAG U.S.A); Bear U.S./1., Inc. v. Bear-Tec,
`
`Opposition No. 110, 919 (application for BEARGEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. Hansei Devel. Co.,
`
`Ltd, Opposition No. 111,371 (application for COLLEGE BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. Blessed
`
`Int ’1, Inc., Opposition No. 1 1 1,451 (application for NORTH BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. American
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Champion Media, Inc., Opposition No. 117, 798 (application for TACKLE BEAR); Bear U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. v. Famous Stars & Straps, Inc., Opposition No. 91170795 (application for IMABEAR); Bear
`
`USA, Inc. v. Hungry Bear, Opposition No. 91167965 (application for HUNGRY BEAR); Bear
`
`USA, Inc. v. Berge Wassilian, Opposition No. 91166637 (application for BEAR JIG); Bear
`
`US.A., Inc. v. 7040 Entertainment, Inc., Opposition No. 91166386 (application for CEDDY
`
`BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. Avi Arad & Associates, LLC, Opposition No. 91165056 (application
`
`for RESCUE BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Calcetera de Occidente, SA. de C. V., Opposition No.
`
`91163369 (application for BLUE BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Calcetera de Occidente, SA. de
`
`C. V., Opposition No. 91163112 (application for BLUE BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. Lindsay
`
`McCrum, Opposition No. 91162606 (application for BAD BEAR WORLD); Bear USA, Inc. v.
`
`Accessory Network Group, Inc., Opposition No. 91159561 (application for G BEAR &
`
`FRIENDS); Bear USA, Inc. v. Fields Caveness, Opposition No. 91159449 (application for
`
`CHEDDAR BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. Sherry Baldwin, Opposition No. 91156969 (application
`
`for BEECHER BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. A.0. Dangerous, Inc., Opposition No. 91154828
`
`(application for BEAR INSTINCT); Bear USA, Inc. v. Mermaid International, Inc., Opposition
`
`No. 91153795 (application for JAGG BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. The Saltzman Group, LLC,
`
`Opposition No. 91153676 (application for POPPY BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. Illilco Industries,
`
`Inc., Opposition No. 91125372 (application for P] BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. Bonnie Bear, Ltd,
`
`Opposition No. 91123222 (application for BONNIE BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v. Edward
`
`Kaniewski, Opposition No. 91121829 (application for BEAR MKT); Bear USA, Inc. v. Happy
`
`Thoughts, LLC, Opposition No. 91121932 (application for HUMMY BEAR); Bear USA, Inc. v.
`
`Sanford J. Starkman, Opposition No. 9119672 (application for SANDY BEAR); Bear US.A., Inc.
`
`v. Ryka, Inc., Opposition NoS. 91118466 and 91118516 (applications for BEAR MOUNTAIN
`
`GEAR BY RYKA); and Bear USA, Inc. v. Dandy Bear & Co., Inc., Opposition No. 91118351
`
`(application for DANDY BEAR). Hong Aff. 11 29.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Applicant’s “Bad Bear Wear” Mark
`
`27.
`
`Application Serial No. 76/599,580 for the mark “Bad Bear Wear” was
`
`filed in June, 2004. The application was filed on an intent—to-use basis. Bear has priority.
`
`28.
`
`The mark, “Bad Bear Wear” contains the dominant root word “Bear”, the
`
`common element of the BEAR Trademarks.
`
`29.
`
`Applicant, in his application, has identified no limitations as to channels
`
`of trade or consumers. Additionally, the application contains no specificity with respect to the
`
`manner in which the mark is to be displayed or the price at which the products will be sold.
`
`30.
`
`Accordingly, the channels of trade through which and consumers to
`
`whom, Applicant will sell his “Bad Bear Wear” products must be viewed as the same channels of
`
`trade through which Bear’s clothing products travel and have traveled for many years. Similarly,
`
`the price at which Applicant’s “Bad Bear Wear” products will be sold must be viewed as the same
`
`as or similar to the prices at which Bear’s products are sold.
`
`C.
`
`The Record Before The Trademark
`
`Trial And Appeal Board
`
`To date, the record before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board consists of the
`
`following:
`
`0
`
`-
`
`Notice of Opposition; and
`
`Applicant’s Answer.
`
`In addition, pursuant to 37 CPR. §2.127(e), Bear is filing herewith copies of the
`
`following documents:
`
`-
`
`0
`
`Affidavit of Thomas B. Hong and Exhibits attached thereto;
`
`Affidavit of Timothy J. Kelly and Exhibits attached thereto consisting of
`
`Certified Status and Title Copies of fifteen trademark registrations owned
`
`
`
`

`

`by Bear USA, Inc., and Applicant’s responses to certain Interrogatories
`
`propounded by Bear.
`
`111.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Standard For Summary Judgment
`
`The standard for granting summary judgment is well settled. According to Rule
`
`56(0) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings,
`
`depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
`
`show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to a
`
`judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also T.B.M.P. § 528.01. The moving
`
`party has the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`
`Inc., 477 US. 242, 256 (1986).
`
`Where a motion for summary judgment is made and supported in accordance with
`
`Rule 56, it is incumbent on the non-moving party to proffer countering evidence sufficient to
`
`demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute as to material fact. A factual dispute is genuine
`
`only if, on the entirety of the record, a reasonable finder of fact could resolve the matter in favor of
`
`the non-movant. Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co, Inc., 833 F.2d 1560, 1562 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1987).
`
`The purpose of a summary judgment motion is to promote judicial economy;
`
`namely, to avoid an unnecessary trial where more evidence than is already available in connection
`
`with the summary judgment motion could not reasonably be expected to change the result in the
`
`case. See Univ. Book Store v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. ofRegents, 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1389 (T.T.A.B.
`
`1994); T.B.M.P. § 528.01. Thus, as a general rule, the resolution of Board proceedings by means
`
`of summary judgment is to be encouraged (Id.; see also Sweats Fashions, 833 F.2d 1560
`
`(“summary judgment may no longer be regarded as a disfavored procedural shortcut”)), but the
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Board should grant summary judgment where a full trial is “unnecessary because the essential facts
`
`necessary to decision of the issue can be adequately developed by less costly procedures, as
`
`contemplated by the FRCP rules here involved, with a net benefit to society.” Pure Gold, Inc. v.
`
`Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., 739 F.2d 624, 626, 222 U.S.P.Q. 741, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1984), (quoting Exxon
`
`Corp. v. National Foodline Corp, 579 F. 2d 1244, 1246, 198 U.S.P.Q. 407, 408 (C.C.P.A 1978)).
`
`Opposer submits that this is just such a case.
`
`B.
`
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of
`
`Material Fact As To Bear’s Priority
`
`There can be no question that Bear, as a result of its numerous Federally
`
`registered BEAR Trademarks, has priority over the alleged mark of Applicant. As set forth above
`
`and in the Affidavit of Thomas Hong, Bear began using the BEAR Trademarks well before the
`
`June, 2004 filing date of Applicant’s intent-to-use application. Indeed, all but two of the
`
`registrations submitted in connection with this motion were registered prior to the filing date of the
`
`opposed intent-to-use application. The two registrations that registered after the filing of the “Bad
`
`Bear Wear” application, were prior to Applicant’s filing date and claim dates of first use back to at
`
`least as early as 1993 and 1996, respectively. These registrations are primafacie evidence of the
`
`marks’ validity, and of Bear’s ownership and exclusive right to use them. 15 U.S.C. §§1057(b),
`
`1115(a). J.C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.,