IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`:
`‘
`
`Opposition No.: 91170064
`Serial No.: 76/631,094
`
`‘
`
`‘ -
`
`_
`Y
`
`ARMOUTH INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`:
`Applicant.
`—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-x
`
`I
`
`I U
`R
`I
`“muummumuummuluulllullllllll
`
`03_26_2oo7
`0PPOSER’S SUBMISSION or REDACTED
`M_0 u,s,Patem&TMO1‘cfTMMailRc;1Dt.#01
`
`V
`
`Pursuant to the February 23, 2007 Order of the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`
`Board, Opposer Bear U.S.A., Inc. hereby submits the attached redacted version of its
`
`Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment.‘
`
`
`
`Dated: March 23, 2007
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Timo hy J. K
`
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`
`’
`
`& SCINTO
`
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`
`
`
`New York, New York 10112
`
`(212) 218-2100
`
`Attorneys for Opposer,
`BEAR U.S.A., INC.
`
`The Declaration of Thomas Hong was not filed under seal, and thus no redacted version is
`_l_/
`necessary.
`In addition, only Exhibit 1 of the Affidavit of Timothy J . Kelly was filed under seal. That exhibit
`contained excerpts from the confidential transcript of the deposition of Applicant’s witness, Charles Levy.
`Opposer believes that these excerpts need to remain confidential.
`In addition, on page 9 of the memorandum,
`Opposer has filled in a paragraph reference inadvertently left blank in the original document.
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Bear U.S.A.’s redacted
`
`version of its Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment
`
`were served on Counsel of Record for Applicant at the address set forth below on this 23'“
`
`day of March 2007, by First Class Mail:
`
`Joseph Sutton, Esq.
`Ezra Sutton & Associates, PA
`Plaza 9
`
`900 Route 9
`
`Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095
`
` Timot
`
`J. Kelly
`
`NY_MAlN 624439v1
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`--------1-----------—---------—------—-------------x
`BEAR U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`Opposition No.: 91170064
`Serial No.: 76/631,094
`
`:
`
`ARMOUTH INTERNATIONAL, INC., :
`
`BEAR U.S.A., INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`** REDACTED VERSION **
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2232
`
`TABLE or AUTHORITIES ...... .
`
`. _............................................ .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`ii
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`1].
`
`INTRODUCTION . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`. .'.
`
`. .
`
`. .
`
`. . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`I C.
`
`Bear and Its BEAR Trademarks
`
`I Applicant’s “Bear River” Mark .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .‘.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`The'Record Before The TrademarkTrial And Appeal Board . . .
`
`. . .
`
`, .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 8
`
`. 10
`
`. 11
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`‘ A.
`
`The Standard For Summary Judgment
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`B.
`C.i
`
`D.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of Material Fact As To Bear’s Priority .
`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 .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`There Is No Genuine Issue OfMaterial Fact As To Likelihood Of
`' Confusion
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`. . .
`. . .
`. . . . .
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`1.
`
`The BEAR Trademarks are Famous and Strong ‘
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`i
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`1 1
`
`. 12
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 12
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 15
`
`. 16
`
`. 16
`
`“Bear River” Is Substantially Similar To The BEAR Trademarks
`
`.
`
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of Material Fact As To The Identity
`Of The Parties’ Products . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`. . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 18
`
`There Is No Genuine Issue Of Material Fact As To The Identity
`'Of The Trade Channels And Potential Purchasers .
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 19
`
`There Is No Reported Evidence Of Actual Confusion, But
`Applicant’s Purported Sales Of “Bear River” Products Have Not
`Been Open Or Notorious .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`._ . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Extent of Potential Confusion .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.‘.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The Remaining Factors Favor Opposer . .
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`. .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 20
`. 22
`
`. 23
`
`. 24
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`. . .
`
`.. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12554 (2d Cir. 2000) .
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`. . . .
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`Allstate Insurance Co. v. De Libro, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1220 (T.T.A.B. 1988) .
`
`.
`
`. . . . . .
`
`Page
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. . . .
`
`.
`
`. . . . 6
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. . . 21
`
`A1117’, Inc. v. American Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 177 U.S.P.Q. 268
`(C.C.P.A. 1973)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . .
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`. . .
`.
`. .
`. .
`. .
`. . . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 23
`
`.
`
`. . 11
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`Banfif Ltd. v. Federated Dep 't. Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1187
`(2d Cir. 1988) .
`. . .
`.
`.
`. . .
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. ._ . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . 13
`
`Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. A.J. Sheepskin & Leather Outerwear," Inc. et al., 909 F. Supp. 896
`(S.D.N.Y. 1995)
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . .
`. . .
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`. . 5
`
`Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Kim, 71 F. Supp. 2d 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1999),
`afi’d, 2000 U.S. App. D.C. LEXIS (2d Cir. 2000) . . . .
`
`.
`
`.' .
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`. . . . . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`. . . . . 6
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 6
`
`Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. William Kim, et al., 97 civ. 0574 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
`
`Block Drug Co. v. Den-Mat Inc., 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1315 (T.T.A.B. 1989) . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`CBS, Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 U.S.P.Q. 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . . . .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . 20, 21
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 15
`
`Centaur Communications Ltd. v. A/S/M Communications, Inc.,
`830 F.2d 1217, 4 U.S.P.Q. 1541 (2d Cir. 1987) .
`. . . .
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . .1.
`
`. .
`
`. 13
`
`.
`
`. 17, 20
`
`Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life ofAmerica, 970 F.2d 874, 23 U.S.P.Q. 2d
`1698 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`. . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . .
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`Charles ofthe Ritz Group Ltd. v. Quality King Distribs., Inc., 832 F.2d 1317, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d
`1778 (2d Cir. 1987) . . . .
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`. . .
`.
`. . . .
`.
`.
`. . . .
`. . .
`.
`. . . .
`.
`.
`. . . . . . 12
`
`In re Concordia Int’! Forwarding Corp., 222 U.S.P.Q. 355 (T.T.A.B. 1983) .
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 19
`
`Exxon Corp. v. National Foodline Corp., 579 F.2d 1244, I98 U.S.P.Q. 407
`(C.C.P.A 1978) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . ._. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`
`. . . . . .
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 12
`
`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) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 189 U.S.P.Q. 537 (T.T.A.B. 1975)
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . 20
`
`.
`
`. 22
`
`Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation 's Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 U.S.P.Q. 390
`(Fed. Cir. 1983) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`. . . .
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`
`. .
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 14
`
`-
`
`-
`
`

`
`2
`
`I.
`
`a
`
`Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Guardian-Group Gerardi Assocs. Inc., No. 291CV169, 1993
`U.S. Dist LEXIS 19520, at #8, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1465 (D. Conn. Feb. 25, 1993) . .
`
`. . . . . .
`
`I3
`
`Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, S7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1557
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. ..‘ . . . .
`
`.
`
`. . . . . . . . 16
`
`Helene Curtis Indus., Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir. 1977) .
`
`. . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 1, 17
`
`Humana, Inc. v. Humanomics Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1696 (T.T.A.B. 1987) . . . . .
`
`.I.C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`. . 15
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 12
`
`. .
`
`. 21
`
`J.C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960 (CCPA 1965) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign ofthe Beefeater, 540 F.2d 266, 192 U.S.P.Q. 555
`(7th Cir. 1976) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`
`_ Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Prods., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1736 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`. . . . . . 14
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`. 18
`
`.
`
`. 12, 14
`
`Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d.350, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453
`(Fed. Cir. 1992) .. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`. .
`
`. .
`
`Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 230 U.S.P.Q. 831
`(2d Cir. 1986) .
`.
`.
`.v. .
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`. . .
`._ .
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . .
`.
`
`. . . . . . 13, 21
`
`NASDAQ Stock Market Inc. v. Antartica S.r.l., 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1718 (T.T.A.B. 2003) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . . 19
`
`Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Knox Indus. Corp., 277 F.2d 945, 125 U.S.P.Q. 576
`(C.C.P.A. 1960)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .'. . .
`.
`.
`. . . . .
`.
`.
`.- . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`Presto Products, Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895 (TTAB 1988) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . 17
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`. . . . 17
`
`Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., 739 F.2d 624, 222 U.S.P.Q. 741(Fed. Cir. 1984)
`
`. . 11, 12
`
`Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1894 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. . 15
`
`Source Perrier S.A. v. Waters ofSaratoga Springs, Inc., 217 U.S.P.Q. 617
`(S.D.N.Y. 1982)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`. . .
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., Inc., 833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . . .
`
`. . 21
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`. . .
`
`. 11
`
`Specialty Brands Inc. v. Coflee Bean Distribs., Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 223 U.S.P.Q. 1281
`(Fed. Cir. 1984) .
`.
`. . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`. 14, 15
`
`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 U.S. 763, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1081 (1992) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Ultra-White Co. v. Johnson Chemical Industries, Inc., 175 U.S.P.Q. 166 (CCPA 1972) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`- iii-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 15
`
`. 13
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . 21
`
`

`
`In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 U.S.P.Q. 707 (T.T.A.B. 1985) .
`
`.
`
`.‘ . . . .
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`. . . .
`
`l7
`
`Univ. Book Store v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. ofRegents, 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (T.T.A.B. 1994) . .
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ll
`
`Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1840 (Fed.
`Cir. 1990)
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`Q
`. . .
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . .
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`. . .
`
`In re White Swan Ltd, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (T.T.A.B. 1988) .2 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . 15
`
`.
`
`. 16
`
`Rules of Evidence & Procedure
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .‘ . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .. 11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. § 56(a), 37 ......... .
`
`.. ........................................... ..
`
`1
`
`_iv-
`
`

`
`I.
`
`lN'I'RODUCTION
`
`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 “Bear River” for “outerwear” as shown in Application Serial No. 76/631,094, is
`
`confusingly similar to the numerous BEAR trademark registrations owned by Opposer Bear
`
`U.S.A.,
`(“Bear”) and of record here. As such, there is no need for a trial and Bear therefore
`respectfully requests pursuant to Federal llule ofCivil Procedure 56(a), 37 C.F.R §2.l27(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.
`
`II.
`
`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 Afiidavit of
`
`Thomas Hong and the deposition testimony ofCharles Levy, Applicant’s Rule 30(b)f6) witness,
`
`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
`
`Aflidavit 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 and 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 Afi'.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 1| 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 farnily’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. 3,03 8,588 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
`No. 2,282,358 for the mark BEAR and Design; Registration Nos. 2,559,096, 2,700,829, 2,997,379,
`
`2,623,471, and 2,691,242 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;
`
`- and Registration No. 2,276,955 for the mark BEAR U.S.A., Inc. The foregoing trademarks are
`
`hereinafter referred to collectively as the “BEAR Trademarks.” Attached as Exhibits 5-19 to the
`
`Affidavit of Timothy J. Kelly (“Kelly Affi”) 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.
`
`_
`
`ThelBEAR Trademarks are registered for a variety ofgoods, including
`
`jackets. A review of the certificates of registration for the BEAR Trademarks. reflects the fact that
`
`the goods for which the trademarks are registered include, inter alia, “outerwear”.
`
`9,
`
`Copies of photographs of representative samples ofthe products sold
`
`under the BEAR Trademarks are attached hereto as Exhibit 3 to the Hong Affidavit.
`
`10.
`
`One of the products Bear has sold (a “jacket” according to Applicant’s
`
`Rule 30(b)(6) witness Mr. Levy — see Kelly Aff., Exh. 3), used the image of a growling bear as a
`
`design element. Hong Aff. 1] 6, .Exh. 4.
`
`1 1.
`
`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 Afi‘. 1| 7.
`
`12.
`
`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), Traflik (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.
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`14.
`
`Continually, since prior to the February 2005 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.
`
`.
`
`1] 12.
`
`15.
`
`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 aresold. See—Hong Aff. ‘II 13.
`
`16.
`
`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. 1] 13.
`
`17.
`
`The well-known nature and popularity of products carrying the BEAR
`
`A 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 programsas
`
`“The Fresh Prince of Bel Air”; “In The House”; and “New York Undercover. Hong Aff. 1| 18.
`
`18.
`
`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,
`
`SEVENTEEN, DNR, BLAZE, DETAILS, and VIBE. See Hong Afi. 1] 19.
`
`

`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`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 8 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.
`
`2 l.
`
`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.
`
`Hong Aff. 1] 23, Exh. 17.
`
`22.
`
`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. 1] 24; Exh.l8.
`
`23.
`
`As a result of Bear’s extensive sales, advertising, and promotion, as well
`
`as a result of its charitable activities, 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. 1] 21.
`
`24.
`
`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 U.S.A., 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, Exh. 19); Bear U..S'.A., Inc. v. Mike 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 U.S.A., Inc. v. Goose Down USA, Inc., et al., 96 Civ 0761
`
`(permanent injunction entered)(see Hong Aff. 1] 26); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Ben Elias Industries
`
`Corp., 96 Civ. 5515 (preliminary and permanent injunctions entered)(see Hong Afii 1] 26);
`
`25.
`
`In Bear U.S.A., 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 a jury verdict on trademark and
`
`trade dress infringement, resulting in a pennanent injunction and an award of more than $1 million
`
`in damages. Hong Aff. 1] 27.
`
`26.
`
`‘In Bear U.S.A., 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.Afl'. 1| 28, Exh. 20.
`
`27.
`
`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 U.S.A., Inc. v. Won Ho Park,
`
`Opposition No. 106,693 (application for BEAR TAG U.S.A); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Bear-Tec,
`
`Opposition No. 110, 919 (application for BEARGEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Hansei Devel. C0,,
`
`Lta'., Opposition No. 111,371 (application for COLLEGE BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Blessed
`
`Int 7, Inc., Opposition No. 111,451 (application for NORTH BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. American
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`-1
`
`Champion Media, Inc., Opposition No. 117, 798 (application for TACKLE BEAR); Bear U.S'.A.,
`
`Inc. v. Danay Bear & Co., Opposition No. 118,688 (application for DANDY BEAR); Bear U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. v. Famous Stars & Straps, Inc., Opposition No. 91170795 (application for IMABEAR); Bear
`
`U.S.A., Inc. v. Hungry Bear, Opposition No. 91167965 (application for HUNGRY BEAR); Bear
`
`U.S.A., Inc. v. Berge Wassilian, Opposition No. 91166637 (application for BEAR JIG); Bear
`
`U.S.A_., Inc. v. 7040 Entertainment, Inc., Opposition No. 91166386 (application for CEDDY
`
`BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Avi Arad & Associates, LLC, Opposition No. 91165056 (application
`
`for RESCUE BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Calcetera de Occidente, .S'.A. de C. V., Opposition No.
`
`91163369 (application for BLUE BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Calcetera de Occidente, S.A. de
`
`C. V., Opposition No. 91163112 (application for BLUE BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Lindsay
`McCrum, Opposition No. 91162606 (application for BAD BEAR WORLD); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v.
`
`Accessory Network Group, Inc., Opposition No. 91159561 (application for G BEAR & .
`
`FRIENDS); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Fields Caveness, Opposition No. 91159449 (application for
`
`CHEDDAR BEAR); Bear US.A., Inc. v. Sherry Baldwin, Opposition No. 91156969 (application
`for BEECHER BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. A.0. Dangerous, Inc., OppositionNo. 91154828
`
`(application for BEAR INSTINCT); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Mermaid International, Inc., Opposition
`
`No. 91153795 (application for JAGG BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. The Saltzman Group, LLC,
`
`Opposition No. 91153676 (applicationhfor POPPY BEAR); Bear U..S'.A., Inc. v. Milco Industries,
`Inc., Opposition No. 91125372 (application for PI BEAR); Bear U.S.A., 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 U.S.A., Inc. v. Happy
`
`1 Thoughts, LLC, Opposition No. 91121932 (application for HUMMY BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc. v.
`
`‘Sanford J. Starkman, Opposition No. 9119672 (application for SANDY BEAR); Bear U.S.A., Inc.
`
`v. Ryka, Inc., Opposition NOS. 91118466 and 91118516 (applications for BEAR MOUNTAIN
`
`

`
`GEAR BY RYKA); and Bear U.S.A., Inc. v. Dandy Bear & Co., Inc., Opposition No. 91118351
`
`(application for DANDY BEAR). Hong Aff. 1] 29.
`
`1
`
`B.
`
`Applicant’s “Bear River” Mark
`
`28.
`
`Application Serial No. 76/631,094 for the mark “Bear River” was filed in
`
`February, 2005. The application was filed on an intent-to-use basis. Bear has priority.
`
`29.
`
`The mark, “Bear River” contains the root word “Bear”, the common
`
`element of the BEAR Trademarks.
`
`30.
`
`Applicant’s “Bear River” mark is displayed in a manner that emphasizes
`
`the importance of the term BEAR. As shown on the labels identified as Exhibit 6 during the
`
`deposition of Applicant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Charles Levy, “Bear” is shown larger and more
`
`prominently than the “River” element of the mark. See Kelly Aff. 1} 3, Exhs. 2,3 (Levy Deposition,
`
`Exhs. 1. 6>.
`
`
`
`1 31.
`
`Indeed, on one ofthe labels, the term “Bear” appears alone on the portion
`
`that would typically be exposed to the consumer at the point of purchase. Kelly Aff. 1] 2, Exhs. 1,
`
`3 (Levy Deposition Tr. at 77; Exh. 6).
`
`32.
`
`The goods claimed in the application are outerwear, namely, thermal
`
`underwear, sweatshirts, sweat pants, flannel shirts, flannel pajamas, pants, shirts, fleece jackets,
`
`and quilted shirts. Applicant’s goods are the same as or substantially the same as the goods
`
`covered by the BEAR Trademarks. Applicant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, in his deposition,
`
`essentially admittedt
`
`

`
` See Kelly Aff. 11 2. Exh. 1 (Levy
`
`Deposition Tr., p. 1l0).l’
`
`33.
`
`The channels of trade through which Applicant’s Products either do or
`
`will travel are the same as at least some of the channels of trade through which products carrying
`
`the BEAR Trademarks have traveled for many years. For example, as set forth in the Hong
`
`Affidavit, Bear’s products have been sold in Citi Trends and ABC Stores. See Hong Aff. 1] 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`T see Keny Aff. ‘ll 2, Exh. 1<Levy Deposition
`
`Tr., pp. 99-100).
`
`34.
`
`In addition, Applicant’s witness indicated that he might, in the future, sell
`
`to— both retailers who have sold the BEAR®—branded products of Opposer.
`
`Compare Hong Aff. 1] 8, with Kelly Aff. 1] 2, Exh. l (Levy Deposition, pp. 100-01; 113). More
`
`generally, Applicant’s witness indicated that he would sell his product to “as many stores as
`
`possible”; “different types of stores, different locations”, and that “no particular type of store is
`
`excluded” . See Kelly Aff. 1] 2, Exh. l (Levy Deposition Tr., p. 99).
`
`35.
`
`Accordingly, the channels of trade through which Applicant will sell or
`
`has sold its “Bear River” products are the same channels of trade through which Bear’s clothing
`
`products travel and have traveled for many years.
`
`
`
`

`
`36.
`
`The retail price for the parties’ respective products is the same or
`
`substantially similar. Compare Hong Aff. 1] 9 wherein it is explained that BEAR®-branded
`
`products typically sell for between $20 and $220, with Exhibit 6 marked at the deposition of
`Applicant’s Mr. Levy, wherein the “manufacturer’s suggested retail price” for Applicant’s “Bear
`
`River” products runs from $30-$40. Kelly Aff. 1] 3, Exh. 3 (Levy Deposition Exh. 6).
`
`37.
`
` Kelly A_ff. 1[ 2, Exh. 1. (Levy Deposition Tr., 177-
`
`79).
`
`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:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Notice of Opposition; and
`
`Applicant’s Answer.
`
`In addition, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.I27(e), Bear is filing herewith copies of the
`
`following documents:
`
`I
`
`v
`
`-
`
`Affidavit ofThomas B. Hong and Exhibits attached thereto;
`
`Affidavit of Timothy J. Kelly and Exhibits attached thereto consisting of:
`
`(i) selected portions of the deposition transcript of Applicant’s Rule
`
`30(b)(6) witness, Charles Levy; (ii) Exhibit 6 to the Levy Deposition; (iii)
`
`photos of Exhibit 7 to the Levy deposition; and (iv) Certified Status and
`
`Title Copies of 15 trademark registrations owned by Bear USA, Inc.
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Standard For Summary Judgment
`
`The standard for granting summary judgment is well settled. According to Rule
`
`56(c) ofthe 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 ofproving the absencehofa genuine issue offact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`Inc., 477 U.S. 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. ofWis. 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
`
`(“summaryjudgment may no longer be regarded as a disfavored procedural shortcut”)), but the
`
`Board should grant summary judgment where a fiill trial is “urmecessary 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.” Pu