Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1260760
`01/18/2023
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91213597
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Caterpillar, Inc.
`
`NARESH KILARU
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`901 NEW YORK AVENUE NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: docketing@finnegan.com
`Secondary email(s): laura.johnson@finnegan.com, ttab-leg-
`al-assistants@finnegan.com, naresh.kilaru@finnegan.com
`202-408-4000
`
`Brief on Merits for Plaintiff
`
`Naresh Kilaru
`
`docketing@finnegan.com, aura.johnson@finnegan.com, ttab-leg-
`al-assistants@finnegan.com, naresh.kilaru@finnegan.com
`
`/Naresh Kilaru/
`
`01/18/2023
`
`2023.01.18 REDACTED - Opposer's Trial Brief - PUBLIC FILING_Redacted.
`pdf(4637568 bytes )
`Exhibit A - Combined.pdf(2386565 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Opposition No. 91213597
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`Application No. 85/814,584
`
`Mark: TIGERCAT
`Filing Date: January 3, 2013
`
`OPPOSER’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`REDACTED
`
`Date: January 18, 2023
`
`Naresh Kilaru
`Laura K. Johnson
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`
`docketing@finnegan.com
`naresh.kilaru@finnegan.com
`laura.johnson@finnegan.com
`TTAB-Legal-Assistants@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Caterpillar Inc.
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Caterpillar’s Evidence ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Tigercat’s Evidence ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Caterpillar’s Rebuttal Testimony ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`IV.
`
`CATERPILLAR’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS .................................................................................. 5
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Caterpillar and Its CAT Trademark ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Use of the CAT Mark on Machinery, Products, and Services ....................................................... 6
`
`Caterpillar Owns Numerous Registrations for Its CAT Mark ...................................................... 8
`
`D.
`
`The CAT Mark Is Among the Most Famous Marks in the World ............................................. 10
`
`1.
`
`Caterpillar Has Sold Hundreds of Billions of Dollars of Products and
`Services Under Its CAT Mark ........................................................................................... 10
`
`2.
`
`Caterpillar Has Extensively Advertised Its CAT Mark .................................................. 11
`
`Strong Consumer Awareness for the CAT Brand ......................................................................... 23
`
`Third Parties Rank CAT as One of the Most Famous Brands in the World ............................ 24
`
`Caterpillar Aggressively Protects Its Marks .................................................................................... 25
`
`District Courts and the TTAB Have Found the CAT Mark Is Famous ................................... 26
`
`The TIGERCAT Application and Corresponding Use ............................................................... 27
`
`Caterpillar’s Survey Evidence Confirms that a Likelihood of Confusion Exists ..................... 28
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`VI.
`
`CATERPILLAR HAS A STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION ............................................................. 29
`
`VII.
`
`CATERPILLAR HAS PRIORITY OF REGISTRATION AND USE ................................................. 30
`
`VIII. CONFUSION IS LIKELY BETWEEN THE CAT AND TIGERCAT MARKS .............................. 31
`
`A.
`
`The Indisputable Fame of the CAT Mark Overwhelmingly Supports a Finding of
`Likelihood of Confusion .................................................................................................................... 31
`
`i
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`The CAT and TIGERCAT Marks Are Highly Similar in Overall Commercial
`Impression............................................................................................................................................ 33
`
`The Parties’ Goods Are Identical and Will Be Sold to the Same Consumers Through
`the Same Trade Channels .................................................................................................................. 36
`
`Tigercat’s Limited Evidence of Third-Party Use Does Not Meaningfully Impact the
`Strength of the CAT Brand ............................................................................................................... 39
`
`The Parties’ Consumers Can Be Unsophisticated Buyers and/or Their Products Can
`Be Purchased Hastily .......................................................................................................................... 40
`
`Survey Evidence Confirms a Significant Number of Consumers Are Confused
`Between the CAT and TIGERCAT Marks .................................................................................... 42
`
`In Addition to Caterpillar’s Survey Evidence, Tigercat Has Acknowledged At Least
`One Inquiry That May Be Evidence of Actual Confusion .......................................................... 42
`
`Tigercat Cannot Rely Upon the TIGERCAT Registration or Its Prior Use of the
`TIGERCAT Mark .............................................................................................................................. 43
`
`Any Doubt Concerning Likelihood of Confusion Should be Resolved in
`Caterpillar’s Favor ............................................................................................................................... 44
`
`IX.
`
`THE TIGERCAT MARK IS DILUTING THE CAT MARK ................................................................ 44
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The CAT Mark Is Inherently Distinctive ........................................................................................ 44
`
`The CAT Mark Has Achieved Widespread Fame ......................................................................... 45
`
`The TIGERCAT Mark Is Likely to Lessen the Capacity of the CAT Mark to
`Identify Caterpillar’s Goods and Services ....................................................................................... 45
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Amer. Express Marketing & Dev. Corp. v. Tung B. Vo,
`Opposition No. 91230559, 2018 WL 6650136 (TTAB Dec. 13, 2018) ........................................................... 45
`
`AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Dent Zone Cos.,
`100 USPQ2d 1356 (TTAB 2011) ............................................................................................................................ 32
`
`Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods.,
`293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................. 31, 32, 35
`
`Cartier, Inc. v. Deziner Wholesale, L.L.C.,
`2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4157 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2000) ........................................................................................ 24
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Big Cat Energy,
`2014 TTAB LEXIS 559 (TTAB Sept. 3, 2014) .............................................................................................. 26, 39
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Kelly,
`2015 TTAB LEXIS 407 (TTAB Sept. 30, 2015) ..................................................................................... 26, 35, 41
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Pave Tech, Inc.,
`Cancellation No. 92041776, TTAB Order (Mar. 12, 2007) .......................................................................... 26, 39
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Telescan Techs., LLC,
`No. Civ. A. 00-1111, 2002 WL 1301304 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2002) .............................................................. 26, 45
`
`Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Gehl Co.,
`177 USPQ 343 (TTAB 1973) ................................................................................................................... 126, 35, 40
`
`Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Katrak Vehicle Co.,
`172 USPQ 409 (TTAB 1971) .................................................................................................................................. 27
`
`Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
`101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................................ 44
`
`Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC,
`978 F.3d 1298, 2020 USPQ2d 11277 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 210 L. Ed. 2d 833
`(2021) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29
`
`In re Davey Prods.,
`92 USPQ2d 1198 (TTAB 2009) .............................................................................................................................. 40
`
`In re Decombe,
`9 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 1988) ................................................................................................................................ 41
`
`In re Dixie Rests., Inc.,
`105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 31
`
`In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) ................................................................................................. 31, 33
`
`iii
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`In re Elbaum,
`211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981) ............................................................................................................................ 36, 38
`
`General Mills, Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. S.A.,
`100 USPQ2d 1584 (TTAB 2011) ............................................................................................................................ 42
`
`Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc.,
`218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............................................................................................................................. 35
`
`H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Schmidiger,
`Opp. No. 91223860, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 61 (TTAB Feb. 23, 2018) ............................................................... 33
`
`H.D. Lee Co. v. Maidenform Inc.,
`87 USPQ2d 1715 (TTAB 2008) .............................................................................................................................. 43
`
`Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.,
`236 F.3d 1333, 57 USPQ2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................. 31
`
`Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem Corp.,
`111 USPQ2d 1419 (TTAB 2014) ............................................................................................................................ 32
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc.,
`281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................. 38
`
`Honda Motor Co. v. Indep. Cycle, Inc.,
`Opposition No. 91218067, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 402 (TTAB Aug. 15, 2016) ................................................. 41
`
`Hunter Indus., Inc. v. Toro Co.,
`110 USPQ2d 1651 (TTAB 2014) ...................................................................................................................... 42, 45
`
`In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC,
`126 USPQ2d 1742 (TTAB 2018) ............................................................................................................................ 33
`
`In re Integrated Embedded,
`120 USPQ2d 1504 (TTAB 2016) ............................................................................................................................ 34
`
`Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus.,
`963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................. 35
`
`Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. H. Douglas Enters.,
`774 F.2d 1144, 227 USPQ 541 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................... 32
`
`Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp.,
`82 USPQ2d 1100 (TTAB 2007) .............................................................................................................................. 40
`
`In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd.,
`93 USPQ2d 1243 (TTAB 2010) .............................................................................................................................. 35
`
`In re Mighty Leaf Tea,
`94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................................................... 35
`
`iv
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Miles Labs, Inc. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements, Inc.,
`1 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 1986) ................................................................................................................................ 42
`
`NASDAQ Stock Mkt. Inc. v. Antartica S.r.l.,
`69 USPQ2d 1718 (TTAB 2003) .............................................................................................................................. 44
`
`Nautica Apparel, Inc. v. Martanna LLC,
`2010 TTAB LEXIS 20 (TTAB Jan. 22, 2010) ...................................................................................................... 32
`
`New Era Cap Co. v. Pro Era, LLC,
`2020 USPQ2d 10596 (TTAB 2020) ....................................................................................................................... 30
`
`Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enters., Inc.,
`889 F.2d 1070, 12 USPQ2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................. 32
`
`Octocom Sys. v. Houston Comp. Servs.,
`918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990)................................................................................................. 39
`
`Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772,
`73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Lloyd Design Corp.,
`Civil Action No. 1:99-CV-1560A-JEC, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9612 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 26,
`2002) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 24
`
`ProQuest Info. & Learning Co. v. Jacques R. Island,
`83 USPQ2d 1351 (TTAB 2007) .............................................................................................................................. 32
`
`Rec. Equip., Inc. v. fit GmbH,
`2018 TTAB LEXIS 30 (TTAB Jan. 31, 2018) ...................................................................................................... 32
`
`Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton,
`54 USPQ2d 1894 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Research in Motion Ltd. v. Defining Presence Mktg. Grp., Inc.,
`102 USPQ2d 1187 (TTAB 2012) ............................................................................................................................ 46
`
`In re Research Trading Corp.,
`793 F.2d 1276, 230 USPQ 49 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ..................................................................................................... 40
`
`Sara Lee Corp. v. Mahmoud,
`Opp. No. 91162134, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 147 (TTAB Dec. 27, 2007) ............................................................ 42
`
`In re Shell Oil Co.,
`992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................................. 44
`
`Stone Lion Cap. Partners, L.P. v. Lion Cap. LLP,
`746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................... 34, 36
`
`Tiffany & Co. v. Classic Motor Carriages, Inc.,
`10 USPQ2d 1835 (TTAB 1989) .............................................................................................................................. 24
`
`v
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Toro Co. v. ToroHead Inc.,
`61 USPQ2d 1164 (TTAB 2001) .............................................................................................................................. 44
`
`In re Total Quality Grp. Inc.,
`51 USPQ2d 1474 (TTAB 1999) .............................................................................................................................. 41
`
`Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc.,
`648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986 (CCPA 1981) ....................................................................................................... 33
`
`U.S. Polo Ass’n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.,
`800 F. Supp. 2d 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d, 2013 WL 490796 (2d Cir. 2013) ................................................ 42
`
`Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. JSL Corp.,
`533 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (D. Nev. 2007) .................................................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Viterra Inc.,
`101 USPQ2d 1905 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................................ 35
`
`Zirco Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`21 USPQ.2d 1542, 1544-45 ..................................................................................................................................... 30
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`15 U.S.C. §§ 1057 ........................................................................................................................................................ 30, 44
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1115(b) ........................................................................................................................................................... 44
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1063 ................................................................................................................................................................ 29
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127 ................................................................................................................................................................ 44
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) ....................................................................................................................................................... 2, 44
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30(b)(6) ............................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 CFR § 2.122(b) ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`4 J. Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 23:45
`(5th ed. 2022) ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
`
`6 J. Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION §
`32:158 (5th ed., March 2022 update) ...................................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`vi
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For more than a century, Caterpillar has been a leader in manufacturing machines that provide
`
`sustainable solutions for building the world’s infrastructure. The cornerstone of the company’s brand
`
`portfolio—the CAT mark—has been in use for more than seventy years and has undoubtedly become one of
`
`the most iconic brands in the world. The Board has repeatedly recognized the brand’s widespread recognition
`
`and fame not only for industrial machinery (which is at issue here), but also across the general public.1
`
`In 1999, Tigercat registered U.S. Registration No. 2,275,249 for the mark TIGERCAT limited to
`
`“specialized power-operated forestry equipment” (the “TIGERCAT Registration”). Any attempt by Tigercat to
`
`hide behind the TIGERCAT Registration in this proceeding must fail because Tigercat pled no affirmative
`
`defenses or counterclaims relating to that registration. Moreover, the opposed U.S. Application No. 85814584
`
`for the mark TIGERCAT (the “TIGERCAT Application”) covers goods that are materially different, specifically
`
`“off road industrial vehicles” without any industry-specific limitations. The TIGERCAT Application would
`
`significantly expand Tigercat’s rights in the TIGERCAT mark to cover machines in new and distinct fields—like
`
`construction, oil & gas, and mining that are core to Caterpillar’s business.
`
`The TIGERCAT mark incorporates the famous CAT mark in its entirety and merely adds the similar
`
`term “tiger” (a type of cat). There can be no question that CAT and TIGERCAT are highly similar in
`
`connotation and overall commercial impression. Further, the goods at issue as described in the parties’
`
`identifications are identical and overlapping, target the same consumers, and offered in the same trade channels.
`
`In view of these facts, the record establishes that TIGERCAT is likely to cause confusion with and dilute the
`
`famous CAT mark, and Caterpillar’s opposition should be sustained.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Whether Tigercat’s TIGERCAT mark so resembles Caterpillar’s inherently distinctive, strong,
`
`and famous CAT mark as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception under Section 2(d) of the
`
`Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d).
`
`1 See infra Section V.H.
`
`
`
`1
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Whether Tigercat’s TIGERCAT mark is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the CAT mark
`
`under Section 43(c) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
`
`Ill.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`A.
`
`Caterpillar’s Evidence
`
`1.
`
`Testimony Declarations
`
`Caterpillar has submitted testimony from the following witnesses via declaration:
`
`)
`102
`
`2.
`
`Notices of Reliance
`
`Caterpillar filed the following Notices of Reliance during its testimony period:
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`erpillar’s active registrations for CAT and CAT-formative marks
`Caterpillar’s enforcementactivities against domain names containing the CAT mark
`before the National Arbitration Forum, World Intellectual Property Organization, and
`Forum Arbitration Mediation International
`Excerpts from Tigercat’s responses to Caterpillar’s First, Second, and Third Sets of
`Requests for Admissions
`Deposition excerpts from the June 8, 2016 discovery deposition of Tigercat Fed. R.
`6) witness Anthony
`i
`Official decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and U.S. federal district
`courts relating to opposer’s enforcement of the CAT mark
`Excerpts from Tigercat’s responses to Caterpillar’s First and Third Sets of
`Interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33d)
`Deposition excerpts from theJune10, 2016 discovery deposition ofTigercat Fed. R.
`
`133
`
`134
`
`138
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`
`Testimonial Affidavit of Max Martin, Distribution and Marketing Manager for General
`Construction for Caterpillar, with Exhibits 1-11, discussing the fame,use, sales,
`commercial success, and customers of the famous CAT mark and products
`Testimonial Affidavit of industry expert Roy Chipley, owner of Chipley Company, with
`Exhibits A-E, discussing uses of CAT products
`Confidential and Public Testimonial Affidavit of Samuel Cooper, Market Development
`Manager at Caterpillar, with Exhibits A-D, discussing the advertising, sales and
`commercial success of the famous CAT mark and products
`Corrected Testimonial Affidavit of Max Martin, Distribution and Marketing Manager for|106
`General Construction for Caterpillar, with Exhibits 1-11, discussing the fame, use, sales,
`commercial success, and customers of the famous CAT mark and products
`Confidential and Public Testimonial Affidavit of Diane Lantz-Rickard, Global Brand
`Identity Manager at Caterpillar, with Exhibits 1-41, discussing, the history, fame, use,
`promotion, sales, and commercial success of the famous CAT mark and products
`Confidential and Public Testimonial Affidavit ofJimmie L. Brown, employee of Premier|124-125
`Confidential Investigations Inc., with Exhibits 1-3, concerning photographs of Tigercat
`equipment taken in Montgomery, Alabama
`
`103
`
`104-105
`
`107-115
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Printed books available to the general public in libraries or in general circulation
`members of the public supporting the fame of the CAT mark
`
`public association of Caterpillar with the term “BIG CAT”
`
`Representative sample of unsolicited articles from printed publications regarding the
`
`3.
`
`Cross-Examination Testimony of Tigercat Witnesses on Written
`Questions
`
`Caterpillar has submitted the following transcripts of cross-examination testimony from Tigercat
`
`witnesses:
`
`Witness
`
`Confidential - 221; Public - 222 Anthony Tarocci
`
`B.
`
`Tigercat’s Evidence
`
`The file history of Tigercat’s TIGERCAT Application is automatically of record. 37 CFR § 2.122(b).
`
`1.
`
`Testimony Declarations
`
`Tigercat has submitted testimony from the following witnesses via declaration:
`
`7
`First Testimony Affidavit of Anthony Iarocci, Director of Tigercat Industries, Inc., with|14
`Exhibits A-E
`Public and Confidential Testimony Declaration of Mandi O’Brien, Vice President of
`Finance for Tigercat Industries, Inc.
`First Testimony Affidavit of Paul Iarocci, Communications Manager & Dealer
`Developmentfor Tigercat Industries, Inc., with Exhibits A-E
`First Testimony Affidavit of Kevin Selby, U.S. Sales Manager for Tigercat Industries,
`Inc., with Exhibits A-E
`
`148-149
`
`150-155
`
`
` TESSprintouts of third- party registrations
`
`172
`
`2.
`
`Notices of Reliance
`
`Tigercatfiled the following unnumbered Notices of Reliance during its testimony period:
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`1ee167 ;
`
`160
`
`=163
`
`168-169
`170-171
`
`Printouts from Tigercat website
`Dictionary definition for “tiger cat”
`USPTOrecords for Registration No. 2275249
`
`i
`pril 27, 2016 deposition ofRoy
`Confidential and Public excerpts from the February 19, 2016 deposition ofKurtTisdale
`
`Confidential and Public excerpts from the May 5, 2016 deposition of Max Martin
`
`ary 18, 2016 deposition of Ed Stembridge
`Confidential and Public excerpts from the August 26, 2016 deposition of Samuel Cooper
`
`3.
`
`Oral Cross-Examination Testimony of Caterpillar Testimonial
`Witnesses
`
`Tigercat has submitted the following transcripts of cross-examination testimony from Caterpillar
`
`witnesses:
`
`128-129
`
`Roy Chipley
`
`Cc.
`
`Caterpillar’s Rebuttal Testimony
`
`1.
`
`Caterpillar’s Rebuttal Testimony Declarations
`
`Caterpillar has submitted rebuttal testimony from the following witnesses via declaration:
`
`Caterpillar Rebuttal Witness
`Public and Confidential Testimonial Affidavit of Samuel Cooper, Marketing Effectiveness,
`Analytics and Insights Manager at Caterpillar, with Exhibits A-H, discussing Caterpillar’s
`advertising, sales, and enforcementactivities
`
`Rebuttal Testimony Affidavit of survey expert Hal Poret, with Appendices A-D, responding to certain portions of the testimony of Anthony Iarocci, Paul Iarocci, and Kevin Selby
`
`2.
`
`Caterpillar’s Rebuttal Notices of Reliance
`
`Caterpillar filed the following rebuttal Notices of Reliance during its rebuttal testimony period:
`
`
`
`oppositions filed since 2019 against applications containing “CAT”and covering
`Class 7 and/or 12 goods
`Caterpillar’s enforcementactivities against domain namescontaining the CAT
`mark before the National Arbitration Forum, World Intellectual Property
`Organization, and Forum Arbitration Mediation International since 2019
`Variousdictionary definitions and website printouts showing the definitions of
`“TIGERCAT”andthird-party references relied upon by Tige
`Various printouts from the Tigercat website and websites discussing Tigercat’s
`activities showing the meaning<of“purpose-built” prime movers and the
`
`relatedness of the parties’ goods
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Website printout discussing purchaser care with respect to off-road Sadectrial
`
`page
`
`equipment
`
`212
`
`the meaning and commercial impression of the CAT and TIGERCAT marks
`
`Printouts from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s TESS and TSDR databases|220
`showing cancelled or amendedthird-party registrations containing “CAT”relied
`upon by Tigercat
`Representative sample of Caterpillar’s and its dealers’ webpages and social media
`webpages
`Representative sample of unsolicited articles that reference Caterpillar and its
`“CAT”’-branded products
`Various printed books, dictionary definitions, and website printouts pertaining to
`
`214
`
`215
`
`213
`
`IV.
`
`CATERPILLAR’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
`
`Caterpillar’s evidentiary objections to Tigercat’s submissions are attached as Appendix A. Further, with
`
`respect to anypleadings, oral testimony, or accompanying exhibits on which Tigercat seeks to rely, Caterpillar
`
`incorporates by reference all objections it made on the record in connection with such
`
`pleadings/testimony/exhibits.
`
`Vv.
`
`STATEMENTOF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Caterpillar and Its CAT Trademark
`
`Caterpillar adopted the CAT brandin 1949 andit has continuously used and promoted the CAT mark
`
`as its primary brand namesincethat time. (112 TTABVUE 3.) While CATERPILLAR is used to identify the
`
`company, the CAT mark is the brand name under which the vast majority of products and services are sold. (105
`
`TTABVUE 3.) After more than seventy years in use, the CAT brand represents the cornerstone of the
`
`company’s brand portfolio. (112 TTABVUE 3.)
`
`In an iconic momentin 1969, CAT-branded generators powered the communications systems between
`
`NASAandthe Apollo 11 spacecraft, making it possible for people on earth to hear Neil Armstrong’s first words
`
`from the moon (112 TTABVUE3-4):
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`
`Since at least as early as the 1960s and continuing to the present day, CAT-branded machines and
`
`products have been an integral part of day-to-day life in America. (112 TTABVUE 3-4.) CAT-branded machines
`
`and products have been used in virtually every large-scale public works and construction project in the United
`
`States, from laying the U.S. interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s, to building the massive World
`
`Trade Center complex in the 1960s-1970s, to laying the infrastructure needed for the 2002 Winter Olympic
`
`Games in Utah, to rescue and rebuilding efforts during Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina in 1989, Hurricane
`
`Andrew in Florida in 1992, and Hurricane Harvey in Texas in 2017. (112 TTABVUE 4-7.)
`
`B.
`
`Use of the CAT Mark on Machinery, Products, and Services
`
`
`
`
`
`For decades, the CAT mark has symbolized the durability and dependability of Caterpillar’s machinery,
`
`products, and services across a wide range of industries including agriculture, construction, demolition, forestry,
`
`industrial power, landscaping, marine power, material handling, mining, national defense, oil & gas, paving,
`
`power plants, and waste management. (211 TTABVUE 51-52; 102 TTABVUE 2-8.)
`
`6
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`
`
`With respect to its construction division, Caterpillar, directly or via its independent dealers (now around
`
`50 in the U.S. with names such as MILTON CAT, MICHIGAN CAT, and LOUISIANA CAT), offers a wide
`
`range of CAT-branded machines includ