Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA950191
`
`Filing date:
`
`01/25/2019
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91226322
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Plaintiff
`Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`DIANE B MELNICK
`POWLEY & GIBSON PC
`304 HUDSON ST 2ND FLOOR
`NEW YORK, NY 10013
`UNITED STATES
`trademarks@powleygibson.com, dbmelnick@powleygibson.com,
`thcurtin@powleygibson.com, smmorales@powleygibson.com
`212-226-5054
`
`Brief on Merits for Plaintiff
`
`Suzanna M. M. Morales
`
`smmorales@powleygibson.com, thcurtin@powleygibson.com
`
`/suzanna m m morales/
`
`01/25/2019
`
`Attachments
`
`Lupin - Ampel - trial brief FINAL PUBLIC.pdf(475169 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`-----------------------------------------------------x
`LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`
` Opposer,
`
`Opposition No. 91226322
`
`v.
`
`
`
`AMPEL, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`------------------------------------------------------x
`
`
`TRIAL BRIEF OF OPPOSER
`LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................... 1
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................... 1
`
`III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ............................................................................ 3
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`OPPOSER’S WELL-KNOWN LUPIN BRAND ...................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Origins of Opposer’s LUPIN Mark and Entry into the U.S. Market ............ 7
`
`Opposer’s Valid Federal Registrations for the Mark LUPIN ........................ 8
`
`Opposer’s Sale of a Wide Variety of Pharmaceutical Products ..................... 9
`
`Opposer’s Extensive Promotion and Advertising of the LUPIN Mark ....... 12
`
`Opposer’s Enforcement of its LUPIN Mark .................................................. 14
`
`The Resulting Success of the LUPIN Brand ................................................... 15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`APPLICANT’S CLAIMED MARK LUPPIN ......................................................... 16
`
`APPLICANT’S CLAIMED “USE” OF ITS MARK .............................................. 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Formation of Applicant Ampel, LLC ............................................................. 17
`
`“Patient Partner” Programs ............................................................................ 18
`
`The Inception of Applicant’s Patient Partner Program ................................ 18
`
`Applicant’s Selection and Inconsistent Use of the Claimed LuPPiN Mark 19
`
`Claimed “First Use” of the LuPPiN Mark ..................................................... 20
`
`The Market for Applicant’s Services .............................................................. 24
`
`D.
`
`SYMPTOMS AND TREATMENT OF LUPUS...................................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Common Signs and Symptoms of Lupus ........................................................ 26
`
`Demographics of Lupus Patients ..................................................................... 27
`
`Current Treatment Options ............................................................................. 27
`
`Drug Repurposing ............................................................................................. 28
`
`Provision of Educational and Support Group Services by Pharmaceutical
`Companies ......................................................................................................... 30
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 33
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`OPPOSER HAS STANDING AND PRIORITY ..................................................... 33
`
`REGISTRATION OF APPLICANT’S MARK LUPPIN WOULD CREATE A
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION ............................................................................ 34
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Marks Are Virtually Identical ................................................................. 34
`
`The Parties’ Trade Channels and Classes of Purchasers Overlap ............... 37
`
`The Parties Target the Same Classes of Purchasers ............................................. 37
`
`The Channels of Trade Overlap .............................................................................. 38
`
`The Goods and Services of the Parties Are Closely Related................................. 41
`
`Opposer’s Mark Is Strong and Entitled to a Broad Scope of Protection .... 42
`
`The Relevant Consumers Are Not Particularly Sophisticated and Will Not
`Take Inordinate Care to Differentiate Between Marks ................................ 45
`
`Actual Confusion Is Difficult to Find and Not Required .............................. 46
`
`A Likelihood of Confusion Would Result in Great Harm to the LUPIN
`Brand .................................................................................................................. 46
`
`C.
`
`APPLICANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES DO NOT MITIGATE AGAINST
`A LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION ........................................................................ 49
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 49
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Apple Computer v. TVNET.net, Inc.,
`90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1393, 1396 (T.T.A.B. 2007) .............................................................................. 35, 42
`
`B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus.,
`135 S. Ct. 1293, 1300, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 2045, 2049 (2015) ............................................................ 39
`
`B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Rodriguez,
`83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1500, 1508 (T.T.A.B. 2007) .................................................................................... 36
`
`Central Garden & Pet Co. v. Doskocil Manu. Co.,
`108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1134, 1139 (T.T.A.B. 2013) .................................................................................. 34
`
`Christian Broad. Network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN Int’l,
`84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1560, 1569 (T.T.A.B. 2007) .................................................................................... 36
`
`Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Fage Dairy Proc. Indus. S.A.,
`100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1584, 1600 (T.T.A.B. 2014) .................................................................................. 45
`
`Humana Inc. v. Humanomics Inc.,
`3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1696, 1697 n.5 (TTAB 1987) .................................................................................... 49
`
`In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Corp.,
`222 U.S.P.Q. 355, 355 (T.T.A.B. 1983) .......................................................................................... 42
`
`In re Cook Med. Tech. LLC,
`105 U.S.P.Q.2d 1377, 1381-82 (T.T.A.B. 2012) ............................................................................. 49
`
`In re Detroit Ath. Co.,
`903 F.3d 1297, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................. 40
`
`In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ....................................................................................................... 34
`
`In re Gina Davia,
`110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1810, 1814-1815 (T.T.A.B. 2014) ......................................................................... 43
`
`In re i.am.symbolic, llc,
`866 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................. 40
`
`Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp.,
`82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1100, 1111 (T.T.A.B. 2007) ........................................................................ 37, 41, 42
`
`Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp.,
`369 F.3d 700, 717 (3d Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 45
`
`Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.,
`719 F.3d 1367, 1373, 107 USPQ2d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................... 37
`
`Mighty Leaf Tea,
`601 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................. 44
`
`Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC,
`118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1464, 1469 (T.T.A.B. 2016) .................................................................................. 35
`
`Paris Glove of Canada, Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp.,
`84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1856, 1861-62 (T.T.A.B. 2007) ............................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Pix of America, Inc.,
`225 U.S.P.Q. 691, 691 (T.T.A.B. 1985) .......................................................................................... 37
`
`RSI Sys., LLC,
`88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1445, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 64, *6-*7 (T.T.A.B. 2008) ............................................ 35
`
`Seacret Spa Int’l v. Lee,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29611, *11 (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2016) .................................................... 36, 39
`
`Shell Oil Co.,
`992 F.2d 1204, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................................. 49
`
`Stockpot, Inc. v. Stock Pot Restaurant, Inc.,
`220 U.S.P.Q. 52, 55 (T.T.A.B. 1983) .............................................................................................. 36
`
`Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP,
`746 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 45
`
`Time Warner Enter. Co., LP v. Jones,
`65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1650, 2002 WL 1628168 at *10 (T.T.A.B. 2002) ................................................. 46
`
`TiVo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC,
`2018 TTAB LEXIS 439, at *18 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018) .............................................................. 34
`
`Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. IJR Capital Invs., L.L.C.,
`891 F.3d 178, 194, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 2018) ............................................................... 48
`
`Weider Pubs., LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., LLC,
`109 U.S.P.Q.2d 1347, 1359 (T.T.A.B. 2014) .................................................................................. 41
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1051(a) ............................................................................................................................. 16
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) ............................................................................................................................. 49
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1065 .................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`TBMP § 704.03(a) ............................................................................................................................... 36
`
`TBMP § 801.03 .................................................................................................................................... 16
`
`TMEP §§ 1609.02(a) ........................................................................................................................... 35
`
`TMEP §§ 807.03 .................................................................................................................................. 35
`
`TMEP §§ 807.03(d) ............................................................................................................................. 35
`
`TMEP §§ 807.14 .................................................................................................................................. 35
`
`TMEP 1207.01(c)(iii) .......................................................................................................................... 35
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 20:15 (4th ed.) ........................................ 40
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) ........................................................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`For over 13 years, Opposer has been providing a full line of pharmaceutical products to
`
`the trade and public under its federally-registered mark LUPIN. Applicant seeks to register the
`
`nearly-identical mark LuPPiN for educational and support group services focusing on treatment
`
`options and clinical trials relating to the disease Lupus. The educational and support group
`
`services covered by Applicant’s application are (or will be) offered to the same or similar
`
`consumer groups, in overlapping channels of trade, as Opposer’s LUPIN brand pharmaceutical
`
`products that may be indicated for the treatment of common symptoms of Lupus. Applicant’s
`
`registration and use of its claimed mark LuPPiN is likely to cause confusion with Opposer’s
`
`strong and incontestable mark. Applicant’s Application Serial No. 86/509,184 should be refused
`
`registration under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`On January 21, 2015 Ampel LLC (“Applicant” or “Ampel”) filed an application, Serial
`
`No. 86/509,184 to register the mark LuPPiN on the Principal Register under Section 1(a) of the
`
`Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a). When filed, the services recited in the application were:
`
`developing and coordinating a network of caregivers, patients and patient advocates to provide
`
`assistance and support to Lupus patients, namely, educating Lupus patients about Lupus and
`
`treatment options, assisting Lupus patients to facilitate communications with their healthcare
`
`providers and providing support services to Lupus patients in the healthcare setting and Lupus
`
`patients participating in clinical trials.
`
`Applicant claimed a date of first use November 17, 2014 for the listed services in Class
`
`45. Applicant subsequently amended its application in response to an office action issued on
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`April 27, 2015 to include Class 41. See infra § IV.B. The application was published for
`
`opposition on August 18, 2015.
`
`On September 4, 2015, Opposer timely filed a request for extension of time to oppose,
`
`which was granted through to December 16, 2015. On December 14, 2015, Opposer timely filed
`
`a second request for extension of time to oppose, which was granted through to February 14,
`
`2016. As February 14, 2016 was a Sunday and Monday, February 15, 2016, was a federal
`
`holiday, Opposer timely filed its Notice of Opposition on February 16, 2016.
`
`As grounds for the opposition, Opposer stated that it would be damaged by registration of
`
`Applicant’s mark because Applicant’s proposed trademark LuPPiN so resembles the federally-
`
`registered LUPIN trademarks of Opposer in appearance, sound, and commercial impression as to
`
`be likely, when applied to Applicant’s services, to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to
`
`deceive. 1 TTABVUE 5. Applicant filed its Answer to Opposer’s Notice of Opposition on March
`
`24, 2016, denying all salient allegations and asserting two affirmative defenses: “The goods
`
`and/or services offered by Applicant under the Mark and the goods and/or services offered by
`
`Opposer under the LUPIN mark are distinct and marketed to different consumers who will not be
`
`confused by any alleged similarity between them;” and 2) “There is no likelihood of confusion,
`
`mistake, or deception because, inter alia, the Mark and the Opposer’s marks are not confusing
`
`[sic] similar.” 4 TTABVUE 3.
`
`Opposer served its first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents
`
`and things on August 31, 2016 and Applicant served its responses on October 17, 2016,
`
`including unverified answers to Opposer’s interrogatories. On December 2, 2016, Applicant
`
`served a verification to its answer to Opposer’s first set of interrogatories, along with
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`supplemental responses to both Opposer’s interrogatories and requests for production. On
`
`October 27, 2016, Opposer served its second set of interrogatories and requests for production,
`
`and Applicant responded on December 2, 2016. Also on December 2, 2016, Applicant served its
`
`first set of interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission to Opposer. After the
`
`parties agreed to extensions of discovery and trial deadlines, Opposer served its responses to
`
`Applicant’s first set of discovery requests on March 6, 2017. Opposer served a supplemental
`
`response to Applicant’s interrogatories, with verification on March 8, 2017. On September 15,
`
`2017, Opposer served its first set of requests for admission. On September 26 through 28, 2017,
`
`Opposer took the depositions of Applicant’s co-founders and principals Drs. Peter Lipsky and
`
`Amrie Grammer, as well as the deposition of Applicant under Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
`
`with Dr. Lipsky testifying as Applicant’s sole corporate designee. On October 16, 2017,
`
`Applicant served its second supplemental responses to Opposer’s requests for production, along
`
`with Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s first set of requests for admission. On October 18, 2017,
`
`Opposer served its third set of requests for production. On November 17, 2017, Opposer served
`
`its second amended responses to Applicant’s first set of interrogatories, with verification, and
`
`Applicant served its responses to Opposer’s third set of requests for production. Discovery
`
`closed November 17, 2017.
`
`III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`
`Opposer relies upon the materials submitted in its Notice of Reliance filed on August 9, 2018
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.120(k), 2.122(d), and 2.122(e). The Notice of Reliance includes:
`• Opposer’s Reg. Nos. 4,024,405 and 4,874,579, together with the Combined
`Declaration of Use and Incontestability and acceptance/acknowledgement of same
`for Reg. No. 4,024,4052 (Exhs. A, B);
`• Respondent’s Answers to Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories for Interrogatory
`Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16, with verification (Exh. C);
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`• Respondent’s Supplemental Answers to Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories for
`Interrogatory Nos. 11, 12, 20, and 21, with verification (Exh. D);
`• Respondent’s Answers to Opposer’s Second Set of Interrogatories, with
`verification (Exh. E);
`• Ampel LLC’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Requests for Admission for
`Request Nos. 1, 3-13, 20-32, 34-38, 40-50, 55-56, 63-68, and 72-73 (Exh. F);
`• Respondent’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Requests for Production of
`Documents for Request Nos. 3, 9-11, and 17-18 (Exh. G);
`• Respondent’s Supplemntal [sic] Responses to Requests for Production of
`Documents for Request Nos. 12-14 (Exh. H);
`• Respondent’s Responses to Opposer’s Second Set of Requests for Production of
`Documents for Request Nos. 3 and 5 (Exh. I);
`• Respondent’s Responses to Opposer’s Third Set of Requests for Production of
`Documents for Request Nos. 2, 4, and 5 (Exh. J);
`
`•
`
`•
`
`relevant excerpts from the discovery deposition of Peter Lipsky, M.D. and
`exhibits thereto (Exh. K and sub-parts);
`
`relevant excerpts from the discovery deposition of Amrie Grammer, Ph.D. and
`exhibits thereto (Exh. L and sub-parts);
`
`•
`
`the discovery deposition of Applicant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee Peter
`Lipsky, M.D. (Exh. M);
`• copies of a representative sample of articles gathered from the NEXIS electronic
`database of periodicals containing unsolicited mentions of Applicant’s LUPIN
`Mark (Exh. N);
`• copies of a representative sample of unsolicited media mentions of Opposer’s
`LUPIN Mark on the internet (Exh. O);
`• copies of a representative sampling of third-party registrations that cover both
`pharmaceutical products as well as educational services (Exh. P);
`• copies of a representative sampling of third-party web page printouts
`demonstrating goods of the same type as Opposer’s and services of the same type
`as Applicant’s emanating from the same source (Exh. Q);
`• copies of a representative sampling of Opposer’s web page printouts (Exh. R);
`• copies of internet printouts regarding drug repurposing (Exh. S);
`• an article entitled Assessing the Financial Value of Patient Engagement: A
`Quantitative Approach from CTTI’s Patient Groups and Clinical Trials Project,
`authored by Bennett Levitan, MD, PhD, et al. and published in Therapeutic
`Innovation & Regulatory Science, Vol. 52(2), 2018, pgs. 220 – 229 (Exh. T);
`• copies of internet printouts demonstrating the channels of trade used for patient
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`engagement programs in connection with clinical trials and the involvement of
`pharmaceutical companies therein (Exh. U);
`• copies of registration certificates, TSDR current status, and portions of the file
`histories of Reg. No. 4,920,691 for the mark LUCIN and Reg. No. 4,858,035 for
`the mark LUCIN STAT, formerly owned by Applicant (Exh. V);
`• copies of internet printouts relating to certain members of Lupin’s LUCIN
`investigator network (Exh. W);
`• copies of a representative sample of relevant articles gathered from the NEXIS
`electronic database which mention Applicant and/or its co-founders (Exh. X);
`• copies of the patent, current status of same, as well as assignment documents, all
`obtained from the Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (“PAIR”)
`database relating to U.S. Patent Reg. No. 9,995,734 (Exh. Y);
`• a copy of the webpage located at http://www.mylan.com/en/company/about-us
`(Exh. Z);
`• copies of Applicant’s Application Ser. No. 87/644,590 for the mark LuPPiN and
`TSDR current status (Exh. AA);
`• a copy of the statement of use for Applicant’s Application Ser. No. 86/508,312 for
`the mark LuPRO (Exh. BB); and
`
`•
`
`the dictionary definition of “lupin” (Exh. CC).
`
`29-31 TTABVUE.
`
`Opposer also relies on the Affidavits of Dave Berthold and Jay Liska in Support of
`
`Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment together with the exhibits thereto (“Berthold S.J.
`
`Aff.” and “Liska S.J. Aff.”). 27-28 TTABVUE. The parties have stipulated that the Berthold and
`
`Liska Summary Judgment Affidavits and the exhibits thereto are admissible for all purposes at
`
`trial. TTABVUE 26. Opposer also relies upon the Trial Affidavit of Dave Berthold. 32
`
`TTABVUE.
`
`Opposer further relies upon Opposer’s Notice of Reliance in Rebuttal, filed on November
`
`26, 2018. The Notice of Reliance in Rebuttal covers:
`
`• Opposer’s response to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 7, 15, 17, and 25 in Opposer’s First
`Amended Responses to Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories (Exh. DD);
`• Opposer’s response to Document Request No. 10 in Opposer’s Responses to
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant’s First Requests for Production of Documents (Exh. EE);
`• Opposer’s Amended Response to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7 in Opposer’s Second
`Amended Responses to Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories (Exh. FF);
`• Opposer’s Response to Document Request No. 7 in Opposer’s Responses to
`Applicant’s First Requests for Production of Documents together with documents
`produced in response thereto (Exh. GG);
`• additional relevant portions of the discovery deposition of Peter Lipsky, M.D. and
`exhibits thereto (Exhs. HH, II);
`• additional relevant portions of the discovery deposition of Amrie Grammer, Ph.D.
`(previously included in Exh. L);
`
`•
`
`the statement of use filed in support of Application Ser. No. 85/161,714 for the
`mark ARSENE LUPIN uspto(Exh. JJ);
`
`•
`
`the Notice of Opposition filed in Opposition No. 91201582, entitled Lupin
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Guerlain S.A. (Exh. KK);
`• pertinent references to the fictional character “Arsene Lupin” found on the
`internet (Exh. LL);
`
`•
`internet materials referencing “Lupin the Third” (Exh. MM);
`• Applicant’s response to Request No. 6 in Respondent’s Responses to Opposer’s
`Third Set of Interrogatories (Exh. NN);
`• documents filed in Opposition No. 92052316, entitled Lupin Pharmaceuticals,
`Inc. v. Australis Foods Pty Ltd. (Exh. OO); and
`• documents from the file history of Reg. No. 3,738,119 for the mark LUPIN8
`(Exh. PP).
`
`44-45 TTABVUE. Opposer’s Notice of Reliance in Rebuttal also incorporates by reference
`
`certain other documents previously filed by the parties.
`
`Finally, Opposer relies upon the Trial Affidavit of Nicholas Bolash filed in rebuttal to
`
`Applicant’s Notice of Reliance. 46 TTABVUE.
`
`Opposer reserves the right to rely upon any materials or documents in Applicant’s Notice
`
`of Reliance, as well as any other relevant information and/or materials admissible under the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence. 41-42 TTABVUE.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Opposer’s Well-Known LUPIN Brand
`
`1.
`
`Origins of Opposer’s LUPIN Mark and Entry into the U.S. Market
`
`In 1968, long prior to the actions of the Applicant set forth herein, the predecessor-in-
`
`interest of Opposer’s ultimate parent company, Lupin Limited, began doing business in India
`
`under the name and mark LUPIN. See Berthold S.J. Aff. at ¶ 3. The mark LUPIN finds its origin
`
`from the lupin flower. Id. at ¶ 4. A true and correct copy of a dictionary definition of “lupin” is
`
`attached as Exhibit CC to Opposer’s Notice of Reliance, 30 TTABVUE. Opposer’s mark is
`
`pronounced “LOO-pin.” Id.; Berthold S.J. Aff. at ¶ 3.
`
`In the 1980s and 1990s, the predecessors-in-interest of Lupin Limited received approval
`
`from the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to allow various manufacturing
`
`facilities located in India to manufacture pharmaceutical products intended for distribution and
`
`sale to U.S. consumers. Berthold S.J. Aff. at ¶ 5. In the early 2000s, Lupin Limited filed its first
`
`of many Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”) with the FDA. Id. at ¶ 6.1
`
`On March 28, 2002, Lupin Limited filed an ANDA for the drug ceftriaxone for injection,
`
`which was approved by the FDA on September 30, 2003. Id. at ¶ 7. In 2003, Lupin
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in the U.S. and began doing business at its headquarters
`
`in Baltimore. Id. at ¶ 11. Ceftriaxone for injection eventually became the first drug marketed
`
`under the LUPIN trademark in the United States, beginning in July 2005. Id. at ¶ 7-9. Since
`
`2005, Lupin’s pharmaceutical products bearing the LUPIN mark have been distributed, offered
`
`for sale, and sold continuously throughout the United States. Id. at ¶ 10.
`
`
`1 ANDAs are applications for approval by the FDA of a generic version of an existing, FDA-approved drug. Id.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`Opposer’s Valid Federal Registrations for the Mark LUPIN
`
`
`
`Opposer is the owner of the following United States Trademark Registrations on the
`
`Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the mark LUPIN:
`
`• Reg. No. 4,024,405 for the mark LUPIN, filed on June 24, 2009 and issued on September
`13, 2011 covering a:
`
`house mark for full line of pharmaceuticals for medical purposes, but excluding dietary
`supplements and edible flour
`
`in Class 5, claiming a date of first use in United States commerce of July 1, 2005.
`
`, filed on June 24, 2009 and issued on December 22,
`
`• Reg. No. 4,874,579 for
`2015 covering:
`
`Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of infectious and parasitic diseases;
`antibiotics; pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diseases and disorders
`of the endocrine and metabolic systems; pharmaceutical preparations for the
`treatment of mental and behavioral conditions and disorders; antidepressants;
`pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diseases and disorders of the
`nervous system; pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diseases
`and disorders of the eye and adnexa; pharmaceutical preparations for the
`treatment of diseases and disorders of the ear and mastoid process; pharmaceutical
`preparations for the treatment of diseases and disorders of the circulatory
`system; antihypertensives; pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of
`diseases and disorders of the respiratory system; pharmaceutical preparations for
`the treatment of diseases and disorders of the digestive system; pharmaceutical
`preparations for the treatment of diseases and disorders of the skin and
`subcutaneous tissue; pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of
`diseases and disorders of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue;
`pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diseases and conditions of the
`genitourinary system; and pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diseases
`and disorders associated with pregnancy, childbirth and the peurperium, namely,
`contraceptives; oral contraceptives; oral hormonal contraceptives; contraceptive
`preparations and substances; hormone replacement therapies; hormonal agents for
`treating disorders and conditions related to women’s health, namely, symptoms and
`conditions associated with menopause, pre-menstruation syndrome and other
`symptoms and conditions associated with menstruation,2
`
`all in Class 5 and claiming a date of first use in United States commerce in 2005. Opposer’s Notice
`
`
`2 For the convenience of the Board, Opposer has noted in bold those goods that could be used to treat symptoms of
`Lupus. See infra § IV.D.1.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`of Reliance. 29 TTABVUE at Exh. A.
`
`Opposer’s registered trademarks are referred to herein collectively as “the LUPIN Mark.”
`
`Both of the foregoing registrations are valid and subsisting and are in full force and effect, and
`
`have been pled in this matter. Reg. No. 4,024,405 for the word mark LUPIN has become
`
`incontestable by operation of law. 15 U.S.C. § 1065; Opposer’s Notice of Reliance. 29
`
`TTABVUE at Exh. B.
`
`3.
`
`Opposer’s Sale of a Wide Variety of Pharmaceutical Products
`
`
`
`Today, Opposer manufactures, offers for sale, and sells more than 150 types of
`
`pharmaceutical products for a wide range of ailments including, without limitation, drugs for the
`
`treatment of: fever; headache; fatigue; confusion; chest pain; stiffness; shortness of breath; joint
`
`or muscle pain; anemia; swelling in the legs, ankles, and feet; joint swelling; and rash, among
`
`others. Berthold S.J. Aff. at ¶¶ 12, 16. Lupin’s products include both branded and generic
`
`pharmaceuticals. Id. at ¶ 13. Opposer conducts clinical trials in conjunction with the
`
`development of its drug products. Id. at ¶ 17. Opposer is continually expanding its
`
`pharmaceutical product offerings into new therapeutic areas, such as cardiology, diabetes,
`
`women’s health, and gastroenterology, among others. Id. at ¶ 18; see also Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Reliance at Exh. N, LUP-002911.
`
`Both Opposer’s branded and generic drug products are sold in packaging bearing the
`
`LUPIN mark. Berthold S.J. Aff. at ¶ 14. Some of Opposer’s products also bear the LUPIN mark
`
`imprinted directly on the drug tablet or capsule, including the following:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Berthold S.J. Aff. at ¶ 15; Berthold Trial Aff. at ¶ 3, Exh. A. Opposer also offers its products in
`
`packaging and containers featuring the LUPIN Mark, both with and without the lupin flower
`
`design:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Berthold Trial Aff. at ¶ 4, Exh. C; Applicant’s Notice of Reliance, 41 TTABVUE at Exh. 5, p.
`
`LUP-001875; Opposer’s Notice of Reliance, 30 TTABVUE at Exh. R at LUP-000995, LUP-
`
`001006; Opposer’s Notice of Reliance, 29 TTABVUE at Exh. B. Even when displayed with the
`
`flower design, the word LUPIN is in a bold, dark font and is the dominant portion of the
`
`composite mark.
`
`Among the primary consumers of Opposer’s products are women of childbearing age.
`
`Berthold S.J. Aff. at ¶ 19.
`
`Opposer sells its products through wholesalers including AmeriSource Bergen, Cardinal,
`
`and McKesson, which are the three largest pharmaceutical wholesalers in the United States. Id.
`
`at ¶ 20. These wholesalers, in turn, distribute Opposer’s LUPIN products to independent
`
`pharmacies and pharmacy chains, which distribute the products to the end consumer through an
`
`extensive network of retail outlets. Id. Examples of retail outlets where Opposer’s LUPIN
`
`products are available, and sold, to consumers are major national retail chains such as CVS,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Walgreens, and WalMart, as well as grocery store chains such as Giant, Harris Teeter, Publix,
`
`and Kroger.