`
`
`
`THIS OPINION IS NOT A
`PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mailed: December 29, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`_____
`JIPC Management, Inc.
`v.
`Incredible Pizza Co., Inc.
`________
`Opposition No. 91170452
`against Serial No. 78575077
`
`Cancellation No. 92043316
`against Registration No. 2500872
`_______
`Anne W. Glazer of Stoel Rives LLP for JIPC Management, Inc.
`Mary M. Clapp of Clapp Business Law LLC for Incredible Pizza Co., Inc.
`_______
`Before Kuhlke, Shaw, and Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judges.
`Opinion by Shaw, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`Incredible Pizza Co., Inc. (“IPC” or Respondent) is the owner of Registration No.
`
`25008721 for the mark:
`
`
`for “Restaurant services” in International Class 42. IPC has disclaimed “Pizza Co.”2
`
`IPC also owns Application Serial No. 785750773 for the mark:
`
`
`for services identified as “Restaurant franchising; franchising, namely consultation
`
`and assistance in business management, organization and promotion; franchising,
`
`namely, offering technical assistance in the establishment and/or operation of
`
`restaurants” in International Class 35. IPC has disclaimed “America’s” and “Pizza
`
`Company.” The mark is described as follows: “The mark consists of a sector with the
`
`
`1 Issued October 23, 1999; renewed.
`2 After registration, IPC amended its drawing under Section 7 of the Trademark Act, 15
`U.S.C. § 1057(e), to, inter alia, substitute the word “Company” for “Co.” The amendment was
`accepted and a new certificate of registration was issued with the mark shown above. The
`disclaimer, however, was not amended to conform to the new drawing.
`3 Filed February 25, 2005, based on Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a),
`with a claimed date of first use anywhere and in commerce of April 20, 2004.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`words ‘America’s’ ‘Incredible Pizza Company’; rectangular background with the
`
`words ‘Great Food, Fun, Family, & Friends’; checkerboard design; and ribbon design.”
`
`In its petition for cancellation and notice of opposition, JIPC Management, Inc.
`
`(Petitioner) alleges priority of use and likelihood of confusion with its marks, as well
`
`as fraud on the USPTO in connection with Respondent’s applications to register its
`
`marks. Petitioner claims ownership of the following relevant registrations:
`
`• Registration No. 3025377 for the mark JOHN’S INCREDIBLE PIZZA CO.
`
`in standard characters for services identified as “Restaurant services” in
`
`International Class 43, issued December 13, 2005 and claiming a date of
`
`first use in commerce and anywhere as early as September 1997, “PIZZA
`
`CO.” disclaimed; and
`
`• Registration No. 3058427 for the mark JOHN’S INCREDIBLE PIZZA CO.
`
`in standard characters for services identified as “Entertainment services,
`
`namely, providing play areas, miniature golf, laser tag, bumper cars, arcade
`
`games, prize redemption games, and arcade rides; providing coin operated
`
`video games in the nature of an amusement arcade; providing continuous
`
`music video pre-recorded video broadcasts via television” in International
`
`Class 41, issued February 14, 2006 and claiming a date of first use in
`
`commerce and anywhere as early as September 1997, “CO.” disclaimed.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`I. Procedural History
`Because of the lengthy history of these proceedings we first provide a summary of
`
`them. The petition to cancel Registration No. 2500872 was filed on May 21, 2004.4
`
`The Notice of Opposition against Application Serial No. 78575077 was filed on April
`
`19, 2006.5 The proceedings were consolidated by the Board on December 4, 2006 upon
`
`Petitioner’s motion.6 After the close of the testimony periods, briefing was completed,
`
`with the final brief being filed on July 10, 2008.7 During the briefing, however,
`
`Petitioner filed a civil action alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition
`
`in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Shortly after the
`
`briefing concluded, Respondent filed a motion to suspend the Board proceedings
`
`pending the outcome of the district court case.8 The Board granted the motion and
`
`suspended the proceedings on November 24, 2008, noting that “inasmuch as the civil
`
`action clearly involves the same parties and the same marks, it appears that the civil
`
`action will likely ‘have a bearing’ on the case before the Board.”9 Proceedings
`
`remained suspended until the completion of the district court case, whereupon
`
`proceedings resumed and supplemental briefing was ordered to address any issues
`
`determined in the civil action.10 Supplemental briefing was completed on October, 6,
`
`
`4 Cancellation No. 92043316, 1 TTABVUE.
`5 Opposition No. 91170452, 1 TTABVUE.
`6 10 TTABVUE. All further references to the record are to Opposition No. 91170452.
`7 57 TTABVUE.
`8 60 TTABVUE.
`9 63 TTABVUE 3.
`10 77 TTABVUE.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`2016,11 and the case has been submitted on brief. The district court case is discussed
`
`infra.
`
`II. Evidentiary Objections
`Each party has filed a number of objections against certain testimony and
`
`evidence introduced by its adversary. We have considered each objection. Ultimately,
`
`the Board is capable of weighing the relevance and strength or weakness of the
`
`objected-to testimony and evidence in this case, including any inherent limitations,
`
`which preclude the need to strike the challenged testimony and evidence if the
`
`objection is well-taken. Given the circumstances, we choose not to make specific
`
`rulings on each and every objection. We have accorded the testimony and evidence
`
`whatever probative value it merits, keeping the parties’ objections in mind, and
`
`comment as needed on its probative value elsewhere in the opinion. See Alcatraz
`
`Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (TTAB 2013),
`
`aff’d mem., 565 Fed. Appx. 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware
`
`Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1104 (TTAB 2007). See also Krause v. Krause Publ’ns Inc.,
`
`76 USPQ2d 1904, 1907 (TTAB 2005) (“Where we have relied on testimony to which
`
`respondent objected, it should be apparent to the parties that we have deemed the
`
`material both admissible and probative to the extent indicated in the opinion.”).
`
`III. The Record
`The record includes the pleadings and, by operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b),
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b), the file of the involved registration and application. In addition,
`
`
`11 87 TTABVUE.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`the parties introduced the following items into evidence, either by stipulation or by
`
`notice of reliance.
`
`Petitioner’s Evidence:
`
`1. The deposition testimony of John Parlet, Petitioner’s founder and CEO,
`
`with exhibits thereto;
`
`2. The deposition testimony of Richard Barsness, Respondent’s founder and
`
`CEO, with exhibits thereto;
`
`3. The deposition testimony of Cheryl Barsness, the wife of Richard Barsness
`
`and co-owner of Respondent, with exhibits thereto;
`
`4. Petitioner’s notice of reliance, including, inter alia, status and title copies
`
`of Petitioner’s trademark registrations, news articles, customer emails and
`
`business
`
`records,12 discovery
`
`responses,
`
`third-party
`
`trademark
`
`registrations purporting to show the relatedness of the parties’ services,
`
`and documents from unrelated litigation involving Respondent; and
`
`5. The declaration of Steven E. Klein, Petitioner’s attorney, regarding the
`
`California district court case, with exhibits attached thereto, including,
`
`inter alia, copies of the parties’ pleadings, orders of the district court, trial
`
`transcripts, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
`
`Respondent’s Evidence:
`
`1. The deposition testimony of Larry Abbe, Respondent’s President, with
`
`exhibits thereto;
`
`
`12 Exhs. P-171-P-189, stipulated into the record. 15 TTABVUE 9-11.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`2. The deposition testimony of Richard Barsness, with exhibits thereto;
`
`3. Respondent’s notice of reliance, including, inter alia, discovery responses,
`
`trademark registrations and other evidence purporting to show third-party
`
`use of the term “incredible” in connection with food as well as restaurant
`
`and entertainment services; and
`
`4. The Declaration of Mary Clapp, Respondent’s attorney, regarding the
`
`California district court case, with exhibits attached thereto, including,
`
`inter alia, trial exhibits and transcripts.
`
`IV. The Parties
`The parties are restaurant companies operating all-you-can-eat pizza buffets
`
`within entertainment complexes featuring video games, miniature golf, and bumper
`
`cars. John Parlet is the founder and CEO of Petitioner. Richard Barsness is the
`
`founder of Respondent. Prior to either parties’ opening of their current pizza and
`
`entertainment complexes, Parlet and Barsness had a business relationship and
`
`cooperated in other restaurant-related ventures. Following the opening of their pizza
`
`and entertainment complexes, however, Parlet’s and Barsness’ relationship soured
`
`due to the present trademark dispute.
`
`V. The District Court Case
`Before turning to the merits of this proceeding, and because the present record
`
`includes evidence, findings, and rulings made in the district court case (see
`
`Trademark Rule 2.122(f)), it is necessary to review the course of the district court
`
`case which relates to the issues involved herein. As discussed supra, Board
`
`proceedings were suspended pending the final outcome of the civil action between
`
`7
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`Petitioner and Respondent. The district court case involved, in relevant part, a jury
`
`trial on trademark infringement, and a bench trial on Respondent’s affirmative
`
`defenses of unclean hands and trademark misuse, as well as damages and attorney’s
`
`fees.13
`
`The jury trial resulted in a verdict in Petitioner’s favor on the claim of
`
`infringement with damages awarded in the amount of $112,500.14 However,
`
`inasmuch as the parties’ overlapping use of their marks occurred only for a limited
`
`period of time in limited geographic regions, the jury was instructed to consider
`
`infringement only as to the time period after March 2008 in the states of California,
`
`Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington.15 In addition, Respondent’s use of the
`
`mark involved only franchising services because Respondent did not operate
`
`restaurants in California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington.16 Thus, the
`
`issues before the district court jury, particularly those relating to the parties’ use of
`
`their marks, were significantly narrower than those before us.
`
`Following the jury’s verdict, a bench trial was held on Respondent’s affirmative
`
`defenses of unclean hands and trademark misuse, as well as damages and attorney’s
`
`fees, after which the court issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. The
`
`court found, inter alia, that Petitioner’s first John’s Incredible Pizza Co. restaurant
`
`opened in Victorville, California in September 1997, that Petitioner owns service
`
`mark registrations for JOHN’S INCREDIBLE PIZZA CO., that Respondent failed to
`
`
`13 Final Pretrial Order, pp. 37-38, 81 TTABVUE 141-42.
`14 Id. at 81 TTABVUE 255-57.
`15 Trial Transcript, pp. 244-45, 81 TTABVUE 244-45.
`16 Id. at 81 TTABVUE 245.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`prove its affirmative defenses of unclean hands and trademark misuse, and that
`
`additional damages and attorney’s fees were not called for.17
`
`During the bench trial, Petitioner also sought, under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 54(c), to have Respondent’s trademark registration cancelled. Rule 54(c)
`
`provides that “a final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled,
`
`even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings.” The court recognized
`
`that the Trademark Act allows district courts to resolve registration disputes,
`
`however, the court declined to grant cancellation stating:
`
`Here, the jury’s verdict only reflects a likelihood of
`confusion
`in certain states. Furthermore, Plaintiff
`conceded that it had no claim for infringement until 2008,
`while Defendants’ federal registration was issued in 2001.
`The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not established
`a valid ground for cancellation of the trademark, and the
`request for trademark cancellation is denied.18
`
`Significantly, in a footnote, the court recognized that:
`
`Plaintiff did not plead a claim for trademark cancellation
`or request cancellation in its prayer for relief. The Court
`only discusses the request in light of Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 54(c), which provides that a Court grant relief to
`which a party is entitled, even if the party has not
`demanded that relief.19
`
`Respondent’s position here is that Petitioner may not now seek cancellation of
`
`Respondent’s registration because the district court decided the issue of cancellation
`
`in Respondent’s favor. In particular, Respondent states that “JIPC specifically
`
`
`17 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 2, 6, and 8-9, 81 TTABVUE 273, 277, and
`279-280.
`18 Id. at 81 TTABVUE 279. See 15 U.S.C. § 1119.
`19 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 8, 81 TTABVUE 279, n.5.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`requested the Court rule on the issue of cancellation; the Court denied cancellation;
`
`and JIPC never appealed the Court’s ruling. As such, JIPC has no further recourse
`
`on its claim for cancellation, whether in court or before this Board.”20
`
`Citing Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Houndstooth Mafia Enters. LLC, 163 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 1150, 1153 (N.D. Ala. 2016), Respondent first argues that “the [district
`
`court’s] holding that JIPC is not entitled to cancellation of IPC’s federal registration
`
`is dispositive of that issue and binding on the Board.”21 This argument is unavailing.
`
`In the Houndstooth Mafia case, the district court specifically ordered the Board to
`
`vacate its earlier decision regarding the opposition: “[a]s part of that judgment, and
`
`due to the parties’ express settlement terms, the court ordered that the TTAB’s
`
`decision ‘is VACATED.’” Houndstooth Mafia, 163 F. Supp. 3d at 1154. Here, the
`
`district court has not issued an order to the Board regarding cancellation. Rather, the
`
`district court simply found—on a much narrower set of facts—that petitioner did not
`
`establish a valid ground for cancellation. Moreover, unlike the district court in the
`
`Houndstooth Mafia case, the California district court was not reviewing a decision of
`
`the Board and thus it was not “acting as a court of appellate jurisdiction over the
`
`TTAB.” Id. at 1156.
`
`From the district court’s language, supra, it is clear not only that the district court
`
`did not issue an order to the Board but also that cancellation of Respondent’s
`
`registration was not an issue tried by the parties. Instead, it was raised in the bench
`
`trial only in the context of the scope of possible discretionary relief to be granted to
`
`
`20 Respondent’s Supplemental br., p. 3, 84 TTABVUE 4.
`21 Id. at 84 TTABVUE 12.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`Petitioner under Rule 54(c). The fact that the court declined to grant particular relief
`
`under Rule 54(c) does not elevate its order denying that relief to an order directed to
`
`the Board, particularly if that relief was not demanded in the pleadings.
`
`Respondent also argues that Petitioner’s claim for cancellation is barred by res
`
`judicata. Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, “a judgment on the
`
`merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies
`
`based on the same cause of action.” Jet Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 55 USPQ2d 1854,
`
`1856 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5
`
`(1979)). Even “[a] default judgment can operate as res judicata in appropriate
`
`circumstances.” Id. at 1378 (citing Morris v. Jones, 329 U.S. 545, 550-51 (1947)).
`
`However, “[f]or claim preclusion based on a judgment in which the claim was not
`
`litigated, there must be: 1) an identity of the parties or their privies, 2) a final
`
`judgment on the merits of the prior claim, and 3) the second claim must be based on
`
`the same transactional facts as the first and should have been litigated in the prior
`
`case.” Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. ThinkSharp, Inc., 79 USPQ2d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006).
`
`When we compare the district court case and this proceeding, there is no debate
`
`as to the first two factors: the parties are the same and there was a final judgment
`
`on the merits of the case. As in Jet, Inc., however, the critical issue is the third factor,
`
`requiring an analysis of the transactional facts involved in the two causes of action.
`
`The likelihood of confusion issues presented in this cancellation proceeding differ
`
`from the infringement claims presented in the district court case. Indeed, the Federal
`
`11
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`Circuit has held that the “array of differences in transactional facts conclusively
`
`demonstrates that claim preclusion cannot serve to bar a petition for cancellation
`
`based upon an earlier infringement proceeding.” Jet Inc., 55 USPQ2d at 1857.
`
`Moreover, the facts in the district court infringement case were significantly different
`
`from the facts in this proceeding. In the district court case, (1) Respondent’s services
`
`offered in California were limited to restaurant franchising services, not, as here, the
`
`operation of restaurants; (2) the infringement action was based on Respondent’s
`
`franchising services conducted after 2008 and not, as here, the offering of any
`
`restaurant services, at any time, including before then; (3) Respondent was not
`
`required to plead ownership of its marks in order to defend the district court case,
`
`and (4) the infringement claim did not determine the registrability of Respondent’s
`
`mark.22 See id. (“[C]ancellation requires the respondent ( i.e. , the party in the position
`
`of defendant) to hold a federally registered mark, infringement does not; [and]
`
`cancellation requires inquiry into the registrability of the respondent’s mark,
`
`infringement does not.”).
`
`For the foregoing reasons we find that res judicata does not bar Petitioner’s claim
`
`for cancellation of Respondent’s mark because Petitioner’s claim is not based on the
`
`same transactional facts as the infringement claim.
`
`By contrast, we may and do rely on findings of fact by the district court under the
`
`doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. The doctrine can bar relitigation of
`
`the same issue in a second action. See Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions
`
`
`22 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 8, 81 TTABVUE 279, n.5.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`Inc., 424 F.3d 1229, 76 USPQ2d 1310, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Issue preclusion is
`
`applicable where: (1) there is an identity of an issue in a prior proceeding, (2) the
`
`identical issue was actually litigated, (3) the determination of the issue was necessary
`
`to the judgment in the prior proceeding, and (4) the party defending against
`
`preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.
`
`See Jet Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 55 USPQ2d at 1859.
`
`All of these elements are present with regard to the district court’s determination
`
`of Petitioner’s first use of its JOHN’S INCREDIBLE PIZZA CO. mark, Petitioner’s
`
`ownership of its service mark registrations, the similarity of the parties’ services, and
`
`the resolution of Respondent’s affirmative defenses. That is, in order for the district
`
`court to address Petitioner’s narrower infringement claims, the court determined
`
`each of these issues. Respondent is precluded from re-litigating these issues here.
`
`VI. Standing
`Standing is a threshold issue that must be proven by the plaintiff in every inter
`
`partes case. Any person who believes that it is or will be damaged by registration of
`
`a mark has standing to file a petition for cancellation under Section 14, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1064. Our primary reviewing court has enunciated a liberal threshold for
`
`determining standing, namely that a plaintiff must demonstrate that it possesses a
`
`“real interest” in a proceeding beyond that of a mere intermeddler, and “a reasonable
`
`basis for his belief of damage.” Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753
`
`F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). A “real
`
`interest” is a “direct and personal stake” in the outcome of the proceeding. Ritchie v.
`
`Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A claim of likelihood
`
`13
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`of confusion that “is not wholly without merit,” including prior use of a confusingly
`
`similar mark, may be sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for a belief of damage.
`
`Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA
`
`1982).
`
`Petitioner has made of record status and title copies of its two relevant
`
`registrations for JOHN’S INCREDIBLE PIZZA CO.23 Respondent argues that
`
`Petitioner “failed to establish a proper chain of title” for its marks.24 However, as
`
`discussed supra, the district court found that Petitioner properly proved ownership
`
`of the claimed marks, therefore, Respondent’s arguments against Petitioner’s
`
`standing are unavailing.25 Moreover, the district court’s finding of Petitioner’s
`
`ownership of the marks comports with the current title listed in the status and title
`
`copies of the pleaded registrations. In view of the district court’s decision and the
`
`pleaded and proven registrations, we find that Petitioner has established a real
`
`interest in the outcome of this proceeding and has standing.
`
`VII. Priority
`In view of the pleaded and proven registrations, priority is not an issue in the
`
`opposition proceeding. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400,
`
`182 USPQ2d 108, 110 (CCPA 1974). In a cancellation proceeding, such as this one, in
`
`which both parties own registrations, Petitioner must, in the first instance, establish
`
`prior rights in the same or similar mark. Trademark Rule 2.122(b)(2) provides that
`
`
`23 15 TTABVUE 21-25.
`24 Respondent’s br., p. 24, 53 TTABVUE 25.
`25 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 2, 81 TTABVUE 273.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`“[t]he allegation . . . in a registration[] of a date of use is not evidence on behalf of the
`
`. . . registrant; a date of use of a mark must be established by competent evidence.”
`
`Petitioner’s founder and CEO, John Parlet, has testified that he opened the first
`
`JOHN’S INCREDIBLE PIZZA CO. restaurant in Victorville, California in September
`
`of 1997 and that it is still operating.26 Petitioner then opened other JOHN’S
`
`INCREDIBLE PIZZA CO. restaurants in the California cities of Bakersfield, Fresno,
`
`Stockton, and Modesto, among others.27 Petitioner introduced financial statements
`
`showing revenues from the Victorville restaurant dating back to 1997, as well as
`
`photographs showing the front of the Victorville restaurant in 1997.28 Further, the
`
`parties have stipulated to Petitioner’s claimed date of first use of September, 1997.29
`
`The district court also made the following finding of fact:
`
`The first John’s Incredible Pizza Co. restaurant opened in
`Victorville, California in September 1997. It was owned
`and operated by John’s Incredible Pizza Co., Inc., until
`Parlet formed plaintiff JIPC, which then assumed
`management of the store. Since then, JIPC has
`continuously managed each of the John’s Incredible Pizza
`Co. stores from the date the store opened to the present,
`under agreements with the separate entities that own the
`stores. (Internal citations omitted).30
`The earliest date Respondent may claim to have used its mark is the September
`
`21, 1999 filing date of the application that matured into the challenged registration,
`
`which is Respondent’s date of constructive use under Section 7(c) of the Trademark
`
`
`26 Parlet test., pp. 10-11, 19 TTABVUE 12-14.
`27 Id.
`28 Parlet test., pp. 15-17, 19 TTABVUE 18-20; Exhs. P-103 and P-104, 19 TTABVUE 140-43.
`29 15 TTABVUE 5.
`30 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 2, 81 TTABVUE 273.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(c). In October of 1999, Respondent opened its Amarillo, Texas
`
`INCREDIBLE PIZZA COMPANY restaurant.31
`
`Based on the record, including the findings of the district court, the testimony of
`
`John Parlet with related deposition exhibits, the testimony of Richard Barsness, and
`
`stipulations of the parties, Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`its prior use as early as September 1997 of its mark JOHN’S INCREDIBLE PIZZA
`
`CO. in connection with restaurant and entertainment services.
`
`VIII. Likelihood of Confusion
`Our determination of the issue of likelihood of confusion is based on an analysis
`
`of all the probative facts in evidence relevant to the factors set forth in In re E. I. du
`
`Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also In re
`
`Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any
`
`likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between
`
`the services and the similarities between the marks. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort
`
`Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental
`
`inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential
`
`characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”). The relevant
`
`du Pont factors in the proceeding now before us are discussed for each of the marks
`
`below.
`
`
`31 Respondent’s br., p. 12, 53 TTABVUE 13; Barsness test., p. 69, 40 TTABVUE 59. Petitioner
`disputes Respondent’s rights in the Amarillo restaurant because Respondent sold the
`restaurant to a business associate around the same time that the restaurant opened.
`Regardless, Respondent’s date of first use is later than Petitioner’s.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`A.
`
`Registration No. 3682041
`We begin with Petitioner’s allegation of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in
`
`Respondent’s Registration No. 2500872:
`
`
`for “Restaurant services” in International Class 42.
`
`We focus our analysis on Petitioner’s Registration No. 3025377 because the
`
`identified services are the same as Respondent’s services. If we do not find a
`
`likelihood of confusion with respect to this registered mark and its services, then
`
`there would be no likelihood of confusion with the mark in Petitioner’s other
`
`registration. See In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010).
`
`The similarity of the services, trade channels and conditions of sale
`We first consider the du Pont factors regarding the similarity or dissimilarity of
`
`the parties’ respective services, their channels of trade and conditions of sale. Both
`
`Respondent’s and Petitioner’s services are identical, namely “restaurant services.”
`
`Where, as here, the parties’ services are identical, we must presume that the
`
`channels of trade and classes of purchasers for those services are the same as well.
`
`See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (even
`
`though there was no evidence regarding channels of trade and classes of consumers,
`
`the Board was entitled to rely on this legal presumption in determining likelihood of
`
`confusion).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`Respondent admits “there is little dispute that the goods and services and
`
`channels of trade as they pertain to the marks at issue in the Cancellation are
`
`similar.”32 Accordingly, the du Pont factors relating to the similarity of the services,
`
`channels of trade, and classes of purchasers favor a finding of likelihood of confusion.
`
`The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar services
`We next consider the strength of Petitioner’s mark under the sixth du Pont factor.
`
`Du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567. If the evidence establishes that the consuming public is
`
`exposed to third-party uses of similar marks for similar services, it “is relevant to
`
`show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection.”
`
`Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d
`
`1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Evidence of the extensive registration
`
`and use of a term by others can be “powerful” evidence of weakness. See Jack Wolfskin
`
`Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797
`
`F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 982
`
`(2016); Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671,
`
`1674 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Respondent focuses on the elements common to the parties’ marks, namely,
`
`INCREDIBLE PIZZA CO., and correctly notes that PIZZA and COMPANY or CO.
`
`have little or no trademark significance when used in connection with the parties’
`
`services.
`
`
`32 Respondent’s br., p. 30, 53 TTABVUE 31.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`Respondent argues that “[w]idespread third party use of INCREDIBLE marks for
`
`restaurant services demonstrates that the word INCREDIBLE – the only word in
`
`common that might hold any trademark value at all – is weak, and that concurrent
`
`use of INCREDIBLE by JIPCM, IPC, and others does not create any likelihood of
`
`confusion.”33 In support, Respondent introduced testimony, photographs, and third-
`
`party business documents, as well as registrations purporting to show third-party use
`
`of INCREDIBLE in connection with food and restaurants.34 Respondent submitted
`
`evidence showing the following third-party uses or registration of INCREDIBLE:
`
`• Registration Nos. 2721015, 2854562, and 2723829 for marks containing
`Incredibly Edible Delites, Inc. for various goods and services related to
`floral and edible arrangements.35
`• A Florida business named Buzzy’s Incredible Edibles, Inc. offering “bakes
`[sic] goods, candies, and cookies and other specialty foods.”36
`• A California bakery named The Incredible Cheesecake Company, Inc.37
`• A California company named The Incredible Egg Restaurant.38
`• A Michigan company doing business under the assumed name of The
`Incredible Basket.39
`• A Michigan restaurant and lounge named INGCREDIBLE.40
`• A Michigan entertainment complex named Craig’s Cruisers with a pizza
`buffet called “Craig’s Incredible Pizza Buffet.”41
`
`
`33 Respondent’s br., p. 37, 53 TTABVUE 38.
`34 We have not considered cancelled Registration Nos. 2941392 and 2980602 for POP’S
`INCREDIBLE GOURMET PIZZA. A cancelled registration is not evidence of anything except
`that it issued. See Action Temp. Servs. Inc. v. Labor Force Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 10 USPQ2d
`1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989); TBMP § 704.03(b)(1) (June 2017).
`35 26 TTABVUE 277-89.
`36 26 TTABVUE 66-72, 31 TTABVUE 295-97.
`37 26 TTABVUE 74-76, 31 TTABVUE 274-77.
`38 26 TTABVUE 78-79.
`39 Id. at 81-84.
`40 Id. at 265-69.
`41 31 TTABVUE 264.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91170452 and Cancellation No. 92043316
`
`• A California restaurant named The Incredible Café.42
`• A California restaurant named The Incredible Café Express.43
`• A Georgia retail cookie store named The Incredible Chocolate Chip Cookie
`Company.44
`• An Ohio company named Eric’s Incredible Pizza Company.45
`We do not find Respondent’s evidence of third-party registration o
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
