Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA296869
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`07/22/2009
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92045101
`Plaintiff
`IMAGEWEAR APPAREL CORP.
`Paul J. Kennedy
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`3000 Two Logan Square, Eighteenth and Arch Streets
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
`UNITED STATES
`KennedyP@Pepperlaw.com
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`J. Anthony Lovensheimer
`lovensheimera@pepperlaw.com, kennedyp@pepperlaw.com,
`kearneyc@pepperlaw.com, catalant@pepperlaw.com
`s/J. Anthony Lovensheimer/
`07/22/2009
`PETITIONER_S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MSJ (NON-CONFIDENTIAL
`VERSION) PDF_1.pdf ( 34 pages )(1035624 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IMAGEWEAR APPAREL CORP.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`Cancellation No. 92045101
`
`'
`
`WINGS MANUFACTURING CORP.
`
`Registrant/Respondent.
`
`Registration No. 2,995,193
`
`PETITIONER’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`
`RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION
`
`CONFIDENTIAL/REDACTED PAGES:
`
`6 AND 20
`
`Paul J. Kennedy, Esquire
`J. Anthony Lovensheimer, Esquire
`Cara M. Kearney, Esquire
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`
`3000 Two Logan Square
`Eighteenth & Arch Streets
`Philadelphia, PA 19103 -2799
`Te1.: (215) 981-4000
`Fax: (215) 981-4750
`
`Attorneysfor Petitioner
`Imagewear Apparel Corp.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. ..1
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... ..1
`
`Petitioner’s RED KAP Trademarks ................................................................................... ..1
`
`Petitioner’s Use of the RED KAP Marks .......................................................................... ..3
`
`Petitioner’s Marketing and Sales ....................................................................................... ..4
`
`Sales of RED KAP Apparel ............................................................................................... ..6
`
`Respondent and Respondent’s RED SNAP Mark ............................................................. ..6
`
`III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... ..8
`
`A. Summary Judgment Standard ....................................................................................... ..8
`
`B. The RED KAP Marks and RED SNAP Mark Are Extremely Similar ....................... .. 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The Parties’ Goods are Identical or Very Closely Related ...................... .. 15
`
`The Parties’ Channels of Trade are Identical .......................................... .. 16
`
`Purchasers of the Parties’ Clothing Exercise a Low Degree of Care ...... .. 17
`
`The RED KAP Marks are Strong and Famous........................................ ..19
`
`Respondent’s Evidence of Third Party Registrations For and Use of
`“RED" For Clothing Does Not Effect The Likelihood of Confusion ..... ..2l
`
`Petitioner is Not Required to Prove Actual Confusion............................ ..25
`
`Respondent’s “Additional Factors” Do Not Alter the Likelihood of
`Confusion Analysis .................................................................................. ..26
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... ..28
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`B. I/.D. Licensing Corp. v. Rodriguez, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1500 (TTAB 2007) ................................. ..18
`
`Barbara ’s Bakery Inc. v. Landesman, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1283 (TTAB 2007) ................................. ..17
`
`Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc., 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............ .. 19, 20, 21
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .............................................................................. ..8
`
`Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life ofAmerica, 970 F.2d 874, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d
`1698 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................ ..12, 14, 15
`
`Coca-Cola Co. v. Clay, 139 U.S.P.Q. 308 (CCPA 1963) ........................................................... ..25
`
`Copelands’Entes. Inc. v. CNVInc., 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................. ..8
`
`Federated Foods, Inc. v . Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 U.S.P.Q. 24
`(CCPA 1976) ......................................................................................................................... .. 10
`
`Giant Food v. Nation ’s Food Service, 710 F.2d 1565, 1567-68 (Fed. Cir. 1983)....................... .. 19
`
`Gillette Can, Inc. v. Ranir Corp., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1768 (TTAB 1972) ....................................... ..26
`
`Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto~Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................. ..22
`
`Hard Rock Cafe’ lnt’l (USA), Inc. v. Elsea, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1504 (TTAB 2000) ................... .. 17, 18
`
`Herbko Int ’l v. Kappa Books, Inc., 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................. ..25
`
`Hewlett—Packard Co. v Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................................................... .. 16
`
`Hilson Research Inc. v. Societyfor Human Resource Mgmt, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1423 (TTAB
`1993) ...................................................................................................................................... ..23
`
`Hollister Inc. v. Indent/1 Pet, Inc, 193 U.S.P.Q. 439 (TTAB 1976) ......................................... ..25
`
`Hornbiower & Weeks, Inc. v. I-Iornblower & Weeks, Inc, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1733 (TTAB
`2001) ........................................................................................................................................ ..9
`
`In re Athlete 's Foot Marketing Associates, Inc, 2003 TTAB LEXIS 135 (TTAB 2003) ........... ..18
`
`In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1209 (TTAB 1999) .......................... .. 10
`
`

`
`In re British Bulldog, Ltd, 224 U.S.P.Q. 854 (TTAB 1984) ...................................................... ..13
`
`In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................... .. 10
`
`In re E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973) ................................. ..passim
`
`In re Lefiak Organization, Inc., 2009 TTAB LEXIS 186 (TTAB 2009) .................................... ..25
`
`In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................ .. 10
`In re National Data Corp, 753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ......................................................... 14
`
`In re Palm Beach Inc., 225 U.S.P.Q. 785 (TTAB 1985) ............................................................. .. 13
`
`In Re Sears Roebuck and Co. 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1312 (TTAB 1987) ................................................ .. 13
`
`In re Sydel Lingerie Co., Inc, 197 U.S.P.Q. 629 (TTAB 1977) ................................................. .. 13
`
`In re White Swan, Ltd, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (TTAB 1988) .......................................................... ..11
`
`Kellogg Co. v. Pack ’em Enters, Inc., 951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................... .. 14
`
`Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Indus, 963 F.2d 350, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453 (Fed. Cir.
`1992) .......................................................................................................................... ..11,18,21
`
`Kimberly—Clark Corp. v. H. Douglas Enter, Ltd, 774 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................... .. 19
`
`Lloyd ’s Food Products Inc. v. Eli ’s Inc, 987 F.2d 766, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 2027 (Fed. Cir.
`1993) ........................................................................................................................................ ..8
`
`Lois Sportswear, U.S.A, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F. 2d 867, 230 U.S.P.Q. 831
`(1986) ..................................................................................................................................... ..25
`
`McDonald is Corp. v. McClain, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1274 (TTAB 1995) ........................................... ..25
`
`Missiontrek Ltd. v. Onfolio, Inc., 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1381 (TTAB 2005) ................................... ..13, 14
`
`Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enters, Inc., 889 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ........................ .. 19, 21
`
`Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d
`1783 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................................ ..15
`
`Olde Tyme Foods Inc. v. Roundy ’s Inc, 961 F.2d 200, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir.
`1992) ........................................................................................................................................ .. 8
`
`Opryland USA Inc. v. The Great American Music Show Inc., 970 F.2d 847, 23
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................... ..8
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondée En I 772,396 F.3d
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ ..9, 11, 19, 22
`
`Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., 305 F.2d 916 (CCPA 1962) ......................... ..20
`
`Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................... .. 18, 21
`
`Saab-—Scavia Aktiebolog v. Sparkomatiz Corp, 26 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1709 (TTAB 1993) .................. .. 17
`
`San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp. , 565 F.2d 683,
`196 U.S.P.Q. I (CCPA 1977) ................................................................................................ ..11
`
`Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co, 190 U.S.P.Q. 106 (TTAB 1975) ....................................... ..11
`
`Smith Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Stone Mfg. Co., 476 F.2d 1004 (CCPA 1973) ...................................... ..23
`
`Specialty Brands Inc. v. Cofifiae Bean Distribs, Inc., 748 F.2d 669 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........... .. 19, 21
`
`Spoons Restaurants Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q. 2d, 1735 (TTAB 1991) ........................ .. 1]
`
`Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC v. Ruben, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1741 (TTAB 2006) .................... .. 15, 16, 18
`
`Sweats Fashions Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., Inc, 833 F .2d 1560, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1793
`(Fed. Cir. 1987) ....................................................................................................................... ..8
`
`The Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1482 (TTAB 2007) .......... ..24
`
`Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1617 (7th Cir. 2001) ..................... .. 12
`
`Winnebago Industries, Inc. v. Oliver & Winston, Inc., 207 U.S.P.Q. 335 (TTAB 1980) ........... .. 11
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052 (d) ............................................................................................................. ..l,9-10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(0) .................................................................................................................. ..1, 8
`
`J.T. McCarthy, 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 11:89
`(4th ed. 2006) ......................................................................................................................... ..23
`
`TBMP § 528.01 ............................................................................................................................. ..8
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, lmagewear Apparel Corp. (“Petitioner”), through its undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby submits Petitioner’s Memorandum in Opposition to Responde-nt’s Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment (“Respondenfs Motion") and in Support of Petitioner’s Cross—l\/lotion for
`
`Summary Judgment (“Petitioner’s Cross-Motion”). Respondent Wings Manufacturing Corp.
`
`(“Respondent”) bases its motion for summary judgment on a restrictive, self-serving analysis of
`
`the facts and a limited selection of the relevant DuPont factors that completely misapplies and/or
`
`ignores several key elements. All of these omitted elements overwhelmingly weigh in favor of
`
`the conclusion that Respondent’s RED SNAP Mark so resembles Petitioner’s RED KAP Marks
`
`as to be likely, when applied to Respondent’s goods, to cause confusion. As a result,
`
`Respondent’s Motion should be denied and Petitioner’s Cross-Motion for summary judgment
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(0) should be granted and Respondent’s RED SNAP Mark should
`
`be cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (d).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Petitioner’s RED KAP Trademarks
`
`Petitioner, through its predecessors in interest and licensees, has used the
`
`trademark RED KAP at least since 1927. Declaration of Stan Jewell (“Jewell Decl”) at ‘H 6; see
`
`also Declaration of J. Anthony Lovensheimer (“Lovensheimer Decl.”) at Exh. B at 4 and Exh. C
`
`(Deposition of Howard W. Wedekind (“Wedekind Dep.”) N.T. 12-13). Petitioner owns
`
`federally-registered trademarks for the words “RED KAP” alone and in conjunction with
`
`additional words and/or designs, including the following (collectively hereinafter, “RED KAP
`
`Marks”):
`
`

`
`
`
`is
`
`9
`3/ 16/93
`
`
`
`“Pants, coveralls, shirts, coats
`and 'ackets”
`
`Mark : 4 . ~
`~
`‘
`‘
`‘
`3
`RED KAP
`
`
`
`RED KAP
`
`RED KAP
`INDUSTRIES
`
`&Design
`RED KAP
`INDUSTRIES
`
`&Design
`RED KAP
`IMAGE PLUS
`
`HIGHLAND
`COLLECTION
`BY RED KAP
`
`RED KAP &
`
`Desi n
`RED KAP
`
`SINCE 1923
`
`& Design
`
`'
`
`iNiin'2'ber5
`Reg. No.
`1,758,476
`Reg. No.
`3,058,253
`Reg. No.
`1,359,300
`
`Reg. No.
`1,524,612
`
`Reg. No.
`1,699,854
`
`Reg. No.
`2,247,947
`
`Reg. No.
`2,329,473
`
`Reg. No.
`
`2/7/06
`
`9/ 10/85
`
`“Providing consumer product
`information via the internet”
`
`“Pants”
`
`2/ M! 89
`
`“Coveralls, shirts, coats and
`
`jackets”
`
`7/7/92
`
`IC 25
`
`5/25/99
`
`IC 25
`
`3/14/00
`
`IC 25
`
`
`
`
`
`“Kitchen apparel, namely,
`chefs and cook’s pants,
`jackets, and shirts and
`accessories, namely scarves,
`gloves, caps, and aprons,
`professional cover-ups,
`namely, laboratory coats,
`counter coats, staff coats,
`butcher coats, shop coats,
`aprons, smocks, wraps and
`dresses; dress uniform shirts”
`
`“Shirts, blazers, blouses, skirts,
`dress slacks, sweaters and
`vests”
`
`“Shirts, pants, shorts, blouses,
`'ackets, coveralls and jeans”
`Aprons, bandanas, belts, pants,
`coats, coveralls, shirts, t-shirts,
`dresses, rainwear, gloves,
`jackets, jeans, lab coats,
`mittens, overalls, parkas,
`scarves, shorts, skirts, smocks,
`socks, sweatsuits, sweaters,
`
`uniforms, visors, wind-
`resistant jackets, boots, shoes
`and slippers” in International
`Class 25;
`“Sunglasses” in International
`Class 9; and
`“Backpacks, duffel bags, and
`wallets” in International Class
`18
`
`3 ,150,516
`
`

`
`See Jewell Decl. at Exhs. A through I-I. These valid and subsisting registrations are primafacie
`
`evidence of Petitioner’s exclusive right to use the RED KAP Marks in commerce on the goods
`
`specified.
`
`Id.
`
`Petitioner’s Use of the RED KAP Marks
`
`The history of the RED KAP Marks began in 1923, when two brothers and their
`
`cousin started a business in Nashville, Tennessee that manufactured and sold bib overalls for
`
`men and boys to the retail and mail order markets in the South and Midwest. Jewell Decl. at il 7;
`
`‘ Lovensheimer Decl. at Exh. D at 4. After four years, they adopted the RED KAP trademark
`
`along with the eariiest version of the RED KAP and design logo in 1927. Jewell Decl. at 1] 7;
`
`Lovensheimer Decl. at Exh. C (Wedekind Dep. N.T. 18-19).
`
`Since the first use of the RED KAP Marks in 1927, Red Kap has expanded its
`
`original business to include a variety of apparel. Jewell Decl. at 1] 8. During World War 11, Red
`
`Kap filled orders for pants and field jackets for the Army and Navy. Id. Following World War
`
`II, Red Kap entered the rental laundry business by developing the first laundry~friendly high
`
`quality, high durability industrial shirt and pant that could withstand the rigors of industrial
`
`washing. Id. at1l 9. It also introduced several other innovative garments including the first
`
`laundry-friendly durable press garments featuring the 65% polyester/3 5% cotton combination,
`
`and durable flame-resistant cotton fabric using the “ammonia cure” process.
`
`Id.
`
`After first entering the growing women’s uniform business in 1970, today Red
`
`Kap has the broadest wornen’s product line offering of anyone in the industry.
`
`Id. atll 10.
`
`Beginning in the l980’s, Red Kap once again met customer demands by
`
`expanding into executive attire and kitchen and service apparel.
`
`Id. at 1] 11. RED KAP apparel
`
`became available for the entire spectrum of markets from white collar to blue collar. Id. The
`
`new spirit of consumerism had brought a dynamic shift ~ from traditional uniforms to apparel
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`that was more comfortable, more casual and more in “tune” with retail contemporary clothing.
`
`Id. see also Lovensheimer Decl. at Exh. C (Wedekind Dep. N.T. 38-39, 50-51)
`
`Over the course of the last decade, the RED KAP brand has continued to evolve
`
`to accommodate the growing consumer demand for more casual and diverse fabric blends and
`
`styles, and the demand for increased availability of RED KAP brand apparel at retail. Jewell
`
`Decl. at '1] 12; Lovensheimer Decl. at Exh. C (Wedekind Dep. N.T. 38-39, 78-81, 83-83). This
`
`continued evolution of the RED KAP brand has taken place since Petitioner took over the RED
`
`KAP brand. The RED KAP brand which began in l923 being used on bib overalls is now used,
`
`and will continue to be used, on a full line apparel, including but not limited to uniforms, heavy~
`
`duty work pants, knit polo shirts, button-down oxford shirts, jeans, khakis, and shorts for both
`
`men and women. Jewell Dec]. at 1] 12.
`
`Due to the long-standing tradition of dedication to research, hard work, and strong
`
`commitment to workmanship, Petitioner is the largest supplier of uniform apparel and other work
`
`clothing in the United States. Jewell Decl. 1] 13. The products sold under the RED KAP Marks
`
`represent unmatched style, design, fashion, comfort, care, and a commitment to quality
`
`craftsmanship. Id. Petitioner will continue to grow, develop and expand its RED KAP product
`
`line as Petitioner is a part of VF Corporation, the largest apparel company in the world. Id,‘ see
`
`also Lovensheimer Decl. at Exhs. A1-A49 and Exh. E at 3.
`
`Petitioner’s Marketing and Sales
`
`Petitioner has continuously promoted RED KAP apparel nationwide through
`
`catalogs.
`
`Id. at 11 14, Exh. 1. RED KAP apparel has also been promoted nationwide continuously
`
`through newspapers, print campaigns, retail advertisements, email blasts, direct mailers, radio,
`
`trade journals, merchandizing flyers, newsletters, customer communications, at the point—of-sale,
`
`and at various websites including www.vfc.corn, www.vfirnagewear.corn, www.redkap.com, and
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`http://vansapparel.com/redkap/. Id. at ‘H 15, Exhs. LL; Lovensheimer Decl. at Exh. C (Wedekind
`
`Dep. N.T. 94-97).
`
`RED KAP apparel is sold at retail at the department store Sears and through
`
`Sears’ website at www.sears.com. Jewell Decl. at 11 16, Exhs. M and N. RED KAP apparel is
`
`also sold at retail through a wide Variety of outlets including, but not limited to VF Outlets,
`
`catalogs, and the Internet, including www.vans.corn, www.zappos.com, www.hanger94.corn,
`
`www.surfing-waves.com, www.tactics.com, www.carefreecasuals.corn, www.kmart.com, and
`
`www.cowtownskateboards.com. Id. at 11 17, Exh. 0; RED KAP apparel is also sold through
`
`over six thousand distributors across the country. Id. at 11 19, Exhibit Q; see also Lovensheirner
`
`Decl. at Exh. C (Wedekind Dep. N.T. 115-1 l7).
`
`As a part of Petitioner’s expansion of the RED KAP brand, Petitioner recently
`
`teamed up with the popular apparel company Vans (which specializes in footwear and apparel
`
`geared toward teenagers and skateboarders) to offer a line of clothing co-branded under both the
`
`RED KAP and VANS trademarks. Jewell Decl. at 11 18. This co-branded line of clothing is
`
`currently available in stores and at www.vans.com.
`
`Ia'., Exhibit P.
`
`Petitioner has promoted RED KAP apparel at trade shows, including but not
`
`limited to CLEAN, NAUMD, National Restaurant Show, ASI Orlando, PPAI Las Vegas, lSS
`
`Long Beach, ISS Orlando, ASI Dallas, NDA, UTSA Marketing Conference, Manufacturing
`
`Week, ISS Atlantic City, Focus 2006, Fastenal, ISS Atlanta, SAAC, PPAOW, and IACP. Id. at
`
`11 20.
`
`Petitioner uses the RED KAP Marks directly on hang tags, labels, on-product and
`
`other point-of-sale items, including fixtures that hold and/or contain RED KAP branded products
`
`at retail.
`
`Id. at 11 21, Exhibit R; see also Lovensheimer Decl. at Exh. C (88-91)
`
`

`
`Petitioner has expended more than [REDACTED] in promoting and advertising
`
`the RED KAP brand from 2000 through 2008. Jewell Decl. at 1] 23. As a result of these intensive
`
`marketing efforts, the public associates the RED KAP marks with high—quality apparel and
`
`consequently demands these products across the country.
`
`Id. at 1] 22.
`
`In addition to these marketing efforts, the control and supervision exercised by,
`
`and strict quality standards of Petitioner in the manufacture of RED KAP brand apparel have
`
`resulted in a substantial reputation and goodwill in the RED KAP Marks worldwide and
`
`represent an extremely valuable business asset to Petitioner. Id. at 11 24. As a result, the RED
`
`KAP Marks have become widely associated with and recognized by the public as referring
`
`exclusively to Petitioner’s quality goods. Id,
`
`Sales of RED KAP Apparel
`
`RED KAP apparel is sold to wholesalers (who sell to resellers), at retail, and
`
`direct (that is, to the end user) as well as to industrial laundries and uniform resellers.
`
`Id. at 1] 31.
`
`Sales of RED KAP branded goods in the United States have been continuous
`
`since 1927. Id. at 1] 25. Petitioner has enjoyed great sales success as its domestic sales of RED
`
`KAP products from 2000 through 2008 have totaled in excess of [REDACTED].
`
`Id. at ‘H 26.
`
`Purchasers of Petitioner’s RED KAP apparel are of varying degrees of
`
`sophistication, ranging from those who are knowledgeable and concerned about the
`
`specifications of the products to those who purchase products on impulse without exercising a
`
`great deal of care. Id. at 1] 28. However, since most of these clothing items are inexpensive,
`
`consumers are not likely to take a great deal of care in making purchasing decisions. Id.
`
`Respondent and Respondent’s RED SNAP Mark
`
`in 2004, nearly eighty years after the first use of the RED KAP Marks, and well
`
`after the RED KAP Marks had already become strong and famous, Respondent filed its
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`application to register the RED SNAP Mark for use in connection with: “Clothing, namely,
`
`men's and boy‘s shirts, trousers, shorts, jackets and tops; ladies and girl's blouses, pants, shorts,
`
`jackets, jeans and tops.” See Registration No. 2,995,193. Respondent claims a first-use date of
`
`December 30, 2003 for the RED SNAP Mark. Id. Each of the goods identified in the
`
`identification of goods in Respondenfs RED SNAP registration is found in the identification of
`
`goods for the RED KAP Marks. See Jewell Decl. at Exhs. A~I-I. The parties’ goods are identical
`
`or very closely related. Id. at 1] 29.
`
`The parties’ marks are extremely similar in sight and sound as they both consist of
`
`two rnonosyllabic words, the first word being the identical word “RED” and the second being a
`
`one syllable word ending in the letters “_AP.” Id. ']] 30. The words SNAP and KAP (based on
`
`the pronunciation of the phonetic equivalent “cap”) rhyme because they share the same
`
`pronunciation of the “AP” sound (“snap” and “kap"). See Lovensheimer Decl. at Exhibit F.
`
`Respondent’s RED SNAP products have been sold through retailers such as
`
`Dillard’s, Macy’s, J .C. Penney and Kohl’s and also on-line through wWw.Macy’s.com. See
`
`Lovensheimer Decl. at Exhibit G (Deposition of Maninder Sing Sethi (“Sethi Dep.”) at 23; see
`
`also Declaration of John Zaccaria in support of Defendanfs Motion (“Zaccaria Decl.”) at Exhibit
`
`E (Response to Interrogatory No. 13). Respondent’s advertising includes “print media, namely,
`
`in the publication ‘DNR, First in Menswear News and Trends,’ seasonal trend reports of the
`
`Doneger Group, in the Magic Marketplace Guide, in the Magic Show guide via the Respondent’s
`
`line lists, on showroom signage and store sign toppers.” Zaccaria Decl. at Exhibit E (Response
`
`to Interrogatory No. 7). However, Respondent’s RED SNAP registration does not include any
`
`limitations on the channels of trade listed in its identification of goods for the RED SNAP mark.
`
`See Jewell Dec]. at 1] 32 and pages 2—3 irifira.
`
`

`
`If the RED SNAP registration is not cancelled, Petitioner will suffer loss and
`
`injury due to the likelihood of confusion between the RED SNAP and RED KAP Marks. Jeweil
`
`Decl. at 1] 33. The continued registration of RED SNAP will undermine the value and goodwill
`
`created by decades of investment in and dedication to the RED KAP mark. Id. at ll 34. This will
`
`aiso open the door to third parties to adopt other confusingly similar marks to the RED KAP
`
`trademarks for apparel, which will cause further harm to Petitioner and its business.
`
`Id. at 11 33.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Summary Judgment Standard
`
`Summary judgment is an appropriate method for disposing of cases in which there
`
`are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, thus leaving the matter to be resolved as a
`
`matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(0). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial
`
`burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to
`
`judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Copeiands’
`
`Entes. Inc. v. CNI/Inc, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1295, 1297-8 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Sweats Fashions Inc. v.
`
`Pannill Knitting Co., Inc, 833 F.2d 1560, 1562, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TBMP §
`
`528.01.
`
`In order to establish that a genuine factual dispute exists, “the nonmoving party
`
`‘need only present evidence from which a jury might return a verdict in [its] favor.” Olde Tyme
`
`Foods Inc. v. Roundy’s Inc, 961 F.2d 200, 202, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting
`
`Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257). In considering the propriety of summary judgment, the Board may
`
`not resolve issues of material fact against the non-moving party; it may only ascertain whether
`
`such issues are present. See Oprylana’ USA Inc. v. The Great American Music Show Inc. , 970
`
`F.2d 847, 850, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1471, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Lioyd’s Food Products Inc.
`
`v. Eiiis Inc, 987 F.2d 766, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`As demonstrated below, based on the undisputed evidence of record, there are no
`
`genuine issues of material fact as to the DuPont factors not addressed at all ignored by
`
`Respondent in Respondent’s Motion, namely: (1) the similarity of the parties’ goods, (2) the
`
`similarity of the parties’ channels of trade, (3) the sophistication of the consumers of the parties’
`
`goods, and (4) the fame of the RED KAP Marks. Moreover, there are no genuine issues of
`
`material fact even as to the few DuPont factors actually analyzed in Respondenfs Motion, to
`
`wit:
`
`the similarity of the parties’ marks, the presence of third-party registrations and use of the
`
`term “red” in connection with clothing, the evidence of actual confusion, and the presence of
`
`“additional factors.” Uitimately, even if the parties dispute any of the facts at issue within one of
`
`the DuPont factors, that dispute would not create a genuine issue of material fact because the
`
`overwhelming weight of a_l] of the relevant DuPont factors weighs in favor of a finding of a
`
`likelihood of confusion. Therefore, it is Petitioner, not Respondent, who is entitled to judgment
`
`as a matter of law on the ultimate question of the likelihood of confusion.
`
`A. Respondent’s RED SNAP Mark Is Likely To
`Cause Confusion With Petitioner’s RED KAP Marks
`
`A party moving for summary judgment in its favor on a Section 2(d) claim must
`
`establish that there is no genuine dispute that (1) it has standing; (2) it has priority; and
`
`(3) contemporaneous use of the parties’ marks on their respective goods would be likely to cause
`
`confusion, mistake or to deceive consumers. See Hornblower & Weeks, Inc. v. Homblower &
`
`Weeks, Inc. , 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1733 (TTAB 2001). Respondent does not challenge Petitioner's
`
`standing or priority, therefore, Petitioner only addresses the issue of likelihood of confusion.
`
`The likelihood of confusion analysis is governed by application of the relevant
`
`factors set forth in In re E. I. DuPont De Nemours & C0., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973).
`
`See Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondée En I 772, 396 F.3d
`
`

`
`1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Only those factors implicated by the evidence of record need be
`
`considered. See In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc, 105 F.3d i405, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Indeed,
`
`“[n]ot all of the DuPont factors may be relevant or of equal weight in a given case .
`
`. ..” See In
`
`re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc, 315 F.3d 1311, £315 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
`
`While all of the DuPont factors may not be relevant, the fundamental inquiry
`
`mandated by Section 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential
`
`characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks." Federated Foods, Inc. 12. Fort
`
`Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 U.S.P.Q. 24 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Azteca
`
`Restaurant Enterprises, Inc, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1209 (TTAB 1999).
`
`Respondent ignores this fundamental inquiry by providing an analysis of the
`
`DuPont factors that defies logic, ignores or misconstrues the evidence at issue, and completely
`
`omits several key factors which decidedly weigh in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.
`
`A complete analysis of the relevant DuPont factors favors a finding that the RED SNAP Mark is
`
`likely to cause confusion with Petitioner’s RED KAP Marks. As a result, Respondent's Motion
`
`should be denied and the RED SNAP Mark should be cancelled.‘
`
`The RED KAP Marks and RED SNAP Mark Are Extremely Similar
`
`Despite Petitioner’s extensive and prominent use of the RED KAP Marks since
`
`1927, and the continued growth and development of the RED KAP brand since, Respondent
`
`adopted a mark that is extremely similar to Petitioner’s RED KAP, -— RED SNAP. Respondenfs
`
`RED SNAP incorporates the same dominant term, “RED”, in combination with a second
`
`monosyllabic word, “SNAP,” which rhymes with Petitionefs second monosyllabic word,
`
`1 in the alternative, at the very least the omitted by Respondent DuPont factors raise sufficient genuine
`issues of material fact which prohibit summary judgment in favor of Respondent.
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`“KAP”, for use with identical goods, to be marketed to identical customers, through identical
`
`channels of trade. As the junior user, Respondent had the obligation to select a mark that would
`
`avoid the well-known RED KAP Marks, but failed to do so. As a result, this factor, especially
`
`when considered in light of the factors discussed below (all of which were omitted from
`
`Respondent’s Motion), weighs in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.
`
`It is not necessary for marks to be identical in order to create a likelihood of
`
`confusion. See, e. g., Kermer Parker Toys v. Rose Art Indus, 963 F.2d 350, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1992) (reversing Board decision of no confusion and finding PLAY-DOH and
`
`FUNDOUGI-I confusingly similar). The test is not whether the marks can be distinguished when
`
`subjected to a side—by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in
`
`terms of overall commercial impression so that confusion as to the source of the goods offered
`
`under the respective marks is likely to result. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD
`
`Electronics Components Corp, 565 F.2d 683, 196 U.S.P.Q. 1, 3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons
`
`Restaurants Inc. v. Morrison Inc, 23 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB l99l). Similarity of any
`
`relevant components of appearance, sound, connotation and/or commercial impression permits a
`
`finding that marks are confusingly similar. Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1369; In re White Swan, Ltd,
`
`8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988). Additionally, the proper focus is on the recollection of
`
`the average customer, who retains a