Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA805458
`
`Filing date:
`
`03/06/2017
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92063808
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Plaintiff
`Double Coin Holdings, Ltd.
`
`JOSEPH E MUETH
`JOSEPH E MUETH LAW CORPORATION
`800 E COLORADO BOULEVARD SUITE 840
`PASADENA, CA 91101
`UNITED STATES
`jmueth@josephemueth.com
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Joseph E. Mueth
`
`jmueth@josephemueth.com
`
`/josephemueth/
`
`03/06/2017
`
`Attachments
`
`351-125msj3617.pdf(145664 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Cancellation No. 92063808
`
`
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`
`DOUBLE COIN HOLDINGS, LTD,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
`TRU DEVELOPMENT,
`
`Registrant.
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Joseph E. Mueth
`
`JOSEPH E. MUETH LAW CORPORATION
`800 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 840
`Pasadena, CA 91101-2173
`(626) 584-0396 (phone)
`(626) 584-6862 (facsimile)
`jmueth@josephemueth.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,
`Double Coin Holdings, Ltd.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
`
`ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary Judgment Standard.
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`
`There Are No Genuine Issues of Material Fact Supporting Tru
`Development’s Counterclaim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`
`Uncontroverted Facts Establish A Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`. . . . . . . . . 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tru Development’s Trademark Creates A Likelihood
`of Confusion Under DuPont Factors.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`
`Priority of the WARRIOR Mark Is Clearly Established. . . . . . . . . 11
`
`Double Coin Has No Intent To Abandon WARRIOR. . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Adidas AGV v. Etonic Holdings, LLC, 12 USPQ 2D 1188 (TTAB 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
`American Dirigold Corp. v. Dirigold Metals Corp., 125 F.2d 446,
`52 USPQ 510 (6th Cir. 1942)
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`American Motors Corp. v. Action-Age, Inc., 178 USPQ 377 (TTAB 1973) . . . . . . . . . 15
`
`Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ 2d 1049 (TTAB 2016)
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
`Care Fusion 2200, Inc. v. Entrotech Life Scis., Inc., 119 USPQ 2d 1492
`(TTAB 2016)
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`
`CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1987)
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`
`Cerveceria Centroamericana, S.A. v. Cerveceria India, Inc., 892 F.2d 1021, 13
`USPQ 2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`Chandon Champagne Corp. v. San Marino Wine Corp., 335 F.2d 531,
`142 USPQ 239 (2d Cir. 1964)
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Clubman’s Club Corporation v. Martin, 188 USPQ 455, 1975 WL 20849 (TTAB
`1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Sanford Chemical Co., 162 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1969) . . . . . 14
`
`Columbia Industries, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 497 F.2d 1358, 182 USPQ 205
`(CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`Continental Distilling Corp. v. Old Charter Distillery Co., 188 F.2d 614, 87
`USPQ 365 (D.C. Cir. 1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Cuban Cigar Brands N.V. v. Upmann International, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 1090, 199
`USPQ 193 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Defiance Button Mach. Co. v. C & C Metal Prods. Corp., 759 F.2d 1053,
`225 USPQ 797 (2d. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Emergency One Inc. v. American FireEagle Ltd., 56 USPQ 2d 1343
`(4th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15
`
`Haviland & Co. v. Johann Haviland China Corp., 269 F. Supp. 928,
`154 USPQ 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ 198
`(Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
`In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA
`1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 10
`
`In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
`In re Morinaga Nyugyo Fabuskeki Kaisha, 120 USPQ 2d 1740 (TTAB 2014) . . . . . . . 6
`
`Libya v. Miski, 889 F. Supp. 2d 144, 103 USPQ 2d 1927 (D.D.C. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Margaret Wendt Foundation Holdings, Inc. v. Roycroft Associates,
`84 USPQ 2d 1690, 2007 WL 3015224 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Menendez v. Faber, Coe & Gregg, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 527, 174 USPQ 80
`(S.D.N.Y. 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Merry Hull & Co. v. Hi-Line Co., 243 F. Supp. 45, 146 USPQ 274 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) . . 13
`
`Miliken & Company v. Image Indus, Inc., 39 USPQ 2d 1192 (TTAB 1996)
`
`. . . . . . . . . 7
`
`Miller Brewing Co. v. Oland’s Breweries (1971), Ltd., 548 F.2d 349, 192
`USPQ 266 (C.C.P.A. 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Rivard v. Linville, 133 F.3d 1446, 45 USPQ 2d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`Roulo v. Russ Berrie & Co., 886 F.2d 931, 12 USPQ 2d 1423 (7th Cir. 1989)
`
`. . . 12, 14
`
`Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., Inc. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 208 USPQ 175
`(2d Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 14
`
`Seidelmann Yachts, Inc. v. Pace Yacht Corp., 14 USPQ 2d 1497 (D. Md. 1989), aff’d,
`13 USPQ 2d 2025 (4th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Societe de Developments et D’Innovations des Marches Agricoles et Alimentaires -
`SODIMA - Union de Cooperatives Agricoles v. International Yogurt, Co.,
`662 F. Supp. 839, 3 USPQ 2d 1641 (D. Or. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. P.J. Rhoades & Co., 769 F.2d 1393, 227 USPQ 44
`(9th Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Stephen M. Silverman v. CBS Inc., 870 F.2d 40, 9 USPQ 2d 1778 (2nd Cir. 1989)
`
`. . 14
`
`Sterling Brewers, Inc. v. Schenley Industries, Inc., 441 F.2d 675, 169 USPQ 590
`(C.C.P.A. 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Stern Apparel Corp. v. Raingard, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 621, 83 USPQ 293
`(D.N.Y. 1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Stetson v. Howard D. Wolf & Assocs., 955 F.2d 874, 21 USPQ 2d 1783 (2d.
`Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 4 USPQ 2d 1793 (Fed.
`Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`
`Zelinski v. Columbia 300, Inc., 335 F.3d 633, 67 USPQ 2d 1446, 62 Fed. R. Evid.
`Serv. 665 (7th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`STATE CASES
`
`Leventhal v. Ollie Morris Equipment Corp., 184 Cal. App. 2d 553, 7 Cal Rptr. 911,
`127 USPQ 96 (2d Dist. 1960)
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Olympia Brewing Co. v. Northwest Brewing Co., 178 Wash. 533, 35 P. 2d 104
`(1934)
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Vaudable v. Montmartre, Inc., 20 Misc. 2d 757, 193 N.Y.S.2d 332, 123
`USPQ 357 (1959)
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`v
`
`

`

`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`Lanham Act Sec. 33, 15 U.S.C. §1115(b)(2)
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`
`Lanham Act Sec. 14, 15 U.S.C. § 1064 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 5
`
`Lanham Act Sec. 15, 15 U.S.C. §1065 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`Lanham Act Sec. 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`
`Lanham Act Sec. 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5, 10-12, 16
`
`Trademark Act § 2(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 4, 16
`
`FEDERAL RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 7
`
`TBMP 578.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`
`TMEP § 901.02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`Trademark Rules of Practice Rule 2.127(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`McCarthy, J. Thomas, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition,
`(Thomson Reuters) 4th Ed., Vol. 3, 20:17 (Dec. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration Investigation
`No. A-570-016, Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the
`Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck
`Tires from the People’s Republic of China (January 20, 2015)
`. . . . 3, 8-10
`
`United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration Investigation
`No. A-570-016, Notice of Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty
`Investigation of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the
`People’s Republic of China, 80 FR 4250 (January 27, 2015)
`3, 8, 10
`
`United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration Investigation
`No. A-570-160 Notice of Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Investigation of Ceratin Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from
`the People’s Republic of China, 80 FR 34893 (June 18, 2015) . . . . 3, 10
`
`United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration Investigation
`No. A-570-160 Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the
`Antidumping Duty Investigation of Ceratin Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck
`Tires from the People’s Republic of China (June 11, 2015)
`. . . . 3, 8-10
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Rule 2.127(e) of the Trademark Rules of
`
`Practice, there being no genuine issue of material fact, Petitioner Double Coin Holdings,
`
`Ltd. (“Double Coin”) hereby moves for summary judgment in its favor on claims 1
`
`through 7 asserted by Double Coin in its Petition (Dkt. #1) in this proceeding, namely,
`
`that Registrant Tru Development (“Tru Development”)’s United States Trademark
`
`Registration No. 4,805,521 for ROAD WARRIOR (“ROAD WARRIOR”) on tires is
`
`damaging to Double Coin under Trademark Act § 2(d) and should be cancelled.
`
`Double Coin further moves for summary judgement to dismiss Tru
`
`Development’s counterclaims 1 through 5 asserted by Tru Development in its Answer
`
`To Petition For Cancellation And Counterclaim To Cancel Petitioner’s United States
`
`Trademark Registration No. 3,335,545 for WARRIOR (“WARRIOR”) (Dkt. #6) for, inter
`
`alia, tires, there being no genuine issue of material fact against the validity of
`
`WARRIOR, which trademark registration has become incontestible under Lanham Act
`
`Sec. 15, 15 U.S.C. §1065.
`
`Specifically, Double Coin is entitled to summary judgment because (1) ROAD
`
`WARRIOR creates a likelihood of confusion with Double Coin’s WARRIOR registration
`
`when used on or in connection with tires; and because (2) the priority of WARRIOR is
`
`clearly established by virtue of the priority of the WARRIOR trademark registration and
`
`Double Coin’s prior use of the WARRIOR mark in commerce, Columbia Industries, Inc.
`
`v. Tiffany & Co., 497 F.2d 1358, 182 USPQ 205 (CCPA 1974).
`
`2
`
`

`

`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`The operative pleading at this point is Double Coin’s Petition for Cancellation
`
`(Dkt. #1) of ROAD WARRIOR, the goods of this contested trademark registration being
`
`“tires”, and having a filing date of November 13, 2014 and an alleged date of first use of
`
`January 1, 2015, the Petition being based on the WARRIOR United States registration
`
`granted on November 13, 2007. In Tru Development’s Answer (Dkt. #6) alleging
`
`various affirmative defenses, the only one of which that finds any possible basis under
`
`Lanham Act Sec. 14, 15 U.S.C. § 1064 is Affirmative Defense 1 alleging abandonment
`
`of the WARRIOR mark allegedly due to temporary suspension of use (Lanham Act Sec
`
`33, 15 U.S.C. §1115(b)(2)), following United States Department of Commerce
`
`International Trade Administration Investigation No. A-570-016, Notice of Preliminary
`
`Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Passenger Vehicle and
`
`Light Truck Tires from the People’s Republic of China, 80 FR 4250 (January 27, 2015),
`
`United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration Investigation
`
`No. A-570-016, Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the
`
`Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from
`
`the People’s Republic of China (January 20, 2015), United States Department of
`
`Commerce International Trade Administration Investigation No. A-570-160 Notice of
`
`Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Ceratin Passenger Vehicle
`
`and Light Truck Tires from the People’s Republic of China, 80 FR 34893 (June 18,
`
`2015) and United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration
`
`(“ITA”) Investigation No. A-570-160 Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination
`
`in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Ceratin Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck
`
`3
`
`

`

`Tires from the People’s Republic of China (June 11, 2015), which imposed a 87.99%
`
`duty on WARRIOR tires imported from China, rendering the suspension of use of
`
`WARRIOR excusable as a matter of law (Lanham Act Sec. 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127),
`
`Double Coin having the intention to resume use of WARRIOR in the United States by
`
`the fourth quarter of 2017. See, Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 2.0 of Dean Jin In
`
`Support Of Double Coin Holdings, Ltd.’s Motion For Summary Judgment (the “Jin
`
`Declaration”) at ¶¶ 10-15 and Exhibits 1-7.
`
`The period of suspension of use of WARRIOR is from April 16, 2015 to date.
`
`See, Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 2.0 of Zhi-Ming “Mike” Yang In Support Of Double
`
`Coin Holdings, Ltd.’s Motion For Summary Judgment (the “Yang Declaration”) at ¶ 9,
`
`less than three years. There is no presumption of abandonment and the burden of
`
`proof on this issue is on Tru Development by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Tru Development cannot demonstrate that ROAD WARRIOR has priority over
`
`WARRIOR. The ROAD WARRIOR mark creates a likelihood of confusion with the prior
`
`WARRIOR registration in the market. See, Registrant’s Responses to Petitioner’s First
`
`Set of Written Discovery (Exhibit 1). Those answers in hand, the record is now ripe to
`
`test the dispositive legal issue of Double Coin’s standing to obtain relief under
`
`Trademark Act § 2(d). The record establishes that Double Coin never intended to
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`4
`
`

`

`abandon use of WARRIOR on tires pursuant to Lanham Act Sec. 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127,
`
`and still enjoys the priority of WARRIOR based on Double Coin’s registration application
`
`having been filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 8, 2006 and its
`
`granted registration date of November 13, 2007.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate because there is no genuine issue of material
`
`fact disputing the likelihood of confusion of WARRIOR and ROAD WARRIOR, Double
`
`Coin’s priority rights in WARRIOR nor evidence that Double Coin has abandoned or
`
`intended to abandon use of WARRIOR, therefore Double Coin is entitled to judgement
`
`as a matter of law.
`
`Tru Development has presented no genuine issues of material fact to be
`
`resolved at trial in its Answer and Counterclaim (Dkt. #6) which asserts, in effect, that
`
`Double Coin has abandoned WARRIOR as a result of Double Coin’s temporary
`
`suspension of use due to the imposition of duties by the ITA. Double Coin’s temporary
`
`suspension of use of WARRIOR is, as a matter of law, excusable non-use, Lanham Act
`
`Sec. 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127. Tru Development’s other defenses set forth in its Answer
`
`and Counterclaim (Dkt. #6) are without basis in Lanham Act Sec. 14, 15 U.S.C. §1064.
`
`As further shown below, Tru Development’s ROAD WARRIOR registration
`
`creates a likelihood of confusion with Double Coin’s WARRIOR trademark as a matter
`
`of law. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists is determined on a case-by-case basis
`
`aided by the application of factors set out in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`
`F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) . “Not all of the DuPont factors are relevant to
`
`every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.”,
`
`5
`
`

`

`In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) at 1346. In this case, the DuPont
`
`factors relating to the goods being tires, the similarity of the goods and the similarity of
`
`the marks are determinative, Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ 2d 1049 (TTAB 2016), Adidas
`
`AGV v. Etonic Holdings, LLC, 12 USPQ 2D 1188, 1191 (TTAB 2016). Here, the marks
`
`are barely distinguishable. The tacking on of “Road” to “Warrior”, as done by Tru
`
`Development, does not distinguish since the goods are tires and are used primarily on
`
`roads.
`
`It is well established that, “absent restrictions in the application and registration,
`
`goods and services are presumed to travel in the same class of purchasers.” Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ 1001 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002) (citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 1581, 218 USPQ 198 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983)), In re Morinaga Nyugyo Fabuskeki Kaisha, 120 USPQ 2d 1740 (TTAB 2014).
`
`The Board relies on this legal presumption in determining likelihood of confusion.
`
`Double Coin is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on its Petition
`
`(Dkt. #1) based on the likelihood of confusion of WARRIOR and ROAD WARRIOR on
`
`tires.
`
`Double Coin is further entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Tru
`
`Development’s counterclaims because the priority of its WARRIOR mark is clearly
`
`established, the likelihood of confusion is established and Double Coin has
`
`demonstrated it not only has no intent to abandon WARRIOR, but is actively engaged
`
`6
`
`

`

`in resuming use of WARRIOR on tires in the United States. The Board should (1) grant
`
`Double Coin’s instant motion for summary judgment and enter judgment cancelling
`
`ROAD WARRIOR, and (2) dismiss Tru Development’s sole counterclaim.
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment Standard.
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any
`
`material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 56(c); see TBMP 578.01. Summary judgment encourages the speedy resolution
`
`of cases, including trademark disputes. Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co.,
`
`833 F.2d 1560, 4 USPQ 2d 1793, 1795 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding that summary
`
`judgment is a salutary method of disposition for trademark oppositions and
`
`cancellations). Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party
`
`who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element that is
`
`essential to that party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1987). The
`
`non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
`
`trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). In appropriate cases, the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`
`Board does not hesitate to dispose of cases on summary judgment. Miliken &
`
`Company v. Image Indus, Inc., 39 USPQ 2d 1192, 1996 (TTAB 1996).
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`7
`
`

`

`B.
`
`There Are No Genuine Issues of Material Fact Supporting Tru
`Development’s Counterclaim.
`
`Double Coin is organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, Yang
`
`Declaration at ¶ 3. Double Coin’s United States tire sales distributor is China
`
`Manufacturer’s Alliance, LLC (“CMA”), a California limited liability company, Yang
`
`Declaration at ¶ 2. Double Coin holds a 52.4% shareholder interest in CMA, Yang
`
`Declaration at ¶ 3. Double Coin’s parent company is the Huayi Group which holds a
`
`65.66% shareholder interest in Double Coin, Yang Declaration at ¶ 4.
`
`Double Coin manufactured WARRIOR tires in China long prior to January 1,
`
`2015 and exported WARRIOR tires to the United States where CMA acted as the
`
`exclusive distributor to United States tire dealers who market the tires to the ultimate
`
`consumer, Yang Declaration at ¶ 2.
`
`On July 21, 2014, the ITA published its Notice of Initiation of Investigation No. A-
`
`570-016 “Anticipating Investigation of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires
`
`for the People’s Republic of China” under 79 FR 42292, ITA Notice of Preliminary
`
`Determination No. A-570-160, January 27, 2015 at 4250.
`
`ITA Preliminary Decision No. A-570-160, January 20, 2015 at page 13
`
`established an anti-dumping duty of 87.94%. Double Coin was found to be government
`
`controlled, ITA Preliminary Decision No. A-570-160, January 20, 2015 at page 25.
`
`Other Chinese tire manufacturers were found to be free of government control and were
`
`accorded a lower “Separate Rate”, ITA Preliminary Decision No. A-570-160, January
`
`20, 2015 at Appendices I and II. The 87.99% rate was made final by ITA Final Decision
`
`Memorandum No. A-570-160, June 11, 2015, Comment 39 at pages 74-78.
`
`8
`
`

`

`In ITA Preliminary Decision A-570-160, the ITA determined that Double Coin was
`
`shown to be under de facto government control, ITA Preliminary Decision A-570-160 at
`
`25, and imposed an antidumping duty on Double Coin origin tires of 87.99%, ITA
`
`Preliminary Decision A-570-160 at 13.
`
`Subsequently, this antidumping duty was made final in the ITA Final Decision No.
`
`A-570-160, June 11, 2015 at 75-78. Lower duties were imposed on many non-
`
`government controlled Chinese tire exporters by grant of “separate status”, ITA
`
`Preliminary Decision No. A-570-160, January 20, 2015 at Appendices I and II, Jin
`
`Declaration ¶ 6.
`
`Due to the prohibitive antidumping duty, Double Coin halted shipments of
`
`WARRIOR tires to the United States following ITA Preliminary Decision No. A-570-016,
`
`and CMA exhausted its WARRIOR tire inventory by April 2015, Jin Declaration ¶ 8 and
`
`Yang Declaration ¶ 9. In 2016 Double Coin’s parent, the Huayi Group, began the
`
`construction of a tire manufacturing facility in Thailand which will resume supply of
`
`WARRIOR tires to the United States, Jin Declaration Exhibits 1-7.
`
`Based on its own documents produced in Registrant’s Responses to Petitioner’s
`
`First Set of Written Discovery (Exhibit 1), Tru Development also sells tires imported
`
`from the People’s Republic of China (Exhibit 1, Response to Request For Production
`
`No. 1, RW000022-RW000023). Tru Development’s source in China of ROAD
`
`WARRIOR tires is unknown. Tru Development pays an import duty of less that 25%
`
`(Exhibit 1, Responses to Requests For Production Nos. 1, 4. RW000043-RW000047).
`
`Tru Development’s tire supplier has been awarded separate status, given that ITA Final
`
`9
`
`

`

`Decision No. A-570-016 shows the maximum allowable rate of 87.99% was applied only
`
`to those Chinese tire exporters denied separate status.
`
`A further reason that WARRIOR should not be cancelled is that there is nothing
`
`in the trade laws, nor in ITA Notice of Preliminary Decision No. A-570-016, ITA
`
`Preliminary Decision Memorandum No. A-570-016, ITA Notice of Final Decision No. A-
`
`570-016 or ITA Final Decision Memorandum No. A-570-016 which negates or restricts
`
`the narrow operation of Lanham Act Sec. 45. To the contrary, to cancel a trademark
`
`under the circumstances of the instant case would inject a new, non-statutory issue into
`
`the contentious trade relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic
`
`of China.
`
`C.
`
`Uncontroverted Facts Establish A Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`1.
`
`Tru Development’s Trademark Creates A Likelihood of
`Confusion Under DuPont Factors.
`
`The conflicting registered trademarks are Double Coin’s WARRIOR and Tru
`
`Development’s ROAD WARRIOR. Confusion as to a source or origin is obviously likely,
`
`Lanham Act Sec. 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). The distinctive term is “Warrior”. The
`
`“Road” term refers to the use of tires on the road and is likely to cause the average
`
`purchaser to believe that the tires emanate from the same source, Care Fusion 2200,
`
`Inc. v. Entrotech Life Scis., Inc., 119 USPQ 2d 1492 (TTAB 2016). The du Pont factors
`
`establishing likelihood of confusion are clearly met. The mark and the goods are the
`
`same. The customer class and channels of commerce are the same. The goods are
`
`tires. The WARRIOR tires continue to travel the streets and roads of the country,
`
`exposing the mark to a wide swath of the populace. Current owners of WARRIOR tires
`
`10
`
`

`

`are likely to be mislead at time of replacement by the presence of ROAD WARRIOR
`
`tires in the marketplace. CMA, Double Coin’s United States WARRIOR tire distributor,
`
`sold WARRIOR tires in the United States prior to January 1, 2015 and prior to that date
`
`advertised WARRIOR tires on its website accessible to any prospective tire purchasers,
`
`Yang Declaration ¶ 6 and Exhibits 2 and 3.
`
`2.
`
`Priority of the WARRIOR Mark Is Clearly Established.
`
`Double Coin’s United States distributor, CMA, sold WARRIOR tires prior to Tru
`
`Development’s January 1, 2015 date of first use alleged in the ROAD WARRIOR
`
`registration, Yang Declaration ¶ 5.
`
`Tru Development’s ROAD WARRIOR should be cancelled based on Double
`
`Coin’s preexisting ownership of WARRIOR, see, McCarthy, J. Thomas, McCarthy on
`
`Trademarks and Unfair Competition, (Thomson Reuters) 4th Ed., Vol. 3, 20:17, 20:66-
`
`20:72 (Dec. 2016).
`
`3.
`
`Double Coin Has No Intent To Abandon WARRIOR.
`
`Under the Lanham Act a trademark is abandoned when “its use has been
`
`discontinued with intent not to resume such use.” Lanham Act Sec. 45, 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1127. Thus, a party claiming that a mark has been abandoned must show non-use of
`
`the mark by the legal owner and no intent by that person or entity to resume use in the
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`11
`
`

`

`reasonably foreseeable future, Stetson v. Howard D. Wolf & Assocs., 955 F.2d 874,
`
`850, 21 USPQ 2d 1783 (2d. Cir. 1992). Non-use for three consecutive years constitutes
`
`prima facie evidence of abandonment, Lanham Act Sec. 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, and is
`
`inapplicable to the factual situation at hand.
`
`Proof of three consecutive years of non-use thus creates a presumption - a
`
`mandatory inference of intent not to resume use. See, Cerveceria Centroamericana,
`
`S.A. v. Cerveceria India, Inc., 892 F.2d 1021, 1025-26, 13 USPQ 2d 1307 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989), Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 1044-45, 208 USPQ 2d
`
`175 (2d Cir. 1980). That presumption is not triggered here since Double Coin
`
`temporarily halted shipment of WARRIOR tires to the United States in April 2015 and
`
`will resume such shipments by the fourth quarter of 2017, Jin Declaration ¶¶ 14 and 15.
`
`See, Cerveceria Centroamericana, 892 F.2d at 1026, Roulo v. Russ Berrie & Co., 886
`
`F.2d 931, 938, 12 USPQ 2d 1423 (7th Cir. 1989), Societe de Developments et
`
`D’Innovations des Marches Agricoles et Alimentaires - SODIMA - Union de
`
`Cooperatives Agricoles v. International Yogurt, Co., 662 F. Supp. 839, 845, 3 USPQ 2d
`
`1641 (D. Or. 1987). The ultimate burden of proof (by a preponderance of the evidence)
`
`remains always on the challenger. See, Rivard v. Linville, 133 F.3d 1446, 1449, 45
`
`USPQ 2d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Cerveceria Centroamericana, 892 F.2d at 1026.
`
`Double Coin, through its distributor CMA, temporarily ceased selling tires in the
`
`United States in April 2015 following the imposition of the 87.99% duty by the ITA, Jin
`
`Declaration ¶ 8 and Yang Declaration ¶ 8. It is not possible to compete with other tires
`
`which do not bear such a burdensome duty. The United States tire market has many
`
`tire sellers including those of domestic manufacture, those of Chinese origin which have
`
`12
`
`

`

`been granted the lower separate rate status by the ITA, and those tires originating in
`
`third countries. To overcome this competitive handicap, Double Coin’s parent
`
`developed a plan to produce WARRIOR tires for the United States market in Thailand,
`
`Jin Declaration ¶10 and Exhibits 1-7. The Thailand facility is under construction and it is
`
`planned to go on line in the fourth quarter of 2017, at which time export of WARRIOR
`
`tires to the United States will resume, Jin Declaration ¶¶ 14 and 15. It is well settled
`
`that abandonment does not result from a temporary forced withdrawal from the market
`
`due to causes such as war,1 severing of diplomatic ties or imposition of economic
`
`sanctions,2 prohibition,3 a labor strike,4 bankruptcy,5 import problems,6 unprofitable
`
`1 Vaudable v. Montmartre, Inc., 20 Misc. 2d 757, 193 N.Y.S.2d 332, 123 USPQ
`357 (1959), Chandon Champagne Corp. v. San Marino Wine Corp., 335 F.2d 531, 142
`USPQ 239 (2d Cir. 1964), Stern Apparel Corp. v. Raingard, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 621, 83
`USPQ 293 (D.N.Y. 1949), Haviland & Co. v. Johann Haviland China Corp., 269 F.
`Supp. 928, 154 USPQ 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1967), Cuban Cigar Brands N.V. v. Upmann
`International, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 1090, 199 USPQ 193 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), Menendez v.
`Faber, Coe & Gregg, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 527, 174 USPQ 80 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).
`
`2Libya v. Miski, 889 F. Supp. 2d 144, 103 USPQ 2d 1927 (D.D.C. 2012).
`
`3 Olympia Brewing Co. v. Northwest Brewing Co., 178 Wash. 533, 35 P. 2d 104
`(1934), Continental Distilling Corp. v. Old Charter Distillery Co., 188 F.2d 614, 87 USPQ
`365 (D.C. Cir. 1950).
`
`4 Sterling Brewers, Inc. v. Schenley Industries, Inc., 441 F.2d 675, 169 USPQ
`590 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
`
`5 American Dirigold Corp. v. Dirigold Metals Corp., 125 F.2d 446, 52 USPQ 510
`(6th Cir. 1942), Merry Hull & Co. v. Hi-Line Co., 243 F. Supp. 45, 146 USPQ 274
`(S.D.N.Y. 1965), Leventhal v. Ollie Morris Equipment Corp., 184 Cal. App. 2d 553, 7 Cal
`Rptr. 911, 127 USPQ 96 (2d Dist. 1960).
`
`6 Miller Brewing Co. v. Oland’s Breweries (1971), Ltd., 548 F.2d 349, 192 USPQ
`266 (C.C.P.A. 1976).
`
`13
`
`

`

`sales,7 being sued for patent infringement,8 or some other involuntary action,9 provided
`
`the user resumes use within a reasonable time following passage of the external cause.
`
`Double Coin has concrete plans to resume use of the WARRIOR mark on tires in the
`
`United States by the fourth quarter 2017, Jin D