Docket No. 2014-17890
LOURIE, BRYSON, CHEN
August 19, 2015
Brief Summary: TTAB decision affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded because NMS did not abandon its mark, the TTAB did not consider JWA’s mark as a whole, and failed to recognize “the relatively narrow scope of protection afforded to marks involving paw prints”.
Summary: Appellee NMS opposed JWA’s application to register a design mark consisting of an angled paw print for use with its clothing, footware, and accessory products, alleging it would cause confustion with its own mark (Reg. No. 1,856,808 (KELME mark)). JWA counterclaimed for cancellation of NMS’s mark, alleging that it had abandoned the mark. The TTAP rejected JWA’s claim, sustained the opposition, and refused to register JWA’s mark. The FC agreed with the Board that NMS did not abandon its mark but disagreed regarding a likelihood of confusion, finding it “failed to properly compare New Millenium’s mark as a whole to Jack Wolfskin’s mark and also failed to recognize, in light of the significant evidence of paw prints appearing in third party registrations and usage for clothing, the relatively narrow scope of protection afforded to marks involving paw prints.” The TTAB decision was therefore affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded.