Examining Attorneys May Not Rely on ‘Family of Marks’ in Ex Parte Proceedings

Author: Morgan E. Smith

In a precedential ruling released last Friday, the TTAB made clear that examining attorneys may not rely on a “family of marks” theory in assessing likelihood of confusion for registrability purposes. In re Hitachi High-Techs. Corp., Serial No. 79110412 (TTAB Feb. 21, 2014) [PRECEDENTIAL].

Hitachi High-Technologies Corp. applied to register OPTICROSS for “liquid chromatography apparatus and parts thereof.” The Examining Attorney initially refused registration under Section 2(d), citing a “family” of seven OPTI-formative marks owned by Optimize Technologies. The Examining Attorney subsequently retracted her reference to the OPTI “family of marks,” finding enough evidence to sustain the refusal even without evidence of a “family.”

On appeal, the Board clarified that “[a] ‘family of marks’ may be established in an inter partes proceeding where there is evidence that a group of marks having a shared characteristic are advertised and promoted together.” Mere ownership by a registrant of multiple marks with similar root terms is not enough to establish a “family.” Rather, determination of a family requires consideration of the manner in which the marks are actually used in the marketplace, whether the marks are promoted “as a family” or individually, and their relative degree of distinctiveness. The Board emphasized that reliance on the doctrine in ex parte prosecution is inappropriate because the type of detailed assessment of real-life factors required to establish a “family” of marks is beyond the scope of ex parte proceedings and beyond the resources available to Examining Attorneys. The Board ultimately upheld the refusal of registration on likelihood of confusion grounds.

This decision offers useful insight into the “family of marks” doctrine and the additional burdens of proof that apply to a trademark owner seeking the expanded scope of protection that follows.



DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: