Board Affirms Refusal to Register HUGHES FURNITURE; Declines to Consider Evidence Regarding Marketplace Use

Author: Eleanor Atkins

Just two days after the Supreme Court’s decision in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, Inc. was released, the TTAB refused to consider marketplace use when affirming a refusal to register the mark HUGHES FURNITURE shown below:

2015.04.20_HughesFurniture

The court’s decision is especially relevant given the holding in B&B Hardware that where the TTAB does not consider marketplace usage of the marks, the Board’s decision will not have preclusive effect in later district court infringement proceedings.

The PTO had refused registration of the HUGHES FURNITURE mark based on a likelihood of confusion with a prior registration for BRADLEY HUGHES for furniture. The applicant argued that the registrant’s goods were distinct because the BRADLEY HUGHES mark was used only for luxury, artisan-made furniture, whereas its goods appealed to a broader segment of the public. However, the Board found the goods “legally identical” based on the parties’ identifications. Resorting to longstanding precedent, the Board held that differences in marketplace realities had no legal significance where the parties’ identifications were not so restricted: “Notwithstanding Applicant’s argument and evidence regarding the actual scope of its own and the cited Registrant’s commercial use of its mark, we may not limit, by resort to extrinsic evidence, the scope of goods as identified in the cited registration or in the subject application.” The Board accordingly gave no weight to evidence showing that the parties targeted different market segments.

The Board’s decision is significant as it reaffirms that even where parties may submit evidence of marketplace use, the Board will not take such evidence into account unless it is relevant to the descriptions of the parties’ goods and services. Under B&B Hardware, such cases should not be entitled to preclusive effect.

 

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: