<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>+1 Greg<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div><br>
On May 3, 2017, at 7:34 AM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Comments in-line below on Kathy's first point. More to follow on the other points.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kathy Kleiman
</span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Re: the trademark side of the table:</p>
<p>Under Composite Mark definition, in the USA section, there are two case quotes, but the rule itself is not present, and I would ask that it be added:
<b>"However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties."
</b><a class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bitlaw.com%2Fsource%2Ftmep%2F1207_01_c_ii.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C413f5b9b86144a61755208d4923174dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294188507111267&sdata=aniTP3WJbjeXSA%2BUFbE6whqOG8FI3Fq4mBwq53VEKcc%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">http://www.bitlaw.com/source/<wbr>tmep/1207_01_c_ii.html</a>,
USPTO Trademark of Examining Procedure. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">GSS: I agree that the extract needs to be put in context, but we're not there yet. First, these are not case quotes; they are quotes from the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, used by
USPTO trademark examiners in examining applications. And this is from a section on analyzing likelihood of confusion between two marks, not a section defining composite marks per se.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The "situation" referred to in the additional text chosen by Kathy is an analysis of the likelihood of confusion between two "composite marks" (each of which consist of designs and letters),
and the "rule" being stated here is that while both marks must be considered in their entireties for the purpose of comparison, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature, which is often the wording.. The rule that both marks should be considered
in their entiretiesshould not be mistaken for a "rule" that a composite mark only provides protection for a mark in its entirety -- not the same thing, though some here clearly wish it were. And not the rule.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This is probably not the best place to extract a definition of composite mark, and I'll look for a better section. But if we do use this section, the text of this section should be inserted
in its entirety with cites removed (to avoid bulking this up too much):</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite marks that consist of a design element
combined with words and/or letters. Frequently, the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater weight may be given to the dominant
feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. </span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties.</span><br>
</div>
<p align="left" id="gmail-TMEP-ch-1200-4d105e9204" class="gmail-annotate-ok" style="margin-bottom:1em;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
If a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however,
that "[t]here is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue."</p>
<p align="left" id="gmail-TMEP-ch-1200-5d105e9213" class="gmail-annotate-ok" style="margin-bottom:1em;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis, without reliance on mechanical rules of construction.</p>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Here's the section in its entirety (with cites):<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite
marks that consist of a design element combined with words and/or letters. Frequently, the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater
weight may be given to the dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. </span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">See, e.g.</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">,</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> </span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">In
re Viterra Inc.</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">, 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012);</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> </span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Giant
Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc.</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">, 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983);</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> </span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">see
also</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> </span><b style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftmep.uspto.gov%2FRDMS%2FTMEP%2Fcurrent%23%2Fcurrent%2FTMEP-1200d1e5475.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C413f5b9b86144a61755208d4923174dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294188507111267&sdata=PoKv5LPiV7IapbKSZD1bfrWVhHXaS0pBtEA84T4lnEM%3D&reserved=0" style="color:rgb(0,140,255);text-decoration-line:none">TMEP
§1207.01(b)(iii)</a></b><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">. However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties.</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> </span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">See
Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">, 797 F.3d 1363, 1371, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2015);</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> </span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">In
re Shell Oil Co.</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">, 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993);</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> </span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Massey
Junior Coll., Inc. v. Fashion Inst. of Tech.</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">, 492 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 272, 273-74 (C.C.P.A. 1974) .</span><br>
</div>
<p align="left" id="gmail-TMEP-ch-1200-4d105e9204" class="gmail-annotate-ok" style="margin-bottom:1em;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
If a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. <i>See, e.g.</i>, <i>Viterra</i>, 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at
1911; <i>In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd.</i>, 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2010) ; <i>In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc.</i>, 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987) . The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]here is no general rule
as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue." <i>In re Electrolyte Labs. Inc.</i>, 929 F.2d 645, 647, 16 USPQ2d 1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990).</p>
<p align="left" id="gmail-TMEP-ch-1200-5d105e9213" class="gmail-annotate-ok" style="margin-bottom:1em;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis, without reliance on mechanical rules of construction. <i>See, e.g., Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.</i>, 797 F.3d at 1371-72, 116
USPQ2d at 1134-35 (holding that Board finding lacked substantial evidence for minimizing the literal element in composite mark); <i>Spice Islands, Inc. v. Frank Tea & Spice Co.</i>, 505 F.2d 1293, 184 USPQ 35 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (reversing TTAB’s holding that
SPICE TREE with tree design, for garlic powder and minced onion, and SPICE ISLANDS with and without tree design, for seasoning herbs and spices, is not likely to cause confusion); <i>In re Covalinski</i>, 113 USPQ2d 1166 (TTAB 2014) (holding confusion unlikely
between REDNECK RACEGIRL and design of large, double-letter RR configuration and registered mark RACEGIRL, even when used on in-part identical goods);<i>In re White Rock Distilleries Inc.</i>, 92 USPQ2d 1282 (TTAB 2009) (holding VOLTA for vodka infused with
caffeine, and TERZA VOLTA and vine shoot design for wines, not likely to cause confusion); <i>In re Sun Supermarkets, Inc.</i>, 228 USPQ 693 (TTAB 1986) (holding applicant’s mark, SUN SUPERMARKETS with sun design, for retail supermarket services, and registrant’s
marks, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE (both with sun designs), for retail grocery store services, likely to cause confusion).</p>
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftmep.uspto.gov%2FRDMS%2FTMEP%2Fcurrent%23%2Fcurrent%2FTMEP-1200d1e5036.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C413f5b9b86144a61755208d4923174dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294188507111267&sdata=MY4KVhoU8H0cGSQOQkQz0f7gQ55Fu4UvXXrGp3AIHaE%3D&reserved=0">https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5036.html</a>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
(this is a preferable cite, since it goes to the authoritative source and the current April 2017 version of the TMEP; the bitlaw cite seems to go to a 2015 version).</div>
<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Further, as Mary notes under "stylized mark," the Trademark Office confides that its definitions between stylized marks and marks with design elements are distinctions without difference: [from Mary's table]<font size="2"><font face="Calibri, serif"><b>
</b></font></font><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2"><b>USA: "No clear distinction, for definitional purposes at least, between a mark comprising stylized text only and a mark comprising stylized text with a design element."
<br>
</b></font></font></p>
<br>
<font size="2"><font face="Calibri, serif">The key difference, of course, is the <b>
"</b></font></font><b>registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color"</b> and the others don't. I look forward to our discussion today and note again that it is this clear distinction
that original rules captured when they created the TMCH Database, TM Claims and Sunrise period.
<br>
<span class="gmail-"><br>
Best, Kathy<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-cite-prefix">On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Mary Wong wrote:<br>
</div>
</span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div class="gmail-h5">
<div class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Dear all,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Staff has updated the table of open TMCH questions (on design marks, GIs and TMCH matching rules) with the new proposal on GIs submitted on Friday by Jonathan Agmon (see attached document). Given the ongoing
Working Group discussions on the mailing list on some of these topics, we have not attempted to summarize the specific discussion items and sub-topics, but we will be happy to do so if this will be helpful.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Also attached is the staff-prepared glossary of terms relating to design marks and GIs, which we have updated slightly to note the new Amending Regulation in the EU concerning the definition of a trademark.
We hope the glossary is helpful to everyone in distinguishing and/or defining many of the terms and usages around design/device/composite/<wbr>figurative marks, collective and certification marks, GIs and appellations of origin, etc.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">You may also wish to note that WIPO maintains a searchable database of the IP laws of many countries, which you can specify the country of search as well as the type of IP right (e.g. copyright, GIs, industrial
design, patents, trademarks etc.) for which you are seeking the applicable legislation or treaty:
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Fwipolex%2Fen%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C413f5b9b86144a61755208d4923174dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294188507111267&sdata=emlA%2FF6xnkukZaIK4KeE2XXudFNqN9WjB53UKAilFkc%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/<wbr>en/</a>. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thanks and cheers<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Mary<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <br>
</div>
</div>
<span class="gmail-">
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C413f5b9b86144a61755208d4923174dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294188507111267&sdata=9ovvpEI0Ol%2BvDvmVCQEE1aGuwGx6xoww1V%2FQ5gfbFfA%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C413f5b9b86144a61755208d4923174dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294188507111267&sdata=9ovvpEI0Ol%2BvDvmVCQEE1aGuwGx6xoww1V%2FQ5gfbFfA%3D&reserved=0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C413f5b9b86144a61755208d4923174dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294188507111267&sdata=9ovvpEI0Ol%2BvDvmVCQEE1aGuwGx6xoww1V%2FQ5gfbFfA%3D&reserved=0">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C413f5b9b86144a61755208d4923174dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294188507111267&sdata=9ovvpEI0Ol%2BvDvmVCQEE1aGuwGx6xoww1V%2FQ5gfbFfA%3D&reserved=0</a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>