<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Quick note, I did not choose the text, but worked off Mary's
table...<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/3/2017 10:34 AM, Greg Shatan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUSWzf-C1sj43ann2Vy3ZOs08SoEpwuunLKwVRq5DB57gw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1207_01_c_ii.html"
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 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"
align="left">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 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"
align="left">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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5475.html"
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 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"
align="left">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 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"
align="left">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5036.html">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,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt"> </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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt"> </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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/"
target="_blank">http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/<wbr>en/</a>.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt">Thanks and cheers</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt">Mary</span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span class="gmail-">
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></pre>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>