309.03(c)(2)    Priority and Likelihood of Confusion

The following is a brief discussion of the elements of a claim of likelihood of confusion, the most frequently encountered issue in Board inter partes proceedings.

Pursuant to Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), plaintiff must assert, and then prove at trial, that defendant’s mark, as applied to its goods or services, so resembles plaintiff’s previously used or registered mark or its previously used trade name as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.

A.    Priority

A plaintiff must plead (and later prove) priority of use. [ Note 1.] In order to properly assert priority, a plaintiff must allege facts showing proprietary rights in its pleaded mark that are prior to defendant’s rights in the challenged mark. [ Note 2.] Such rights may be shown by, for example, ownership of an application with a filing date (or a registration with an underlying application filing date) prior to any date of first use on which defendant can rely; [ Note 3.] prior trademark or service mark use; [ Note 4.] or prior use analogous to trademark or service mark use. [ Note 5.]

However, priority is not in issue in an opposition where opposer pleads (and later proves) that it owns a registration for its pleaded mark, [ Note 6.] provided that there is no counterclaim or separate petition to cancel the pleaded registration, or any counterclaim or separate petition to cancel the pleaded registration by the applicant is ultimately dismissed and the registration remains uncancelled. [ Note 7.]

A plaintiff may be permitted to assert the proprietary rights or registration(s) of a third-party as a basis for a Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)  ground if plaintiff can show a legitimate interest in preventing confusion between the pleaded mark(s) and the defendant’s mark. [ Note 8.]

NOTES:

 1.   Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). See West Florida Seafood, Inc., v. Jet Restaurants, Inc., 31 F.2d 1122, 31 USPQ2d 1660, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in determining whether a party has established prior use, Board should look at the evidence as a whole); Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1187, 1195 (TTAB 2012) (failure to prove priority at common law for goods not covered by pleaded registrations of record); Giersch v. Scripps, 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1023 (TTAB 2009) (petitioner established common rights through "regular and recurring" use of distinctive mark); Life Zone Inc. v. Middleman Group Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1953, 1960 (TTAB 2008) (failure to prove priority by preponderance of the evidence); Media Online Inc. v. El Clasificado Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1285, 1287 (TTAB 2008) (respondent not precluded from moving for judgment on the pleadings on the issue of priority, despite its failure to assert priority as an affirmative defense, because priority is a required element of petitioner’s Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052 claim); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1108 (TTAB 2007) (priority established by proof of prior use).

 2.   See Herbko International Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Jewelers Vigilance Committee Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp., 823 F.2d 490, 2 USPQ2d 2021 (Fed. Cir. 1987), on remand, 5 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB1987), rev’d, 853 F.2d 888, 7 USPQ2d 1628, 1632 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Otto Roth & Co. v. Universal Corp., 640 F.2d 1317, 209 USPQ 40, 43 (CCPA 1981); Golomb v. Wadsworth, 592 F.2d 1184, 201 USPQ 200, 201 (CCPA 1979); Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1119 (TTAB 2009) (applicant may rely without further proof upon the filing date of its application as a "constructive use" date for purposes of priority); Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s Warehouse Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1852 (TTAB 2008) (priority based on acquisition of acquired distinctiveness of merely descriptive mark); H.D. Lee Co. v. Maidenform Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1715, 1722 (TTAB 2008) (underlying application for registration predates filing date of applicant’s application); Media Online Inc. v. El Clasificado Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1285, 1288 (TTAB 2008) (respondent may rely on filing date of registration at issue as constructive date of first use, predating petitioner’s claim of date of first use as verified in its petition); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1108 (TTAB 2007) (oral testimony, even of a single witness, if sufficiently probative, may be sufficient to prove priority); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Rodriguez, 83 USPQ2d 1500, 1505 (TTAB 2007) (priority based on prior use and pleaded registrations); L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc. v. Ronald C. Cosser, 81 USPQ2d 1956 (TTAB 2007); Fram Trak Industries Inc. v. WireTracks LLC, 77 USPQ2d 2000, 2005 (TTAB 2006); Internet Inc. v. Corporation for National Research Initiatives, 38 USPQ2d 1435 (TTAB 1996); Holmes Products Corp. v. Duracraft Corp., 30 USPQ2d 1549 (TTAB 1994); Jimlar Corp. v. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service, 24 USPQ2d 1216 (TTAB 1992); Perma Ceram Enterprises Inc. v. Preco Industries Ltd., 23 USPQ2d 1134 (TTAB 1992) (priority of acquired distinctiveness); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Madison Watch Co., 211 USPQ 352 (TTAB 1981) (proprietary right is a right residing in owner of mark and those in privity).

Cf. Otter Products LLC v. BaseOneLabs LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1252, 1255-56 (TTAB 2012) (reliance solely on a Supplemental Registration insufficient to establish proprietary rights); Stephen Slesinger Inc., v. Disney Enterprises Inc., 98USPQ2d 1890, 1896 n.17 (TTAB 2011) (plaintiff cannot establish priority because it cannot prove ownership of some prior right in view of the district court’s finding that plaintiff transferred all its rights to defendant), aff’d, 702 F.3d 640, 105 USPQ2d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 2012) cert den. 134 S. Ct. 125 (2013); Diaz v. Servicios De Franquicia Pardo’s S.A.C., 83 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (TTAB 2007) (in view of decision in applicant’s favor on issue of priority, opposer cannot as a matter of law prevail on likelihood of confusion claim); CDS Inc. v. I.C.E.D. Management, Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1572, 1580 (TTAB 2006) (in a concurrent use proceeding, after the jurisdictional requirement has been met, Board must then consider the issue of likelihood of confusion); Aktieselskabet af 21 November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1861, 1864 (TTAB 2006), motion granted,511 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007), aff’d in part and rev’d in part,525 F.3d 8, 86 USPQ2d 1527 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (priority of trademark rights in the United States depends solely upon priority of use in U.S., and not on priority of use anywhere in the world; opposer must rely upon filing date of its Trademark Act § 44, 15 U.S.C. § 1126 application for its use date).

 3.   See Spirits International B.V. v. S. S. Taris Zeytin Ve Zeytinyagi Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri Birligi, 99 USPQ2d 1545, 1549 (TTAB 2011) (opposer may rely on its earlier- filed intent-to-use application filing date as a constructive use date for purposes of priority; any judgment is contingent upon registration of opposer’s application); Brown Shoe Co. v. Robbins, 90 USPQ2d 1752, 1754 (TTAB 2009) (priority established by making pleaded registrations of record); Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, 84 USPQ2d 1560, 1565 (TTAB 2007) (where both petitioner and respondent are owners of registrations, petitioner must prove priority of use; may rely on filing date of application for registration); Kohler C. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1106 (TTAB 2007) (respondent may rely on the filing date of the application underlying its registration in establishing priority, in absence of allegation or proof of date of first use earlier than this date); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1897 (TTAB 2006) (priority established by introduction of status and title copy of registration during testimony deposition); Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1334, 1339 (TTAB 2006) (plaintiff may rely on plaintiff’s application filing dates, subject to issuance of the registrations, for purposes of priority); Larami Corp. v. Talk To Me Programs Inc., 36 USPQ2d 1840, 1844 (TTAB 1995) (owner of an intent-to-use application may rely on its application filing date as a constructive use date for purposes of priority); Zirco Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 21 USPQ2d 1542, 1544 (TTAB 1991).

 4.   See Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1119 (TTAB 2009) (insufficient record evidence of prior use); Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1023 (TTAB 2009) (in absence of pleaded registration, petitioner must show prior common law use); Mattel Inc. v. Funline Merchandise Co., 81 USPQ2d 1372, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (petitioner’s use of mark prior to respondent’s first use); Green Spot (Thailand) Ltd. v. Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1283, 1284 (TTAB 2008) (opposer’s use, while not large, was sufficient to constitute more than token use); General Motors Corp. v. Aristide & Co., Antiquaire de Marques, 87 USPQ2d 1179, 1181 (TTAB 2008) (opposer must show use prior to applicant’s priority date; licensing by itself without sales is not use of the mark); Fair Indigo LLC v. Style Conscience, 85 USPQ2d 1536, 1539 (TTAB 2007) (pleading of reliance on analogous use established priority); Jansen Enterprises Inc. v. Rind, 85 USPQ2d 1104, 1107 (TTAB 2007); Corporate Document Services Inc. v. I.C.E.D. Management Inc., 48 USPQ2d 1477, 1479 (TTAB 1998) (interstate or intrastate commerce is sufficient); Jimlar Corp. v. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service, 24 USPQ2d 1216, 1221 (TTAB 1992). Cf. NASDAQ Stock Market Inc. v. Antartica S.r.l., 69 USPQ2d 1718, 1727 (TTAB 2003) (use of mark on collateral promotional items in connection with its service did not give rise to a claim of priority based solely on use of the mark on collateral products).

 5.   See T.A.B. Systems v. PacTel Teletrac, 77 F.3d 1372, 37 USPQ2d 1879, 1881 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (must show that the activities claimed to constitute analogous use have had "substantial impact" on the purchasing public); West Florida Seafood, Inc., v. Jet Restaurants, Inc., 31 F.2d 1122, 31 USPQ2d 1660 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (use in advertising); Martahus v. Video Duplication Services Inc., 3 F.3d 417, 27 USPQ2d 1846, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (trade name use); National Cable Television Association Inc. v. American Cinema Editors Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (trade name use); Fair Indigo LLC v. Style Conscience, 85 USPQ2d 1536, 1539 (TTAB 2007) (analogous use may be asserted against an intent-to-use application); L. & J.G. Stickley Inc. v. Cosser, 81 USPQ2d 1956, 1965 (TTAB 2007) (use in intrastate commerce may be asserted by plaintiff); Shalom Children’s Wear Inc. v. In-Wear A/S, 26 USPQ2d 1516, 1519 (TTAB 1993) (priority of use against ITU application may be established with prior use analogous to trademark use); Corporate Document Services Inc. v. I.C.E.D. Management Inc., 48 USPQ2d 1477, 1479 (TTAB 1998) (owner of ITU application may rely on prior use analogous to trademark use). Cf. Westrex Corp. v. New Sensor Corp., 83 USPQ2d 1215, 1218 (TTAB 2007) (opposer failed to acquire rights through analogous trademark use).

 6.   See King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974); ("Board must consider existing registrations of subsequent-user opposers because ... [Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) provides that] an applicant can register, unless his mark is likely to cause confusion with a mark ‘registered in the Patent Office or ... previously used ..."); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1436 n.7 (TTAB 2012) (there can be no priority dispute when an opposer properly introduces its registrations into the record and there is no counterclaim); Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1187, 1190 (TTAB 2012) (priority not at issue for the goods and services recited in the pleaded registrations of record); Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Kronholm, 99 USPQ2d 1708, 1712 (TTAB 2011) (priority not at issue on a motion for involuntary dismissal where pleaded registrations were made of record with notice of opposition); Rocket Trademarks Pty. Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., 98 USPQ2d 1066, 1072 (TTAB 2011) (priority not at issue as to the marks and goods covered by the pleaded registrations, which are of record); Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1119 (TTAB 2009) (had opposer properly introduced its pleaded registrations, priority would have been removed as an issue to be proved); L.C. Licensing Inc. v. Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883, 1887 (TTAB 2008) (pleaded registrations show current ownership and that each is valid and subsisting; priority is not an issue); Demon International LC v. Lynch, 86 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (TTAB 2008) (opposer must properly introduce its pleaded registrations into the record so that priority will not be an issue); Fort James Operating Co. v. Royal Paper Converting Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1624, 1626 (TTAB 2007) (having submitted status and title copies of its pleaded registrations, opposer not required to prove acquired distinctiveness of marks); Apple Computer v. TVNET.net Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1393, 1396 (TTAB 2007); Teledyne Technologies Inc. v. Western Skyways Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1203, 1206 (TTAB 2006) (where petitioner fails to properly make its pleaded registration of record it must rely on common law rights for purposes of likelihood of confusion analysis), aff’d unpub, 208 Fed. Appx. 886, 887 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2006); DC Comics v. Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., 77 USPQ2d 1220, 1225 (TTAB 2005); SCOA Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy & Cohen, Inc., 188 USPQ 411, 413 (TTAB 1975), appeal dismissed, 189 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976); and Penguin Books Ltd. v. Eberhard, 48 USPQ2d 1280, 1286 (TTAB 1998).

See alsoOtter Products LLC v. BaseOneLabs LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1252, 1254-55 (TTAB 2012) (priority not at issue in opposition where pleaded registration of record resides on Supplemental Register).

Cf. regarding cancellation proceedings, Calypso Technology Inc. v. Calypso Capital Management LP, 100 USPQ2d 1213, 1219-20 (TTAB 2011) (where respondent did not introduce evidence of earlier use, petitioner’s priority established based on the filing date of the underlying application which matured into its pleaded registration); Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s Warehouse Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2008); Brewski Beer Co. v. Brewski Brothers Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1281, 1284 (TTAB 1998) (in a cancellation proceeding the registrations of each party offset each other and petitioner must, in the first instance, establish prior rights); and American Standard Inc. v. AQM Corp., 208 USPQ840, 841 (TTAB 1980) (priority must be proven in cancellation proceeding).

 7.   See, e.g., Massey Junior College, Inc. v. Fashion Institute of Technology, 492 F.2d 1399, 181 USPQ 272, 275 n.6 (CCPA 1974) ("prior use need not be shown by an opposer relying on a registered mark unless the applicant counterclaims for cancellation"); Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. The Englander Co., 324 F.2d 186, 139 USPQ 285, 286 (CCPA 1963) (as long as a registration relied on by an opposer remains uncancelled, it will be treated as valid and entitled to all statutory presumptions; having dismissed petition to cancel pleaded registrations, and since no appeal was taken, Board was obligated to treat opposer’s registrations as valid and as though no such petition had been filed); Ultratan Suntanning Centers Inc. v. Ultra Tan International AB, 49 USPQ2d 1313, 1315 (Comm’r Pat. 1998) ("prior use need not be shown by an opposer relying on a registration of its pleaded mark for its pleaded goods or services unless the applicant counterclaims for cancellation"). See also 37 C.F.R. § 2.106(b)(3)(ii)  (attack on registration must be made by counterclaim or separate claim); Central Garden & Pet Co. v. Doskocil Manufacturing Co., 108 USPQ2d 1134, 1139 (TTAB 2013) (plaintiff must prove priority in cancellation and in oppositions where there is a counterclaim to cancel its pleaded registration); Vitaline Corp. v. General Mills Inc., 891 F.2d 273, 13 USPQ2d 1172, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (better practice is to raise defense as a counterclaim); Fort James Operating Co. v. Royal Paper Converting Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1624, 1626 n.1 (TTAB 2007) (applicant’s arguments in its brief that opposer’s marks are functional, non-distinctive, and lack source-indicating significance constitute an impermissible collateral attack on opposer’s pleaded registrations, which arguments cannot be considered in the absence of a counterclaim for cancellation). Cf. Penguin Books Ltd. v. Eberhard, 48 USPQ2d 1280, 1286 (TTAB 1998) (petition or counterclaim to restrict the scope of goods in registration under Trademark Act § 18, 15 U.S.C. § 1068 was not a collateral attack on the validity of that registration).

Please Note: In cases where a plaintiff has relied on its ownership of a pleaded registration, any counterclaim or petition to cancel that registration may be decided before the issues in the underlying opposition, at the discretion of the Board. See, e.g., Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (TTAB 1992); General Mills Inc. v. Health Valley Foods, 24 USPQ2d 1270, 1272 (TTAB 1992); but see Delaware Quarries, Inc. v. PlayCore IP Sub, Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (TTAB 2013) (Board properly retained jurisdiction to decide applicant’s counterclaim after finding no likelihood of confusion since "[s]tanding is assessed at the time the counterclaim is filed").

 8.   See Jewelers Vigilance Committee Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp., 823 F.2d 490, 2 USPQ2d 2021 (Fed. Cir. 1987), on remand, 5 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB 1987), rev’d, 853 F.2d 888, 7 USPQ2d 1628 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (interest of trade association found sufficient); Association pour la Defense et la Promotion de l’Oeuvre de Marc Chagall dite Comite Marc Chagall v. Bondarchuk, 82 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (TTAB 2007) (petitioner committee’s right derived through inheritance found sufficient); Internet Inc. v. Corporation for National Research Initiatives, 38 USPQ2d 1435, 1438 (TTAB 1996) (petitioners failed to allege that they, or anyone else, possessed proprietary rights in the term); Order of Sons of Italy in America v. Profumi Fratelli Nostra AG, 36 USPQ2d 1221, 1223 (TTAB 1995) (fraternal organization has standing); Holmes Products Corp. v. Duracraft Corp., 30 USPQ2d 1549, 1552 (TTAB 1994) (no legitimate interest in preventing confusion alleged).

B.    Likelihood of Confusion

The evidentiary factors the Board considers in determining likelihood of confusion are set out in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). These factors include the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods and/or services, the channels of trade and classes of purchasers for the goods and/or services, the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods, the nature and extent of any actual confusion, and the fame of the prior mark. [ Note 1.] The relevance and weight to be given the various factors may differ from case to case and a single du Pont factor may be dispositive in certain cases. [ Note 2.]

Direct or Hypothetical Pleading of Likelihood of Confusion: A plaintiff may plead likelihood of confusion directly or hypothetically. [ Note 3.] A hypothetical pleading may consist of assertions that if, as the trademark examining attorney (or the defendant) contends, plaintiff’s mark so resembles defendant’s mark as to be likely, when applied to the goods and/or services of the plaintiff, to cause confusion, then plaintiff will be damaged by the registration of defendant’s mark. [ Note 4.] Of course, in order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a hypothetical pleading of likelihood of confusion must be coupled with a pleading of one or more grounds for opposition or cancellation, such as, that defendant’s mark has been abandoned; that plaintiff has priority of use (here, the hypothetical pleading of likelihood of confusion serves both as a pleading of plaintiff’s standing and as part of the pleading of a ground under Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) ); etc. Thus, a plaintiff wishing to plead likelihood of confusion hypothetically in a proceeding based upon Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)  might assert, for example, that if, as the trademark examining attorney (or the defendant) contends, plaintiff’s mark so resembles defendant’s mark as to be likely, when applied to the goods and/or services of the plaintiff, to cause confusion, then the registration sought by defendant should be refused (or defendant’s registration should be cancelled) because plaintiff has priority of use. [ Note 5.]

Reverse Confusion:"Reverse confusion" does not have to be specifically pleaded so long as the plaintiff asserts that the respective marks are so similar as applied to the respective goods or services as to be likely to cause confusion. [ Note 6.]

NOTES:

 1.   See In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See, e.g., Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En, 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (to determine whether the marks are similar for purposes of assessing the likelihood of confusion, the Board will consider the appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression of each mark); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (the nature and scope of a party’s goods or services must be determined on the basis of the goods or services recited in the application or registration); The North Face Apparel Corp. v. Sanyang Industries, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1217, 1225 (TTAB 2015) (no context provided for figures in support of fame; burden of proving fame not met); Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Systems Pty. Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1820-21 (TTAB 2015) (fame of mark proved, which weighs heavily in likelihood of confusion finding); Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

See also Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1187, 1194 (TTAB 2012) (likelihood of confusion found based on evidence relevant to factors bearing on issue for certain classes of goods but not for one class of goods); Brown Shoe Co. v. Robbins, 90 USPQ2d 1752, 1756 (TTAB 2009) (doctrine of foreign equivalents not applied where both marks were Spanish words); Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020 (TTAB 2009) (no likelihood of confusion found upon consideration of relevant factors); H.D. Lee Co. v. Maidenform Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1715, 1723 (TTAB 2008) (the Board will not take judicial notice that items of outerwear and undergarments are related items for purposes of determining whether parties’ goods are related); Fort James Operating Co. v. Royal Paper Converting Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1624, 1626 (TTAB 2007) (unnecessary to prove likelihood of confusion with respect to all goods set forth in application); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Rodriguez, 83 USPQ2d 1500, 1505 (TTAB 2007) (fame); Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1334, 1342 (TTAB 2006) (dissimilarity of marks dispositive); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1897 (TTAB 2006) (test for determining likelihood of confusion with respect to certification mark based on comparison of the mark as applied to the goods of the certification mark users); Teledyne Technologies Inc. v. Western Skyways Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1203, 1206 (TTAB 2006) aff’d unpub’d, 208 Fed. Appx. 886, 887 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2006) (several factors considered); DC Comics v. Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., 77 USPQ2d 1220, 1228 (TTAB 2005) (whether adoption of mark was in bad faith); Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1306 (TTAB 2004) (likelihood of confusion in pharmaceutical context); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Jones, 65 USPQ2d 1650, 1657 (TTAB 2002); Baroid Drilling Fluids Inc. v. Sun Drilling Products, 24 USPQ2d 1048, 1052-53 (TTAB 1992) (family-of-marks).

 2.   See Odom’s Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF Acquisition, LLC, 600 F.3d 1343, 93 USPQ2d 2030, 2032 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Board did not err in basing its decision on dissimilarity of marks alone); Shen Manufacturing Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Neither we nor the board, however, need consider every duPont factor"); Opryland USA Inc. v. The Great American Music Show Inc., 970 F.2d 847, 23 USPQ2d 1471, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Kellogg Co. v. Pack’em Enterprises Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545 (TTAB 1990), aff’d, 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Herbko International Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581 (TTAB 2008) (dissimilarity of marks dispositive); Mattel Inc. v. Funline Merchandise Co., 81 USPQ2d 1372, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (key considerations are similarities between the marks and goods recited in both parties’ registrations); Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1334, 1342 (TTAB 2006) (dissimilarity of marks dispositive); and Sports Authority Michigan Inc. v. PC Authority Inc., 63 USPQ2d 1782, 1800 (TTAB 2001).

 3.   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2).

 4.   See John T. Clark Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 176 USPQ 93 (TTAB 1972); Revco, D.S., Inc. v. Armour-Dial, Inc., 170 USPQ 48, 49 (TTAB 1971). Cf. Taffy’s of Cleveland, Inc. v. Taffy’s, Inc., 189 USPQ 154, 156 (TTAB 1975) (fact that petitioner argued before examining attorney that its mark and that of respondent were not confusingly similar does not preclude petitioner from asserting likelihood of confusion as ground for cancellation); Lia Jene Inc. v. Vitabath, Inc., 162 USPQ 469, 470 (TTAB 1969) (representations made by petitioner in attempting to overcome reference to secure its own registration cannot estop petitioner from taking a different position in proceeding to cancel such registration).

 5.   See Humana Inc. v. Humanomics Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1696, 1698 (TTAB 1987) (applicant could have raised priority issue in a counterclaim by pleading likelihood of confusion hypothetically notwithstanding the inconsistency of that pleading with its position in the opposition that the marks are not confusingly similar); Home Juice Co. v. Runglin Cos., 231 USPQ 897, 899 (TTAB 1986) (pleading construed as hypothetical pleading of likelihood of confusion which is appropriate where petitioner’s standing is based on its inability to secure a registration, notwithstanding that it is the senior user, because the subject registration has been cited as a reference by the examining attorney). See also Central Garden & Pet Co. v. Doskocil Manufacturing Co., 108 USPQ2d 1134, 1150 (TTAB 2013) (Board did not consider hypothetical question of likelihood of confusion sought by senior party); Taffy’s of Cleveland, Inc. v. Taffy’s, Inc., 189 USPQ 154, 156-57 (TTAB 1975) (fact that petitioner argued before examining attorney that its mark and that of respondent were not confusingly similar does not preclude petitioner from asserting likelihood of confusion as ground for cancellation); Revco, D.S., Inc. v. Armour-Dial, Inc., 170 USPQ 48, 49 (TTAB 1971) (in seeking to cancel on ground of abandonment, plaintiff asserted proper hypothetical pleading of likelihood of confusion as its basis for standing).

 6.   See Top Tobacco LP v. North Atlantic Operating Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1175 n.18 (TTAB 2011); American Hygienic Laboratories Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 12 USPQ2d 1979, 1983 n.7 (TTAB 1989).