1004 Issues in Interference
Normally, the issue to be determined in an interference proceeding is priority of use. However, such additional issues as the registrability of each mark, and whether there is, in fact, a conflict between the marks involved in the proceeding (i.e., whether the marks do so resemble one another as to be likely, when used in connection with the respective goods and/or services of the parties, to cause confusion, mistake, or deception), are always before the Board in an interference, and may also be determined. There is no requirement that a party file an affirmative pleading of such matters in order to be heard thereon. [ Note 1.]
NOTES:
1. See, e.g., Trademark Act § 17 and Trademark Act § 18, 15 U.S.C. § 1067 and 15 U.S.C. § 1068; Giant Food Inc. v. Malone & Hyde, Inc., 522 F.2d 1386, 187 USPQ 374, 380 (CCPA 1975); Dynamet Technology, Inc. v. Dynamet Inc., 197 USPQ 702, 711-12 (TTAB 1977), aff’d, 593 F.2d 1007, 201 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1979); Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. United Vintners, Inc., 166 USPQ 493, 494 (TTAB 1970); Clairol Inc. v. Holland Hall Products, Inc., 165 USPQ 214, 217-18 (TTAB 1970); Tudor Square Sportswear, Inc. v. Pop-Op Corp., 160 USPQ 50, 53-54 (TTAB 1968); La Jolla Sportswear Co. v. Maskuline Underwear Co., 114 USPQ 130, 131 (Comm’r 1957); Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases, 48 Fed. Reg. 23122 (May 23, 1983), (deleting former 37 C.F.R. § 2.97, which contained a requirement for an affirmative pleading of registrability issues).