Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. Federal Corp.
673 F.3d 1330
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Bridgestone appeals TTAB’s denial of Bridgestone’s opposition to registration of MILANZA for tires.
- Bridgestone owns POTENZA (since 1981) and TURANZA (since 1991); Federal seeks to register MILANZA in 2004 for tires.
- TTAB applied DuPont factor framework and found potential confusion favored by similarity of goods and consumers.
- TTAB found MILANZA not similar to POTENZA or TURANZA and that POTENZA/TURANZA lacked independent recognition.
- Board concluded confusion unlikely and dismissed the opposition.
- Court reverses, holding likelihood of confusion supported by identity of goods, long prior use, market strength, and word-sound/connotation similarities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly applied DuPont factors. | Bridgestone argues strong POTENZA/TURANZA exist independently. | Federal contends MILANZA is sufficiently dissimilar and POTENZA/TURANZA weak. | No; court finds error, but ultimately finds likelihood of confusion. |
| Whether POTENZA and TURANZA are strong marks independent of Bridgestone. | Marks have extensive independent recognition and advertising. | Marks are weak and primarily tied to BRIDGESTONE. | POTENZA and TURANZA are strong marks independent of the BRIDGESTONE name. |
| Whether MILANZA's similarity to POTENZA/TURANZA creates likelihood of confusion for identical tires. | Common suffix, cadence, and connotation suggest same source. | Differences in meaning and Italian/Chinese connotations reduce similarity. | Yes; substantial similarity in goods and marks supports likelihood of confusion. |
| What is the controlling effect of Bridgestone’s market strength on confusion analysis? | Fame of POTENZA/TURANZA increases likelihood of confusion. | Fame is not enough if MILANZA is sufficiently dissimilar. | Fame of the opposer's marks plays a dominant role in the DuPont balance. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re DuPont deNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973) (DuPont factors framework for likelihood of confusion)
- Recot Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (famous marks receive broader protection)
- Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (root element similarity can yield strong similarity)
- Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (strong marks cast a long shadow; beware newcomer)
- Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., 305 F.2d 916 (CCPA 1962) (resolve doubts against the newcomer)
- Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (new entrant must avoid confusion with existing marks)
- Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. H. Douglas Enters., 774 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (examples of conflicting prior marks)
- Magnavox Co. v. Multivox Corp. of Am., 341 F.2d 139 (CCPA 1965) (former marks influence likelihood of confusion analysis)
- Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999) (Review standards for PTO factual findings)
- Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (PTO findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (legal standard for likelihood of confusion review)
- Century 21 Real Estate v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (likelihood of confusion with similar marks on identical goods)