*1 configura- description fails to teach a potential fication and that Solofill thus did not example, of elements. For ICU violate Section 337. We need not and do (and Medical, specification initially not consider the Commissioner’s holding claims) a medical filed included device with respect to anticipation of claims 5 and for the of fluids requir- valve transmission 6, nor the grounds alternative for affir- spike pierce a ing seal intrave- presented mance by Solofill. setup. medicine delivery nous ICU Medi AFFIRMED cal, Sys., Inc., Inc. v. Alaris Medical A group spike of later filed claims eliminated the

limitation. specification We held that spikes, described medical with

only valves specification could not sup- valves, claims for

port spikeless even

though ordinary would un- artisans have originally

derstood slits made VINEYARDS, JOSEPH PHELPS spikes could been made also have Appellant LLC, (disclosed) compression preslit of a seal. (“The compression at 1378-79 Id. fact preslit HOLDINGS, seal an opening of a would allow FAIRMONT [(and transmission thus fluid accomplish LLC, Appellee spike what accomplished) ] 2016-1089 whether answer claimed invention nevertheless requires Appeals, United States Court capable spike piercing preslit the seal Federal Circuit. embodiments.”). patent similarly The ’320 May Decided: only pod assembly adapter discloses separate “pod.” ordinary That artisans have may understood that the filter could incorporated cartridge

be into the does not claims—ordinary

save artisans would pos-

not have understood that Rivera had integrated system. of an filter

session definition pod change

“broad” of a does not is, it “pod”

that—however broad must still adapter distinct from pod assembly. attempts distinguish

Rivera ICU

Medical, arguing that the broad definition here “pod” integral also includes filter

cartridges. above, explained As even the “pod” provide

broad definition of does not a teaching. reject

such thusWe Rivera’s

argument. reasons, foregoing

For the we affirm the 5-7,

Commission’s conclusion that claims

18, and 20 are lack of invalid for written *2 Manors, Trademarks, PL,

Richter Wilton FL. DYK, NEWMAN, and

Before WALLACH, Judges. Circuit PER CURIAM. (“Vine- LLC

Joseph Phelps Vineyards, bear- yards”) produced has and sold wines 1978. the trademark since ing (“Fair- Holdings, Fairmont LLC mont”) for received federal IN- mark ALEC BRADLEY STAR products. On cigar for and SIGNIA cancellation, Vineyards’ petition for Trial Appeal Trademark “TTAB”) (“Board” petition,1 denied finding stating the that: IN- appears it that Petitioner’s while suc- branded has met with SIGNIA wine per- are not marketplace, cess we on this that Petitioner’s record suaded mark is a famous mark.

TTAB at 8. Vineyards’ IN- The TTAB found that mark is not a “famous” mark SIGNIA weight. this factor no The gave analyzing legal analysis, in its erred of INSIGNIA as an all-or- “fame” wine entirely nothing discounting reaching of no likelihood conclusion source, contrary as to to law of confusion error, As of this precedent. a result apply the total- properly the Board did standard, ity of the which circumstances relevant fac- requires considering all the to their merits. appropriate tors on a scale re- decision and We vacate for redetermination of the merits mand Law Offices Thomas Schneck, Thomas petition. cancellation Schneck, Jose, CA, appellant. San “Fame” Factor Kimberly Kolback, of Kim- Law Office Kolback, “Fame for Miami, FL, acknowledged: berly appellee. long as a purposes arises as represented by Miriam Also Richter, (TTAB 6, 2015) ("TTAB Phelps July Joseph Vineyards, v. Fairmont WL 4658975 LLC Holdings, Op.”). Cancellation No. full-bodied, of the relevant consum- significant portion release. A generous, gor- ing public recognizes the as a geous that manages youth- wine to taste indicator,” citing Bay source Palm Im- (J.A. 79-81). ful as well.” ports, Clicquot Inc. Veuve Ponsardin (cid:127) February 2012: “Jo- Capital, en Maison Fondee *3 seph Phelps Napa Valley INSIGNIA 2005) (“[T]he proper 1374-75 ($200)—From 2008 one of the most re- legal for evaluating standard fame of a spected producers Napa Valley, the fifth factor under DuPont is the this colossal ... blend is a wine that will potential class of customers and customers (J.A. 87-88). last for decades.” service, product gener- of a or not the and 24, public.”). (cid:127) al February 1999: Post, Wash. INSIGNIA, to be “[T]his has because applied legally The in when 1 love a Cabernet and don’t know correct an applying standard all-or- is, always what it I guess my beloved “fame,” nothing measure of more akin to (J.A. 73). INSIGNIA.” analysis. dilution “While dilution fame is proposition—fame either does 14, April (cid:127) either/or 1996: Fireworks Sun, Balt. or does not exist—likelihood explode tasting Joseph Phelps at ’91 along spectrum very fame ‘varies from INSIGNIA, “But even amid the abun- strong very (quoting weak.’ In Id. re dance of excellent wines on show at the 1340, Brewing Coors 1344 tasting, MacArthur INSIGNIA 2003)). In examination of IN stood out.... more than a decade of fame, applicable viewpoint SIGNIA’S is attending tastings, MacArthur barrel (“[A] that of the relevant market. Id. finest was the wine I had ever en- product within a specific mark’s renown (J.A. 74). countered.” standard.”). proper market Valley 8, (cid:127) March 2000: “The Times, Vineyards provided evidence IN- granddaddy proprie- of these so-called SIGNIA wine renowned wine INSIGNIA, tary wines is introduced among market and consumers of fine wine. Vineyards Joseph Phelps with the 1974 recognition The shows record extensive (J.A. 75). vintage.” and brand accolade INSIGNIA wine. 35, 5,No. (cid:127) Vol. Grapevine, California Vineyards’ were INSIGNIA wines selected 2009, 65, p. at 65: October-November 1997, of the Year in Wine 2005 Phelps ... Joseph “2006 INSIGNIA Spectator noting that INSIGNIA Wine Very highly My score recommended. outstanding wine had 2005 earned an (J.A. 90). 92/100, place.” first vintages repeated- score in 26 its 29 “classic,” ly scoring ranked as between (cid:127) Winter Wines, Quarterly Rev. of points. Following 95 and 100 J.A. 62. is a 2009/2010, Phelps 75: at “1st Place: IN- presented selection from the exhibits perennial SIGNIA ... it’s a winner at testimony TTAB with Joseph our annual Best of the in Califor- Best Phelps: (J.A. 92). nia.” at (cid:127) October ISO- Wine, Food served record shows INSIGNIA wine 152: first was the Bordeaux “INSIGNIA at the White House: Valley produced Napa blend (cid:127) (It’s it’s still one the most famous. House dinner menu hon- White best.).” (J.A. 82-83). Canada, also one of the oring Prime Minister of J., (Phelps March St. March 2012: (cid:127) “Favor- Wall 1994). (J.A. 65). Vintage: Phelps ite $70 can (cid:127) Holiday despite noting that relatedness House dinner The White (TTAB 14), Op. (Joseph together based on use dated December menu 2002). (J.A. 66). (TTAB 12), complementarity Op. simul- Phelps INSIGNIA (TTAB 13, 14). consumption Op. taneous (cid:127) to a Invitation dinner President’s Indeed, the Board found that: the States honoring Governors February suggests and Territories dated the evidence 1994). (J.A. 69-70). (Phelps INSIGNIA sold the same channels of trade purchasers.... many examples. more contains The record finding perplexed at the degree We are of re- suggesting “fame,” giv- has no that INSIGNIA wine exploration requires latedness that further this factor. ing no discernable on remand. standard, applied an incorrect *4 The TTAB Second, among 2. the factors relevant from the view- “fame” is determined analysis, the of likelihood the products. The point of consumers of like not include the form of Fair- did appreciation consumers

record shows of registered use its mark. mont’s actual Vineyards’ of and the wine market INSIG- totality part of the of These factors It ac- brand. was error refuse to NIA circumstances, the all of which must be Vineyards’ any cord “fame” to INSIGNIA considered, sliding appro- on a scale each factor rea- of “fame” warrants mark. I weight merit. priate to its would weight, among the sonable aspects include these in the vacatur and circumstances. remand, in order to that the rede- ensure petition the termination of cancellation encompasses relevant properly all factors. the of vacate decision We the Board solely on the basis that used I for fame and remand incorrect standard Registered peti- of Mark determination Actual Use of cancellation utilizing the standard. correct Vineyards’ argument Responding to that use of BRADLEY Fairmont’s ALEC AND REMANDED VACATED STAR INSIGNIA word shall its costs. party Each bear format, simply in dominant the Board stat- depiction ed that “[b]ecause Newman, Judge, concurring. Circuit mark is in standard character format and agree I the TTAB ana- improperly that any particular Respondent is not limited to factor of “fame” and that lyzed the vacatur Respon- presentation, format which I and remand are believe it appropriate. currently dent uses mark is not at its also, Vineyards’ appropriate, dec- did issue.” TTAB 9. The Board not usage prior prop- of should receive ades its actual use the mark. examine the How- consideration, beyond in this er ever, stated, as the Tenth Circuit has “[a] acknowledgement simple “priority.” character registration standard not my primary purpose writing that likelihood requirement override the separately is call attention two addi- perceptions confusion be measured tional issues that review on re- warrant marketplace, including consumers mand. Hornady packaging.” Mfg. the effect of Board, Doubletap, Co. v. analysis in its of “relat- edness,” called, comparison n. 2 factor is A as DuPont did “presentís] ‘differently the mark from the fully aspects consider all actually way appears on packag- entation of commerce, Fairmont’s mark in ing,’ “rejected.” should be Id. At a mini- where ALEC BRADLEY is separated mum, appearance and format fac- from STAR and the relative given tor to be appropriate weight. sizes of the words STAR and INSIGNIA different, specimens registration submitted in seen support the challenged pres- show specimens:

J.A. 195. take account usage, into the actual separation of ALEC BRADLEY from The Board described ALEC BRADLEY STAR and in a different font as a “[g]en- “house mark” and stated that and size. erally, identical, if product the marks are the addition of the house mark does not declining The Board erred in to consider confusion, however, avoid “where are there “illustrations of the as actually mark some recognizable used,” differences in precedent the as- recognizes that such product serted marks ... of “may the addition illustrations assist the T.T.A.B. in house mark other material the other visualizing forms in which the mark and/or assertedly conflicting product might mark has appear.” Citigroup Capital Inc. v. been determined to render City Grp., the marks as a Bank 637 F.3d 2011). whole sufficiently distinguishable,’ TTAB Contrary assessment, quoting precedent. The of dominance the word Board found that because the marks at products INSIGNA as used on Fairmont’s differences,” possess “recognizable issue is Citigroup explains indeed issue.1 the house mark “does distinguish the of consideration actual use serves to en- analysis marks.” Id. did not sure full visualizes the breadth confusion," determining The Fairmont states “no claim likelihood of right ignored.” is made to the exclusive to use ‘STAR "disclaimed matter cannot be 3 J. INSIGNIA', apart from the mark McCarthy, Competi- as shown.” Trademarks and Unfair (J.A. 21). However, 2014). § "a disclaimer is irrelevant 19.72 ed. (“[T]he evidentiary give specific ele- mark. Id. character of a standard commercial past current and in a In one it particular T.T.A.B. used ments case. case applied-for mark to inform displays unlikely; indicate that confusion will potential its of analysis restrict but not to every case the next will not.... displays.”). confusion, it is turning on likelihood of examiner, duty of the the board and use of the the actual

To the extent find, consideration of upon BRADLEY STAR this court ALEC impression evidence, different presents mark confu- all the whether character than the standard the consumer That determination appears likely. sion abstract, in the the Board viewed process. ends decisional of confu- recall likelihood should I. & In re E. DuPont de Nemours eyes of through is “viewed inquiry sion (C.C.P.A. 1973). F.2d commercial to determine the consumer” Duopross Medi- of mark. impression supra, TTAB found that As noted Devices, 695 v. Inviro Med. Corp. tech suggests that the “the evidence 1247, 1253-54 in the same channels of trade to the sold Op. at 15. purchasers.” TTAB Prece- reg- Fairmont how the Consideration used, sensitivity illustrates the factual and viewed dent actually mark is istered consumer, Oil, part In Shell relatedness. of confu- likelihood the circumstances recognized at court on remand. and should be considered sion degree of ‘relatedness’ must be “[t]he factors, of all viewed context II determining the services suffi- whether ciently related that a reasonable consumer The “Relatedness” Goods sponsor- as to source or would be confused course, cigars and wine are different. Of ship.” *6 However, in Co. as noted Hewlett-Packard Press, v. Packard 281 Veracruz, V., de In In re Licores S.A. C. 2002), goods if the ... “[e]ven No. 2012 WL 423807 Serial identical, consuming public are 2012), (TTAB January 26, the TTAB enough them related may perceive on contrary a conclusion related- reached or ori- confusion about the source cause respect cigars, rum and ness with stat- Co., 992 F.2d gin.” See In re Shell Oil ing: 1993) (the Board is to 1207 conjunction arbitrary in with the nature degree overlap of consum- “consider the MOCAMBO, mark we find that of the services, for respective to the exposed ers cigars and rum will be encountered goods or services are not even when related, under circum- the same consumers competitive intrinsically or use assump- could, marks can to the of the of identical lead that because identi- stances source”). that there is common marks, give of the rise to mistak- ty from they originate belief en all- treated as an The Board relatedness source.... In view facts same this factor or-nothing although are identical are marks analyzed along sliding scale. should be term, and the arbitrary fanciful or DuPont, there is As stated related, move in the same channels are warrant, elsewhere, no statute same trade and are sold to the con- discarding any bearing on evidence sumers, applicant’s we find that question of likelihood of confusion. likely to for “rum” is cause may men differ as MOCAMBO Reasonable

1329 confusion with the mark MOCAMBO for

“cigars.” It is appropriate consid- er explain and to the weight given to all case, Id. at 10-11. In present factors in evaluating the circum- on reasoning: relied different stances, explaining any departure from' “Thus, mere fact two goods holdings in other proceedings. I concur in together setting used the same or venue the judgment of vacatur and remand and not, itself, and of demand a finding readjudication would ensure the of all the likely.” confusion is 14 relevant factors further con- J. (quoting McCarthy, on Trademarks sideration of likelihood of (4th § Competition and Unfair 24:26 ed. confusion. 2015)). McCarthy cautions that these are fact-bound determinations and that no fact

may particular “demand” a outcome. How-

ever, it provide devolves the TTAB to

reasonably rulings consistent on similar

facts, provide premises on which the

public rely. can Here, the Board concluded that wine STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant UNITED cigars are not they “related” because products differing composition in both v. TTAB Op. method manufacture. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE relatedness is broad con- COMPANY, Defendant-Cross- cept; products may exhibit “relatedness” Appellant “are they complementary products when 2016-1088, 2016-1090 sold in the same channels trade to classes consumers.” See re United Court of Appeals, States Veracruz, (finding supra Licores that rum Federal Circuit. meet the criteria of related- May Decided: ness). See also John Walker & Sons Ltd. Tampa Cigar F.Supp.

(S.D.Fla. 1954), 222 F.2d 460 *7 aff'd 1955) (“Whisky closely use.”);

related in distribution and A. Geo. Bros., v. Stephano

Dickel Co. (TTAB 1967)

U.S.P.Q. (relying in finding

John Walker confusion for

whiskey cigarettes). see Schenley But

Distillers, Inc. v. Cigar Gen. (CCPA 1970) (the rejected any court

principle same mark on tobacco beverage products alcoholic necessari-

ly confusion; results in likelihood of

court did not address the relatedness of

all tobacco and all alcoholic products bev- circumstances).

erages all under