Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1266976
`02/17/2023
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91213597
`
`Defendant
`Tigercat International Inc.
`
`TAMAR Y DUVDEVANI
`DLA PIPER LLP US
`1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`NEW YORK, NY 10020-1104
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: Gina.Durham@dlapiper.com
`Secondary email(s): tamar.duvdevani@dlapiper.com,
`marc.miller@dlapiper.com, Airina.Rodrigues@dlapiper.com,
`megan.michaels@dlapiper.com, docketingnewyork@dlapiper.com
`212-335-4500
`Brief on Merits for Defendant
`
`Tamar Y. Duvdevani
`
`tamar.duvdevani@dlapiper.com, marc.miller@dlapiper.com,
`Gina.Durham@dlapiper.com, valerie.fadis@us.dlapiper.com
`
`/Tamar Y. Duvdevani/
`
`02/17/2023
`
`Attachments
`
`Tigercat Trial Brief - Redacted.pdf(4971107 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`Opposition No. 91213597
`
`v.
`
`TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`Application Serial No. 85/814,584
`Mark: TIGERCAT
`Application date: January 3, 2013
`
`APPLICANT TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ........................................................................................... 3
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`I.
`
`TIGERCAT’S BUSINESS AND BRAND ......................................................................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`HISTORY BETWEEN TIGERCAT AND CATERPILLAR ..................................................... 7
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`CATERPILLAR’S CLAIM UNDER SECTION 2(d) FAILS..................................................... 9
`
`a.
`
`Standard of Review ........................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Factor One (The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance,
`b.
`sound, connotation and commercial impression) favors Tigercat – There are numerous differences
`between the marks at issue in sound, connotation, and commercial impression. ................................... 10
`
`i.
`
`Relevant Considerations ............................................................................................................. 10
`
`ii. Caterpillar fails to address both its CATERPILLAR marks and the additional marks it has
`submitted via notice of reliance, and therefore concedes that there are no similarities between those
`marks and the TIGERCAT marks ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`iii.
`Mark
`
`There are no meaningful similarities between Caterpillar’s CAT marks and the TIGERCAT
`................................................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Factor Two (The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services) favors Tigercat –
`c.
`Caterpillar has submitted trademark registrations covering a host of products and services, many of
`them entirely unrelated to the goods covered in the Application, and Caterpillar fails to explain which
`of those registrations, specifically, cover goods that overlap with the goods in the Application. .......... 15
`
`Factor Three (The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels)
`d.
`favors Tigercat – The parties utilize distinct and highly bespoke trade channels, for example, party-
`specific dealer networks, to market and sell their products. ................................................................... 19
`
`Factor Four (The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs.
`e.
`careful, sophisticated purchasing) favors Tigercat – The goods covered in the Application cost many
`thousands of dollars, as do all goods that Caterpillar sells that might be argued to compete with those
`products, and consumers exercise great care in purchasing those products.......................................... 22
`
`Factor Five (The fame of the prior mark) – Caterpillar fails to establish that the specific
`f.
`registrations in its notice of opposition are famous in connection with the goods and services listed
`therein, and in any case, the purported fame of Caterpillar’s marks is insufficient to outweigh the other
`DuPont factors, all of which favor Tigercat. .......................................................................................... 26
`
`Factor Six (The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods) favors Tigercat –
`g.
`Several third parties make use of marks incorporating the term CAT in connection with products
`similar to those sold by Caterpillar. ....................................................................................................... 30
`
`i
`
`

`

`Factors Seven (The nature and extent of any actual confusion) and Eight (The length of time
`h.
`during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual
`confusion) favor Tigercat – Tigercat has operated alongside Caterpillar under the TIGERCAT Mark
`for three decades, with zero evidence of actual confusion in that time. ................................................. 32
`
`Evaluation of all DuPont factors addressed by the parties establishes that there is no likelihood of
`i.
`confusion. ................................................................................................................................................ 36
`
`CATERPILLAR’S DILUTION CLAIM FAILS WITH RESPECT TO CATERPILLAR’S
`IV.
`ASSERTED CAT MARKS ...................................................................................................................... 37
`
`V. CATERPILLAR’S CLAIMS FAIL GIVEN TIGERCAT’S LONGSTANDING USE OF ITS
`MARK AND ITS PRIOR REGISTRATION FOR THE TIGERCAT MARK .................................. 41
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`7-Eleven, Inc. v. Lawrence I. Wechsler,
`83 USPQ2d 1715 (TTAB 2007) ........................................................................................................... 40
`
`Astra Pharm. Prod., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc.,
`718 F.2d 1201, 220 USPQ 786 (1st Cir. 1983) .................................................................................... 25
`
`In re Bed & Breakfast Registry,
`791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 10, 14
`
`Blue Man Prods., Inc. v. Tarmann,
`75 USPQ2d 1811, 1820-21 (TTAB 2005) rev'd on other grounds, Blue Man Prods.,
`Inc. v. Tarmann, 2008 WL 6862402 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2008) .................................................... 14, 15, 38
`
`Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Firsthealth of the Carolinas Inc.,
`77 USPQ2d 1492 (TTAB 2005) ........................................................................................................... 40
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Kelly,
`2015 TTAB LEXIS 407 (TTAB Sept. 30, 2015) ................................................................................. 14
`
`Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Gehl Co.,
`177 USPQ 343 (TTAB 1973) ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`CDOC, Inc. v. Liberty Bankers Life Ins. Co.,
`844 F. App’x 357 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................. 12, 33
`
`Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards,
`148 F.3d 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Chicago Mercantile Exch., Inc., Successor in Int. to P-M-T Ltd. P'ship, 2004 WL 838405
`(TTAB Apr. 8, 2004) ............................................................................................................................ 35
`
`Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp., Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 26
`
`Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
`668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Cortex Corp. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
`1 F.3d 1253, 28 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................... 27, 29, 33
`
`In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc.,
`105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Downs v. River City Grp., LLC,
`2014 WL 814303 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2014) ........................................................................................... 35
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Elec. Design & Sales, Inc. v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp.,
`954 F.2d 713, 21 USPQ2d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 25, 34
`
`Enterprises Rent-A-Car Co. v. Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
`330 F.3d 1333, 66 USPQ2d 1811 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 37
`
`Gen. Mills, Inc. & Gen. Mills Ip Holdings II, LLC v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. S.A.,
`100 USPQ2d 1584 (TTAB 2011) ................................................................................................... 11, 34
`
`Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc.,
`710 F.2d 1565, 218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................................. 34
`
`Glass Dimensions, Inc. ex rel. Glass Dimensions, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan & Tr. v. State
`St. Bank & Tr. Co.,
`290 F.R.D. 11 (D. Mass. 2013) ............................................................................................................ 36
`
`In re Guild Mortg. Co.,
`912 F.3d 1376, 129 USPQ2d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 33
`
`Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.,
`236 F.3d 1333, 57 USPQ2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 9
`
`In re Hearst Corp.,
`982 F.2d 493, 25 USPQ2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 10, 14
`
`Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.,
`238 F.3d 1357, 57 USPQ2d 1720 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Hunter Indus., Inc. v. Toro Co.,
`110 USPQ2d 1651 (TTAB 2014) ......................................................................................................... 34
`
`In Re Integrated Embedded,
`120 USPQ2d 1504 (TTAB 2016) ......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports,
`S.L.U.,
`797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 32
`
`Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus.,
`963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................................. 15
`
`Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp.,
`82 USPQ2d 1100 (TTAB 2007) ........................................................................................................... 23
`
`Made In Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC,
`Nos. 91223352, 91223683 and 91227387, 2022 WL 2188890 (TTAB June 15, 2022)....................... 44
`
`Magnaflux Corp. v. Sonoflux Corp.,
`231 F.2d 669, 109 USPQ 313 (CCPA 1956) ........................................................................................ 25
`
`Mariah Media, Inc. v. Carnahan,
`2002 WL 31528569 (TTAB Nov. 13, 2002) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`iv
`
`

`

`In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd.,
`93 USPQ2d 1243 (TTAB 2010) ........................................................................................................... 15
`
`Micro Mobio Corp. v. Gen. Motors, LLC,
`2021 WL 4735312 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2021) ..................................................................... 19, 20, 21, 22
`
`In re Mighty Leaf Tea,
`94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................................... 15
`
`Miller UK Ltd. v. Caterpillar, Inc.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147843 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2015) ..................................................................... 39
`
`Miss Universe L.P. v. Cmty. Mktg. Inc.,
`82 USPQ2d 1562 (TTAB 2007) ........................................................................................................... 11
`
`Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland & Co.,
`407 F.2d 881, 160 USPQ 715 (C.C.P.A. 1969) .............................................................................. 41, 44
`
`Mr. Hero Sandwich Sys., Inc. v. Roman Meal Co.,
`781 F.2d 884, 228 USPQ 364 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................... 14
`
`In re N.A.D. Inc.,
`754 F.2d 996, 224 USPQ 969 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................... 25
`
`Nat'l Bakers Servs., Inc. v. Hain Pure Food Co., Inc.,
`207 USPQ 701 (TTAB 1980) ............................................................................................................... 41
`
`Nat’l Rural Elec. Coop. Ass’n v. Suzlon Wind Energy Corp.,
`78 USPQ2d 1881 (TTAB. 2006), aff’d, 214 F. App’x. 987 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................... 35
`
`Newegg Inc. v. Schoolhouse Outfitters, LLC,
`118 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 2016) ......................................................................................................... 35
`
`O-M Bread, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee,
`65 F.3d 933, 36 USPQ2d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 41
`
`Omega Sa (Omega Ag) (Omega Ltd.) v. Alpha Phi Omega,
`118 USPQ2d 1289 (TTAB 2016) ......................................................................................................... 39
`
`PC Club v. Primex Techs., Inc.,
`32 F. App’x 576 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................................... 25
`
`Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. v. James River Petroleum, Inc.,
`130 F.3d 88, 44 USPQ2d 1921 (4th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................... 35
`
`Pure & Simple Concepts, Inc. v. I H W Mgmt. Ltd.,
`857 F. App’x 652, 2021 USPQ2d 565 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................... 12, 13, 31, 32
`
`Recot, Inc. v. Becton,
`214 F.3d 1322. 54 USPQ2d 1894 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 26
`
`v
`
`

`

`Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. v. Elzein,
`2016 WL 6833486 (TTAB July 25, 2016) ............................................................................... 26, 27, 28
`
`S & L Acquisition Company and Seligman & Latz, Inc. v. Helene Arpels, Inc.,
`9 USPQ2d 1221 (TTAB 1988) ............................................................................................................. 41
`
`In Re Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`2 USPQ2d 1312 (TTAB 1987) ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`Sports Auth. Michigan Inc. v. PC Auth. Inc.,
`63 USPQ2d 1782 (TTAB 2002) ........................................................................................................... 22
`
`In re St. Helena Hosp.,
`774 F.3d 747, 113 USPQ2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 23
`
`Stoncor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc.,
`2012 WL 2588576 (TTAB June 22, 2012)............................................................................... 29, 30, 31
`
`Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC,
`739 F.3d 150, 109 USPQ2d 1291 (4th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 26
`
`The Joseph and Feiss Company v. Sportempos, Inc.,
`451 F.2d 1402, 172 USPQ. 235 (C.C.P.A. 1971) ................................................................................. 43
`
`The Wet Seal, Inc. v. Fd Mgmt., Inc.,
`82 USPQ2d 1629 (TTAB 2007) ........................................................................................................... 36
`
`In re Thor Tech, Inc.,
`113 USPQ2d 1546 (TTAB 2015) ......................................................................................................... 18
`
`Toro Co. v. Torohead Inc.,
`61 USPQ2d 1164 (TTAB 2001) ............................................................................................... 30, 37, 40
`
`Univ. of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.,
`703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................................. 26
`
`In re Viterra Inc.,
`101 USPQ2d 1905 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c)(2)(A) ...................................................................................................................... 38
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) ............................................................................................................................. passim
`
`15 U.S.C. §1068 .................................................................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Lanham Act § 2(d) ........................................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b)(1) ................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) ............................................................................................................................. 44, 45
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) ............................................................................................................................... 35
`
`3 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`(5th ed.) ......................................................................................................................................... passim
`
`TBMP § 401.03 ........................................................................................................................................... 35
`
`TBMP § 704.03(a) ........................................................................................................................................ 3
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Applicant Tigercat International, Inc. (“Tigercat”) respectfully submits its Trial Brief in response
`
`to Opposer Caterpillar, Inc.’s opposition to Tigercat’s Application No. 85/814,584 (the “Application”).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Tigercat has employed the exact trademark set out in the Application—TIGERCAT—in connection
`
`with the marketing and sale of the same goods identified in the Application—off-road vehicles—for over
`
`thirty years and subject to an incontestable trademark registration that Caterpillar did not oppose. See 161
`
`TTABVUE (registration certificate for Reg. No. 2,275,249, which was issued by the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on or about September 7, 1999) (the “Incontestable TIGERCAT Mark”).
`
`Caterpillar’s theoretical claims of likely consumer confusion with and dilution of Caterpillar’s CAT marks
`
`are disproven by this powerful, indisputable fact. The Board need not wonder whether consumer confusion
`
`is likely to result should it grant the Application. It will not. And Caterpillar has failed to present any
`
`evidence of consumer confusion occurring over the parties’ thirty years of coexistence. Likewise, if
`
`granting the Application posed any risk of diluting Caterpillar’s marks, dilution would already have resulted
`
`from Tigercat’s use of the Incontestable TIGERCAT Mark. Caterpillar ignores that Tigercat’s thirty plus
`
`years of utilizing the Incontestable TIGERCAT Mark has never caused any harm to its marks, conceding
`
`that granting the Application also poses no risk of dilution.
`
`The Board should dismiss the opposition for this reason, but even if it reaches the merits of
`
`Caterpillar’s claims, the claims still fail for a host of additional reasons. As to Caterpillar’s Section 2(d)
`
`claims, of the eight DuPont factors addressed by the parties in their briefing, all of which must be considered
`
`in weighing likelihood of confusion, six strongly favor Tigercat: (i) the parties’ marks are dissimilar, (ii)
`
`the parties primarily utilize distinct trade channels to market and sell their goods, (iii) the relevant goods
`
`cost many thousands of dollars, and the record demonstrates that the process of purchasing those products
`
`is a highly involved process involving a great deal of consumer care, (iv) there are numerous third parties
`
`utilizing marks that are similar to the CAT marks in the same industry, weakening the CAT marks, and (v)
`
`the parties have coexisted for over thirty years, and Caterpillar presents no evidence of any meaningful
`
`amount of consumer confusion occurring within that time. A seventh factor, the similarity of the parties’
`
`1
`
`

`

`goods, favors Tigercat given that many of the registrations asserted by Caterpillar cover goods and services
`
`that bear no similarities to the goods covered in the Application, and at most is neutral. Even if the Board
`
`finds the asserted CAT marks “famous,” the law is clear that this single factor is insufficient to outweigh
`
`the many DuPont factors that favor Tigercat. Moreover, Caterpillar’s proffered evidence of fame is not
`
`tailored to the CAT marks, and further implicates goods that are not at issue in this proceeding, and so is
`
`not germane to the issues here.
`
`Caterpillar fares no better in respect of its dilution claim. First, the bar for establishing a mark’s
`
`fame is significantly higher in evaluating a dilution claim than in evaluating a Section 2(d) claim, and so
`
`the problems with Caterpillar’s proffered fame evidence for its CAT marks loom even larger here. Second,
`
`Caterpillar fails to address an entire prong of its claim, as it does not argue that its CAT marks were famous
`
`as of 1992, when Tigercat began using its TIGERCAT Mark. Finally, Caterpillar cannot carry its
`
`heightened burden to prove similarity between CAT and TIGERCAT because there are significant
`
`differences between the parties’ marks. Such significant differences mean that consumers are not likely to
`
`see the two marks as essentially the same and thus dilution is not likely to occur.
`
`In a clear acknowledgement that the Incontestable TIGERCAT Mark presents a fatal obstacle to its
`
`claims, Caterpillar aims to exclude the registration on procedural grounds and steer the Board away from
`
`considering defenses on the merits. There is no reason to do so. Caterpillar has known about Tigercat’s
`
`intent to rely on the Incontestable TIGERCAT Mark, which was registered decades ago, for several years,
`
`as Tigercat expressly claims ownership of the registration in the Application at issue, initiated a lawsuit in
`
`federal court and filed a motion to suspend this proceeding that mentioned the registration, presented
`
`testimony related to the registration and filed a notice of reliance with the registration expressly stating
`
`Tigercat would use it for its defenses. Caterpillar did not challenge the evidence then via motion to strike
`
`or otherwise. Years passed without Caterpillar objecting to the Notice of Reliance or testimony. Caterpillar
`
`objects for the first time in its trial brief without any specific citations to the record with prior objections.
`
`Caterpillar’s objection comes too late and only highlights that Tigercat apprised Caterpillar of its intention
`
`2
`
`

`

`to rely on the Incontestable TIGERCAT Mark. The Board should consider the Incontestable TIGERCAT
`
`Mark and Tigercat’s longstanding use and dismiss Caterpillar’s claims on that basis.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`In addition to the record materials set forth by Caterpillar (subject to Tigercat’s objections), the
`
`portions of the record on which Tigercat relies include: (1) trial declarations (including exhibits) and, where
`
`applicable, cross-examinations of (i) Tigercat witnesses Anthony Iarocci, Kevin Selby, Mandi O’Brien, and
`
`Paul Iarocci and (ii) Caterpillar witnesses Max Martin, Roy Chipley, Samuel Cooper, Diane Lantz-Rickard,
`
`and Jimmie L. Brown; (2) discovery depositions of the same witnesses, and also of Ed Stembridge and Kurt
`
`Tisdale; (3) relevant USPTO file histories;1 (4) submissions from the instant proceeding; and (5) other
`
`documents submitted by Notice of Reliance, including but not limited to:
`
` Caterpillar’s responses to (1) Tigercat’s First Set of Interrogatories; (2) Tigercat’s First Set of
`Requests for Admission; (3) Tigercat’s Third Set of Requests for Admission; and (4) Tigercat’s
`Fourth Set of Requests for Admission (156-157;173 TTABVUE)
` TESS printouts of third-party registrations (158 TTABVUE)
`
`Printouts from Tigercat website (159 TTABVUE)
` Dictionary definition for “tiger cat” (160 TTABVUE)
`
`PTO records for Registration No. 2275249 (161 TTABVUE)
` Excerpts from the February 19, 2016 deposition of Kurt Tisdale (166-167 TTABVUE)
` Excerpts from the February 18, 2016 deposition of Ed Stembridge (168-169 TTABVUE)
`
`Appendix A to this Brief sets forth Tigercat’s objections to the admissibility of certain evidence
`
`submitted by Caterpillar in its trial period. In Appendix B, Tigercat responds to the evidentiary objections
`
`raised by Caterpillar to certain Tigercat trial evidence. Appendix C appends all non-precedential decisions
`
`pursuant to TBMP § 101.03.
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Has Caterpillar carried its heavy burden of proving, under § 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1052(d), that Tigercat’s TIGERCAT Mark as set out in the Application would be likely to cause
`
`1 The USPTO files for the Application are part of the record. 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b)(1); TBMP § 704.03(a).
`Caterpillar has likewise submitted documents setting out the full prosecution history for each of the marks
`it has asserted as a basis for opposing the Application. See generally 132 TTABVUE.
`
`3
`
`

`

`confusion as to source or origin among an appreciable number of consumers in the U.S. based upon
`
`consideration of all of the relevant DuPont factors?
`
`2.
`
`Has Caterpillar carried its heavy burden of demonstrating that Tigercat’s TIGERCAT Mark
`
`as set out in the Application will dilute Tigercat’s CAT marks given that burden requires a heightened
`
`showing beyond that required to prevail upon a likelihood of confusion analysis and dilution is an
`
`extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted by the Board, and given that Tigercat owns the Incontestable
`
`TIGERCAT Mark and has made use of that registration for the past thirty years?
`
`3.
`
`Is Caterpillar barred from asserting its claims given that (i) the Application is for a mark
`
`that is essentially the same as the mark covered by the Incontestable TIGERCAT Mark, and (ii) the
`
`Application covers goods that are substantially identical to the goods covered by the Incontestable
`
`TIGERCAT Mark?
`
`I.
`
`TIGERCAT’S BUSINESS AND BRAND
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`For decades, Tigercat and its affiliates have used the TIGERCAT Mark in the U.S. in connection
`
`with premium quality forestry and off-road industrial equipment. 147 TTABVUE 3; 172 TTABVUE 3. In
`
`or about 1992, a group of professionals with extensive experience in all facets of the logging equipment
`
`industry teamed up with the Cambridge, Ontario-based fabrication company, MacDonald Steel, and
`
`launched Tigercat to design a technically superior alternative product to what was available in the market.
`
`159 TTABVUE 72-73; 147 TTABVUE 2; 172 TTABVUE 246. Tigercat’s original 726 feller buncher was
`
`quickly recognized as a more durable, more reliable machine capable of achieving greater production than
`
`competing machines, including machines sold by Caterpillar. 172 TTABVUE 246-247, 267. The 726 also
`
`proved to deliver a longer useful life with significantly higher uptime than competing machines. 172
`
`TTABVUE 246. From those origins, Tigercat, under its TIGERCAT brand, steadily grew into a leading
`
`marketer, manufacturer, and seller of forestry equipment and off-road industrial equipment. Throughout
`
`this lengthy time period, Caterpillar was aware of Tigercat’s use of TIGERCAT. 147 TTABVUE 5-7; 168
`
`TTABVUE; 169 TTABVUE 12. Tigercat, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, and its global network of
`
`4
`
`

`

`dealers, sells its high-quality forestry equipment and off-road industrial equipment in countries and
`
`territories around the world. 172 TTABVUE 5, 260. Tigercat has prospered in the highly competitive
`
`forestry and off-road industrial equipment and machinery market by consistently offering innovative, high-
`
`quality products that are highly regarded by consumers. As a consumer-driven company with strong
`
`engineering capabilities, Tigercat thrives on the design and continuous improvement of its forestry
`
`equipment and off-road industrial equipment. 172 TTABVUE 3, 250.
`
`Tigercat has invested heavily in developing its TIGERCAT brand and marketing its products so
`
`that consumers are able to recognize and trust the TIGERCAT brand in today’s competitive marketplace.
`
`148 TTABVUE 4;2 149 TTABVUE 4. The TIGERCAT brand has generated substantial revenues. 148
`
`TTABVUE 3; 149 TTABVUE 3. Tigercat’s premium quality forestry equipment and off-road industrial
`
`equipment have produced significant amounts in sales in the U.S., which are made almost exclusively
`
`through its own dealer network. 148 TTABVUE 3; 149 TTABVUE 3; 172 TTABVUE 5-6; 147
`
`TTABVUE 7. Tigercat has invested, and continues to invest, significant resources in advertising and
`
`marketing support to build its TIGERCAT brand in the U.S. 148 TTABVUE 4; 149 TTABVUE 4; 147
`
`TTABVUE 9-10; 150 TTABVUE 3-4. Tigercat uses a combination of trade and consumer promotions to
`
`market its TIGERCAT brand products. 147 TTABVUE 9-10; 150 TTABVUE 3-4. Tigercat uses trade
`
`advertising and promotion, including brochures, catalogs, product literature, trade journals and trade shows,
`
`as well as consumer promotion such as magazines, the Internet, and social media. 150 TTABVUE 3-4;
`
`147 TTABVUE 9-10. Additionally, Tigercat uses the domain <tigercat.com>, and maintains a website for
`
`the TIGERCAT brand at such address. 147 TTABVUE 10. A full array of Tigercat’s product line under
`
`the TIGERCAT brand, including forestry equipment and off-road industrial equipment, can be seen on the
`
`Tigercat website. 159 TTABVUE.
`
`Tigercat secured its trademark rights in the TIGERCAT brand many years ago. It owns several
`
`U.S. trademark registrations, including the Incontestable TIGERCAT Mark, which covers “specialized
`
`2 Citation to the Parties’ confidential filings with the Board assume that there is a cover page added to the
`first page of the docket entry.
`
`5
`
`

`

`power-operated forestry equipment, namely, purpose-built four-wheel drive-to-tree and track type log
`
`bunchers, log loading machines, skidders and other forestry industry equipment, namely, bunching saws,
`
`bunching shears and component parts thereof,” in International Class 07. See 161 TTABVUE.
`
`Tigercat has used the TIGERCAT Mark in commerce throughout the U.S. continuously since April
`
`1, 1992 in connection with the design, development, manufacture, distribution, sale, marketing, advertising,
`
`and promotion of premium quality machinery and equipment in the forest