Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1270213
`
`Filing date:
`
`03/06/2023
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91213597
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Plaintiff
`Caterpillar, Inc.
`
`NARESH KILARU
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`901 NEW YORK AVENUE NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: docketing@finnegan.com
`Secondary email(s): laura.johnson@finnegan.com, ttab-leg-
`al-assistants@finnegan.com, naresh.kilaru@finnegan.com
`202-408-4000
`
`Rebuttal Brief
`
`Naresh Kilaru
`
`laura.johnson@finnegan.com, ttab-legal-assistants@finnegan.com,
`naresh.kilaru@finnegan.com, docketing@finnegan.com
`
`/Naresh Kilaru/
`
`03/06/2023
`
`Attachments
`
`2022.03.06 REDACTED Opposer's Reply Trial Brief - PUBLIC.pdf(924692 bytes
`
`) E
`
`xhibit A - Cases REDUCED.pdf(5114443 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Opposition No. 91213597
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`TIGERCAT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`Application No. 85/814,584
`
`Mark: TIGERCAT
`Filing Date: January 3, 2013
`
`OPPOSER’S REPLY TRIAL BRIEF
`
`REDACTED
`
`Date: March 6, 2023
`
`Naresh Kilaru
`Laura K. Johnson
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`
`docketing@finnegan.com
`naresh.kilaru@finnegan.com
`laura.johnson@finnegan.com
`TTAB-Legal-Assistants@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Caterpillar Inc.
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Allen v. Zavaras, No. 10-cv-01510, 2011 WL 386668 (D. Colo. Feb. 2, 2011) ............................................................. 17
`
`Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Foxconn Interconnect Tech. Ltd., 2020 TTAB LEXIS 159 (TTAB Apr. 9, 2020) ............................... 7
`
`AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., 474 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1973) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816 (TTAB 2015) ................................................................ 5
`
`Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844 (TTAB 2017) ...................... 17, 18, 20
`
`In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 819 .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Bleck v. City of Alamosa Colo., No. 10-cv-03177, 2012 WL 695138 (D. Colo. Mar. 5, 2012) ............................................ 19
`
`Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n v. Harvard Cmty. Health Plan, Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1990) ................................... 7
`
`Blue Man Prods., Inc. v. Tarmann, 75 USPQ2d 1811 (TTAB 2005), ........................................................................................ 8
`
`In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (2009) ........................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Bose Corp. v. Hexawave, Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1332 (TTAB 2007) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................. 5, 7
`
`Broadcasting Network Inc. v. ABS-CBN Int’l, 84 USPQ2d 1560 (TTAB 2007) ...................................................................... 6
`
`Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, 17 F.4th 129, 2021 USPQ2d 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................. 21
`
`Carril v. United States, No. 19-cv-24561, 2021 WL 3556385 (S.D. Fla. July 14, 2021) ...................................................... 17
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Kelly, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 21 (TTAB Sept. 30, 2015) .................................................................... 4, 12, 15
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Pave Tech, Inc., Cancellation No. 92041776, TTAB Order at p. 14 (Mar. 12, 2007) ........................... 3, 7
`
`Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Gehl Co., 177 USPQ 343 (TTAB 1973) ........................................................................................... 12
`
`CDOC, Inc. v. Liberty Bankers Life Ins. Co., 844 F. App’x 357 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................... 7
`
`Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................ 7
`
`Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................... 8
`
`Cont'l Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Morgan, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 247 (TTAB Mar. 23, 2007) .................................................... 22
`
`In re Copeland-Smith, 791 F. App’x. 898, 2019 USPQ2d 433159 (Fed. Circ. 2019) ..................................................... 11, 14
`
`Data Packaging Corp. v. Morning Star, Inc., 212 USPQ 109 (TTAB 1981) ............................................................................. 19
`
`Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................................................... 5
`
`Double Coin Holdings LTD. v. Tru Dev., Canc. No. 92063808, 2019 WL 4877349 (TTAB Oct. 1, 2019) ...................... 17
`
`Downs v. River City Grp., LLC, No. 11-cv-00885, 2014 WL 814303 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2014) ........................................ 18
`
`In re FCA US LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1214, 1217 (TTAB 2018) ................................................................................. 10, 14, 15
`
`Flex Ltd. v. Spireon, Inc., 2022 TTAB LEXIS 38 (TTAB Feb. 10, 2022) ............................................................................... 7
`
`G&W Labs., Inc. v. G W Pharma Ltd., 2010 TTAB LEXIS 80 (TTAB Feb. 16, 2010) ...................................................... 9
`
`Glass Dimensions, Inc. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 290 F.R.D. 11 (D. Mass. 2013) ..................................................... 18
`
`GTFM, Inc. v. Fresh Body, LLC, No. 91209621, 44 TTABVUE 8 (TTAB March 4, 2016) ............................................. 22
`
`In re Guild Mortg. Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10279 (TTAB 2020) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................................... 16
`
`Haggar Co. v. Hugger Corp., 172 USPQ 253 (TTAB 1971) ............................................................................................... 21, 23
`
`In re Hearst Corp., 982 F.2d 493, 25 USPQ2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Helene Curtis Indus. Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 1989) ...................................................................... 19
`
`Honda Motor Co. v. Indep. Cycle, Inc., 2016 TTAB LEXIS 402 (TTAB Aug. 15, 2016) ...................................................... 15
`
`i
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 16
`
`Industria de Diseno Textil, S.A. v. Benzara Inc., 2022 TTAB LEXIS 163 (TTAB Apr. 13, 2022) ........................................ 7
`
`Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.,797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................. 14
`
`Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, 857 F.3d 1323, (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................. 1
`
`Kicking Horse Coffee Co. v. Critchley, 2019 WL 982905 (TTAB Feb. 28, 2019) ..................................................................... 14
`
`In re Kysela Pere et Fils, Ltd., 98 USPQ2d 1261 (TTAB 2011) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 228 (TTAB June 15, 2022) ............................................. 22
`
`Mag Instrument, Inc. v. The Brinkmann Corp., 96 USPQ2d 1701 (TTAB 2010) .............................................................. 17, 21
`
`In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................. 16
`
`Mariah Media, Inc. v. Carnahan, 2002 WL 31528569 (TTAB Nov. 13, 2002) ....................................................................... 8
`
`Monster Energy Co. v. Monster Towel LLC, 2020 479 (TTAB Nov. 2, 2020) ......................................................................... 11
`
`Monster Energy Co v. Pimmonster LLC, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 6 (TTAB Jan. 6. 2022) ............................................................. 7
`
`Mr. Hero Sandwich Sys., Inc. v. Roman Meal Co., 781 F.2d 884, 228 USPQ 364 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................ 8
`
`N.Y. Yankees P’ship v. IET Prods. & Servs., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1497 (TTAB 2015) ........................................................... 21
`
`Nat’l Cable Television Ass’n v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................... 11
`
`New Era Cap Co. v. Pro Era, LLC, 2020 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 10596 (TTAB May 29, 2020) ........................................... 16
`
`Newegg Inc. v. Schoolhouse Outfitters, LLC, 118 USPQ 1242 (TTAB 2016) ........................................................................... 18
`
`Olivero v. Trek Bicycle Corp., No. 2018 WL 3459424 (D. Colo. July 18, 2018) ............................................................... 18, 19
`
`Omaha Steaks Int’l v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 128 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................... 10, 11
`
`Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...... 1, 2, 10
`
`Pierce-Arrow Soc’y v. Spintek Filtration, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 471774 (TTAB 2019) .............................................................. 15
`
`Principle Bus. Enterprises, Inc. v. DML Marketing Group, Ltd., 2018 WL 3756534 (TTAB Aug. 6, 2018) ......................... 14
`
`Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1921 (TTAB 2011) ........................ 12
`
`Pure & Simple Concepts, Inc. v. I H W Mgmt., 857 F. App’x 652, 656-657 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................... 7, 14
`
`In re Scandinavian Frames AB, Serial No. 87926087, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 89 (TTAB Apr. 9, 2019) ................................. 8
`
`In Re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2 USPQ2d 1312 (TTAB 1987) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`Shay v. County of Los Angeles, No. 15-CV-04607, 2019 WL 5420262 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2019) ...................................... 19
`
`Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctors Assocs., Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341 (TTAB 2013) ........................................................................ 19
`
`Spotify AB v. Software Inc., 2022 USPQ2d 37 (TTAB 2022)................................................................................................... 20
`
`Stoncor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 2012 WL 2588576 (TTAB June 22, 2012) .......................................................... 4
`
`Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007 (TTAB 2015) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd.., 125 USPQ2d 1043 (TTAB 2017) ............................................................... 13
`
`Teledyne Technologies, Inc. v. Western Skyways, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1203 (TTAB 2006) ............................................................ 21
`
`Thomas v. Auxier, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 356 (TTAB Sept. 27, 2019) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`TiVo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC, 129 USPQ2d 1097 (TTAB 2018) ................................................................................... 21
`
`Toro Co. v. ToroHead Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1164 (TTAB 2001) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266 (TTAB 2009) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`Vonrosenberg v. Lawrence, 412 F. Supp. 3d 612 (D.S.C. 2019) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`Zheng Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`ii
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`To attack the distinctiveness and strength of the CAT mark1, Tigercat relies upon three distinguishable third-
`
`party registrations, which cannot diminish the fame of the seventy-year-old CAT word and logo mark with billions in
`
`sales and advertising, widespread recognition that it is one of the strongest brands in the world in the relevant market
`
`and among the general public, and Board and federal court decisions finding the mark to be famous based on less
`
`evidence than has been submitted in this case. Tigercat contorts the standards for analyzing the relatedness of the
`
`parties’ goods and trade channels, while ignoring the clear overlap in Caterpillar’s registrations and the TIGERCAT
`
`Application, marketplace uses, and trade channels. Tigercat’s urging of the Board to downplay the marks’ shared
`
`dominant element, CAT, and focus on the “TIGER” (which conveys the same meaning—a type of cat) does little to
`
`deemphasize that the parties’ marks are highly similar. And Tigercat’s prior registration defense—which should have
`
`been pled almost 10 years ago in Tigercat’s Answer (4 TTABVUE) or at many points before submitting Tigercat’s
`
`trial brief—fails because Tigercat falls far short of its burden to establish that Caterpillar implicitly consented to this
`
`defense.2 It was not Caterpillar’s obligation to flag or object to the deficiencies in Tigercat’s case and it raised
`
`objections to this defense and supporting testimonial evidence in a timely manner.
`
`II.
`
`CATERPILLAR HAS ESTABLISHED A LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`A.
`
`Factor Five - Tigercat’s Attempts to Undercut Caterpillar’s Fame Evidence Fail
`
`1.
`
`Caterpillar Has Proven Fame in the Relevant Market
`
`To assess fame for likelihood-of-confusion purposes, the correct standard is to evaluate a mark’s fame within
`
`the relevant market. Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, 857 F.3d 1323, 122 USPQ2d 1733, 1735
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1375, 73
`
`USPQ2d 1689, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2005)) (“Fame for confusion purposes arises as long as a significant portion of the
`
`relevant consuming public . . . recognizes the mark as a source indicator,” and “a mark’s renown within a specific
`
`product market is the proper standard.”). The “relevant market” consists of purchasers of Opposer’s asserted goods
`
`and services. Palm Bay Imps., Inc., 396 F.3d at 1375, 73 USPQ2d at 1694.
`
`
`1 While Caterpillar asserted its distinct CATERPILLAR and CAT marks and corresponding registrations in the
`Notice of Opposition (1 TTABVUE), its trial briefs focus only on the CAT marks.
`2 Tigercat does not contest that Caterpillar’s has a statutory cause of action and priority over Tigercat’s
`Application. Caterpillar’s response to Tigercat’s evidentiary objections is attached as Appendix A. Even if the
`Board were to sustain Tigercat’s objections, the testimony and evidence on fame to which Tigercat has not
`objected is overwhelming and establishes beyond a doubt that the CAT mark is strong and famous.
`
`1
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Caterpillar’s Notice of Opposition and asserted registrations detail its wide-ranging product offerings under
`
`the CAT mark, including machines, parts, and accessories for use across numerous industries, its corresponding
`
`services, and its various merchandise and apparel offerings. (1 TTABVUE.) For example, Caterpillar’s U.S. Reg. No.
`
`564272 for the CAT mark dating back to 1952 covers broadly worded goods like tractors for “industrial and
`
`agricultural purposes;” “engines and power units” for “industrial, marine, and agricultural uses;” “graders, scarifiers,
`
`scrapers, and rippers” for “the construction and maintenance of roads and for moving earth, rock, snow, and like
`
`materials, for preventing soil erosion, and for other industrial and agricultural uses;” and “parts and service tools
`
`furnished with said products.” (Id.) Caterpillar’s U.S. Reg. No. 2421077 for the CAT & design mark covers various
`
`excavators, loaders (including log loaders), skid steers, handlers, scrapers, tractors, dozers, graders, pavers,
`
`compactors, engines, and generators. (Id.) The machines and parts covered in these two registrations alone cover
`
`machines and parts across wide range of industries including agriculture, construction, demolition, industrial power,
`
`landscaping, marine power, material handling, mining, oil & gas, paving, and forestry (106 TTABVUE 2-5) and
`
`correspond to a wide range of consumers in these fields. Consumers in these industries are undoubtedly in the
`
`relevant market to assess the fame of Caterpillar’s CAT mark.
`
`While Caterpillar did not plead its CAT registrations for software, merchandise, and apparel items, these
`
`activities are clearly discussed in the Notice of Opposition and incorporated in Caterpillar’s discovery and testimony
`
`throughout this proceeding. (e.g., 228 TTABVUE 13-34.) As such, these activities should be part of the relevant
`
`market to assess the fame of Caterpillar’s CAT mark. However, even if these activities were excluded from the
`
`relevant market, Caterpillar’s evidence in the record overwhelmingly and with specificity supports that the CAT mark
`
`is commercially strong and famous to consumers in the relevant market, including evidence showing:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the CAT mark has been used for 70+ years across the relevant market, with information regarding specific
`machinery, parts, and accessories for the millions of products available each year (228 TTABVUE 13-16);
`
`the CAT mark has been advertised in a variety of mediums (national TV, films, retailers, radio, trade shows,
`magazines and newspapers, billboards and signage, catalogs, websites, sporting events, co-branding activities,
`sponsorships, and social media) featuring CAT-branded machines and parts across the relevant market or the
`CAT brand generally to appeal to consumers in the relevant market (id. at 19-27 and 29-30);
`
`the CAT mark has been widely promoted through the CAT dealer network, who sell CAT products and
`undertake their own extensive advertising of the CAT brand in the relevant market (id. at 28-29);
`
`the CAT mark has been the subject of significant unsolicited media attention and billions of consumer
`impressions from marketing activities that feature CAT-branded machines and parts across the relevant
`market or the CAT brand generally to appeal to consumers in the relevant market (id. at 26, 30-32);
`
`2
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

` brand rankings finding CAT to be one of the world’s best known or valuable brands, based largely on its sales
`and advertising activities in the relevant market (id. at 20-23, 25-26, 30-31 and 32-34);
`
` market research studies for the general construction industry (a part of the relevant market) show a
`
`
`
`(id. at 32);
`
` hundreds of billions of dollars in sales of CAT-branded machines and parts to consumers in the relevant
`market (228 TTABVUE 19; see also 104 TTAB 9-11; 216 TTABVUE 13-16);
`
` billions in advertising expenditures for CAT-branded products and services, broken down by categories of
`activities, like sales literature, content creation, trade shows, and sponsorships, which feature CAT-branded
`machines and parts across the relevant market or the CAT brand generally to appeal to consumers in the
`relevant market (228 TTABVUE 19; see also 104 TTABVUE 4-5; 216 TTABVUE 10-11);
`
` Caterpillar’s
` enforcement actions over the last 10 years against third-party marks containing “CAT,”
`many related to machinery and parts across the relevant market (228 TTABVUE 33-34) (see Caterpillar Inc. v.
`Pave Tech, Inc., Cancellation No. 92041776, TTAB Order at p. 14 (Mar. 12, 2007) (“[Caterpillar’s] aggressive
`trademark enforcement activities reinforce the strength of its CAT marks.”); see also 2 J. Thomas McCarthy,
`MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION, § 11.91 (5th ed. 2021 update) (“an
`active program of prosecution of infringers, resulting in elimination of others’ uses of similar marks, enhances
`the distinctiveness and strength of a mark.”)); and
`
` prior TTAB decisions finding the CAT mark to be famous in the relevant market (including, heavy
`equipment, construction, oil and gas, and paving), relying upon the same registrations and comparable
`evidence that has been submitted in this proceeding (id. at 34-35).
`
`2.
`
`Tigercat’s Challenge to Caterpillar’s CAT-Branded Advertising
`Expenditures and Activities Fails
`
`Tigercat attempts to discredit the reliability of Caterpillar’s advertising expenditures by parsing select
`
`statements from Caterpillar witness Sam Cooper. While Caterpillar does not normally track advertising figures by
`
`brand in the ordinary course of business, Mr. Cooper testified that Caterpillar’s financial team conducted a
`
`conservative analysis to provide “minimum expenditures that related primarily to the marketing and promoting of
`
`CAT-branded products.” (228 TTABVUE 19; 104 TTABVUE 4-5; 216 TTABVUE 10-11.) These figures totaled
`
`more than
`
` from 2009 - 2021 alone. (Id.) Given the categories of promotional expenses that were not
`
`included in this analysis, Mr. Cooper testified that the expenditures for the CAT brand were likely much higher. (Id.)
`
`Further, these expenditures did not involve the significant promotional expenditures by Caterpillar’s dealers or
`
`licensees. (Id.).
`
`Tigercat cross-examined Mr. Cooper on his first affidavit (170-171 TTABVUE) but opted to not submit this
`
`cross-examination into the trial record. Tigercat did not cross-examine Mr. Cooper on his second affidavit (216-217
`
`TTABVUE). If Tigercat believed there were critical flaws with respect to the advertising figures submitted by Mr.
`
`3
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Cooper, the time to uncover them would have been on cross-examination. But Tigercat failed to uncover any flaws
`
`and is now left with nothing more than speculation.
`
`Even a fraction of Caterpillar’s
`
` expenditures in advertising the CAT mark was adequate to show
`
`the fame of brands like WAVE, HUGGIES, and AUTOZONE, as cited in Caterpillar’s opening brief (228
`
`TTABVUE 40.) This is not the Stoncor Group case on which Tigercat relies. That case involved only $200,000 in annual
`
`advertising figures, with the Board noting that these figures “are not at the level required for fame.” Stoncor Grp., Inc. v.
`
`Specialty Coatings, Inc., 2012 WL 2588576, at *8 (TTAB June 22, 2012).
`
`Tigercat also attempts to undercut Caterpillar’s advertising activities by arguing that the CATERPILLAR
`
`house mark appears on some of Caterpillar’s advertising materials, along with the CAT mark. The use of multiple
`
`marks for different purposes on advertising materials does not undermine the fact that these materials promote the
`
`CAT brand or that Caterpillar incurred advertising expenditures associated with the CAT brand for these activities. See
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Kelly, 2015 TTAB LEXIS at *21 (TTAB Sept. 30, 2015) (“the evidence noted above, of which we find
`
`sufficient to establish fame, primarily pertains to Opposer’s use of, and the public’s awareness of, Opposer’s ‘CAT’
`
`mark, not its ‘CATERPILLAR’ trade name and mark.”).
`
`3.
`
`Tigercat’s Challenge to Caterpillar’s CAT-Branded Sales Figures Fails
`
`Tigercat likewise fails in its efforts to undermine Caterpillar’s sales figures. At the outset, Tigercat appears to
`
`be confusing Caterpillar’s testimony regarding (a) its total annual U.S. sales from its annual reports (228 TTABVUE
`
`18-19) and (b) testimony from Mr. Cooper’s affidavits regarding machinery, part, and equipment U.S. sales, which are
`
`limited to the CAT brand and broken down by the relevant “product families” (see 228 TTABVUE 19; 104 TTAB 9-
`
`11; 216 TTABVUE 13-16). By their very nature, one would not expect these figures to align.
`
`Additionally, each of the “product families” listed in the Cooper affidavit falls into the industries noted above
`
`(see supra Sect. II.A.1) and is covered by Caterpillar’s asserted CAT registrations in this proceeding. For example,
`
`Caterpillar’s “transmissions” and “work tools” product families are, at a minimum, covered by “parts and service tools
`
`furnished with said products,” as identified in U.S. Reg. No. 0564272. As such, these sales figures pertain to the
`
`relevant products and market and provide an accurate basis on which s to assess fame in this proceeding.
`
`Tigercat’s attempt to limit the relevant market to the “Forest Machines” product family ignores the scope of
`
`Caterpillar’s asserted goods and services; however, the statement does indicate that Tigercat considers Caterpillar’s
`
`forestry machines to be related to Tigercat’s goods, something it disputes elsewhere in its brief (see infra Sect. II.C).
`
`4
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Further, the Toro quote that Tigercat cites claiming that information is required regarding “how many individuals have
`
`actually purchased a product” (231 TTABVUE 39) does not pertain to fame for likelihood-of-confusion purposes,
`
`but dilution purposes. See Toro Co. v. ToroHead Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1164, 1181 (TTAB 2001).3 In that case, the Board
`
`found that the fifth DuPont factor favored the opposer based on annual sales and advertising figures alone. Id. at 1170
`
`(“The evidence of public recognition and renown in this case consists of opposer’s testimony that it has over $ 1.3
`
`billion in annual sales, that it spends $ 35 to $ 40 million annually on advertising, and that it advertises in trade
`
`journals, daily newspapers, national publications, and on national television. . . . As a result of this evidence, . . . we
`
`conclude that opposer’s mark when used on lawn care and maintenance equipment and services has achieved a degree
`
`of public recognition and renown.”).
`
`On the whole, the fame of the CAT mark cannot be ignored and the fifth DuPont factor “is entitled to great
`
`weight in a likelihood of confusion analysis.” See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816,
`
`1820-21 (TTAB 2015) (citing Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`Because “famous marks . . . enjoy a wide latitude of legal protection,” the Federal Circuit has held that fame “plays a
`
`dominant role in the process of balancing the du Pont factors.” Bose, 63 USPQ2d at 1305 (internal quotation omitted).
`
`B.
`
`Factor One - Tigercat Fails to Establish that the CAT and TIGERCAT Marks
`Are Dissimilar
`
`Tigercat makes conflicting arguments that TIGERCAT is both a “unitary mark” (see 231 TTABVUE 42) and
`
`that “TIGER” is a separable and dominant portion of the TIGERCAT mark (see id. at 22). Neither argument
`
`overcomes the reality that the CAT and TIGERCAT marks are similar in appearance, meaning, and overall
`
`commercial impression, particularly in view of the fame and strength of Caterpillar’s CAT mark (see supra Sect.II.B).
`
`TIGERCAT is not a “unitary mark.” To be a unitary mark, the elements of the mark must be “inseparable”
`
`and consist of elements “that come together to form a distinct meaning, independent of the meaning of the
`
`constituent elements.” Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1991). First,
`
`Tigercat offers no evidence supporting such a distinct meaning. Tigercat’s identified dictionary definition separates
`
`“tiger” and “cat” with a space, i.e., “tiger cat,”4 evidencing that the terms are not inseparable. Further, this dictionary
`
`defines “tiger cat” as a “feline” or “cat” that “resemble the tiger” or “have markings like those of a tiger.” This reflects
`
`
`3 Caterpillar’s opening brief relies upon the Toro decision to set out the Board’s standard for dilution, not to
`argue the merits of its evidence vis-à-vis this decision.
`4 Counter to Tigercat’s claim in its brief, there is no dictionary definition in the record for the TIGERCAT mark,
`unlike “bobcat” and “wildcat”. (See 160 TTABVUE 6-7; 209 TTABVUE Exs. 3-6.)
`
`5
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`a mere combination of the existing definitions for “cat” and “tiger”, not a new and independent meaning for “tiger
`
`cat” (or TIGERCAT). Second, Tigercat’s testimony and discovery responses repeatedly state that its intended
`
`meaning for the TIGERCAT trademark is a “tiger” animal (134 TTABVUE 50; 137 TTABVUE 13; 140 TTABVUE
`
`19), showing that no independent meaning for TIGERCAT was ever intended. Third, Tigercat admits that “tiger cat”
`
`is widely acknowledged to be a type of cat. (134 TTABVUE 50). None of this evidence supports that Tigercat has a
`
`distinct, independent meaning apart from the constituent elements “tiger” and “cat”.
`
`Next, Tigercat claims that “TIGER” is the dominant portion of the TIGERCAT mark and an arbitrary term.
`
`Tigercat has not submitted any evidence that consumers associate the TIGERCAT brand more prominently with the
`
`“TIGER” portion of its mark and it has not promoted any such association. There is no evidence of use of “Tiger” or
`
`feline imagery in connection with Tigercat’s machines or marketing material (apart from a Chinese “Year of the Tiger”
`
`celebration more than 20 years ago (150 TTABVUE 5; 155 TTABVUE 99). In fact, Tigercat’s brand guidelines
`
`prohibit any emphasis of “Tiger” apart from the TIGERCAT mark as a whole. (150 TTABVUE 5; 155 TTABVUE
`
`72-84). Further, Tigercat identified no third-party media articles referring to the company as “Tiger.” Tigercat’s
`
`witness Anthony Iarocci went so far as to admit that Tigercat had quickly dismissed selecting “Tiger” as the company
`
`name because it was “a common name.” (147 TTABVUE 4.)
`
`This leaves Tigercat with nothing to demonstrate that “TIGER” is the dominant portion of the TIGERCAT
`
`mark or that it should be given greater weight in assessing the similarities of the parties’ marks. For the reasons
`
`discussed below, Caterpillar’s famous CAT mark will be perceived as the dominant element of the TIGERCAT mark
`
`and the addition of “TIGER” is wholly insufficient to create a different connotation between the parties’ marks.
`
`The TTAB and Federal Circuit have repeatedly found that when an opposer’s mark is subsumed by
`
`applicant’s mark, it increases the similarity of the two marks. See In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1271
`
`(TTAB 2009) (applicant’s mark VANTAGE TITAN for medical magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic apparatus
`
`confusingly similar to TITAN for medical ultrasound diagnostic apparatus).5 This is particularly the case where an
`
`applicant’s mark incorporates a well-known or famous mark in its entirety. See McCarthy, § 23:45 (5th ed.) (“Since a
`
`well-known and famous part of a composite will likely make the most impression on the ordinary viewer, that part will
`
`be treated as the dominant portion of conflicting marks and given greater weight in the comparison.”).
`
`
`5 See also Broadcasting Network Inc. v. ABS-CBN Int’l, 84 USPQ2d 1560, 1568 (TTAB 2007) (respondent’s mark
`ABS-CBN is similar to petitioner’s mark CBN both for television broadcasting services).
`
`
`6
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`As TIGERCAT contains Caterpillar’s famous mark in its entirety and merely adds an ancillary term that is a
`
`type of cat (i.e., TIGER), CAT is that portion of the mark that must be given overriding weight in the similarity
`
`analysis—regardless of where in the mark the famous mark appears. See, e.g., Bose Corp. v. Hexawave, Inc., 88 USPQ2d
`
`1332, 1338 (TTAB 2007), appl’d and overturned on other grounds relating to fraud counterclaim in In re Bose Corp.,
`
`580 F.3d 1240 (2009) (in assessing the HEXA WAVE and WAVE marks, the Board found that “the addition of the
`
`prefix HEXA, rather than serving to distinguish the marks, could be viewed as denoting a variant of opposer’s famous
`
`WAVE