enpan's Patent & Linux practice: 商標混淆的可能性：DuPont factors - In re Guild Mortgage Company (Fed. Cir. 2019)

2019年1月24日星期四

商標混淆的可能性：DuPont factors - In re Guild Mortgage Company (Fed. Cir. 2019)

本次討論商標的「likelihood of confusion」，這裡翻成「混淆的可能性」，討論「兩個相似的商標（業態也一致）」共存的條件 - In re Guild Mortgage Company (Fed. Cir. 2019)

案件資訊：
上訴人：IN RE: GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY
系爭商標：GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY（TTAB案號：86709944）
判決日：January 14, 2019

本案緣起USPTO/TTAB駁回上訴人Guild的商標申請案"GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY"，理由是與另一件註冊商標"GUILD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT"有混淆的可能性（likelihood of confusion）。

系爭商標與描述：

本案上訴人Guild是個借貸公司，可能是「當舖」，從1960年就開始使用系爭商標「GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY」，事業涵蓋美國40州以上，當他們要提出商標註冊時，"竟然"被駁回，因為與另一個業態相關的註冊商標有混淆的可能，這個商標是投資顧問公司Guild Investment Management, Inc.註冊的商標「GUILD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT」。

TTAB判決中還列舉幾件包括"guild"的註冊商標：

相似商標不能再註冊，根據美國商標法15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)（SECTION 2 OF THE LANHAM ACT），應避免混淆、錯誤或欺騙，類似的設計不得再取得商標。

----------------------------------------------
15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)
15 U.S. Code § 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(d) Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive: Provided, That if the Director determines that confusion, mistake, or deception is not likely to result from the continued use by more than one person of the same or similar marks under conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the marks or the goods on or in connection with which such marks are used, concurrent registrations may be issued to such persons when they have become entitled to use such marks as a result of their concurrent lawful use in commerce prior to (1) the earliest of the filing dates of the applications pending or of any registration issued under this chapter; (2) July 5, 1947, in the case of registrations previously issued under the Act of March 3, 1881, or February 20, 1905, and continuing in full force and effect on that date; or (3) July 5, 1947, in the case of applications filed under the Act of February 20, 1905, and registered after July 5, 1947. Use prior to the filing date of any pending application or a registration shall not be required when the owner of such application or registration consents to the grant of a concurrent registration to the applicant. Concurrent registrations may also be issued by the Director when a court of competent jurisdiction has finally determined that more than one person is entitled to use the same or similar marks in commerce. In issuing concurrent registrations, the Director shall prescribe conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the mark or the goods on or in connection with which such mark is registered to the respective persons.
----------------------------------------------

雖是這樣規定，但是如何判斷「Likelihood of Confusion」：Dupont factors（幾個查驗是否核准商標註冊的考慮因素）

(1) The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
（標誌在外觀、聲音、意義與商業印象的相似度）
(2) The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.
（在商標註冊申請書中描述的商品或服務的本質與前案的相似度）
(3) The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.
（建立或是可能繼續的貿易渠道的相似度）
(4) The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.
（買家對於銷售商品衝動、謹慎或精明的條件）
(5) The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use).
（先前商標的知名度（販售、廣告、使用時間））
(6) The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
（相似商標使用在相似的商品的數量與性質）
(7) The nature and extent of any actual confusion.
（實際混淆的程度）
(8) The length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.
（在沒有實際混淆的證據下同時使用的時間與條件）
(9) The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “family” mark, product mark).
（使用與沒有使用商標的商品，如家族標誌）
(10) The market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior mark . . . .
（商標申請人與先前商標權人之間的市場分界線）
(11) The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods.
（申請人有權排除他人使用商標的程度）
(12) The extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial.
（潛在混淆的程度，是微量還是有實質的混淆）
(13) Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.
（其他證明使用商標的效果的事實）

Guild上訴理由即主張TTAB在考量Dupont factors第1～3因素（相似度）時沒有基於事實證據，以及TTAB錯誤使用第8因素（使用時間，上訴人用了40年！）

CAFC階段：

考量「混淆的可能性」時，經考量各種證據後，判斷出是否有混淆的情形發生。原則是，即便不是每件商標爭議都與所有13條Dupont factors有關，但都要考量進去。

對於CAFC討論的Dupont factor 8（在沒有實際混淆的證據下同時使用的時間與條件），上訴人主張，自己的系爭商標「GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY」與商標權人的商標「GUILD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT」事實上已經共用超過40年，且沒有證據顯示有混淆的問題！

因為USPTO/TTAB的審查委員忽略了前後兩個商標「共同存在多年，且沒有混淆的證據」的事實，違反過去案例要求要審理所有Dupont factors的原則。

即便上訴人Guild也沒有提出證據證明過去沒有混淆的事實，但USPTO/TTAB都在判斷時僅考量兩個商標在一致的服務上有相似商標的爭點，邏輯上沒有考慮長久使用的事實，因此有錯誤，CAFC判決發回重審。

編按，接下來就是Guild對於「共同存在多年，且沒有混淆的證據」的舉證責任了！

判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2620.Opinion.1-14-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/tbykv0a2zfz7nk93wighc547pybbrxo3）

my two cents:
本案例告訴我們，即便商標相似，且業態也相似，但一起使用的時間夠長，又沒有混淆的情況，表示兩個商標在消費者心中已經具備識別性，可區隔，也就不必拒絕商標權的共存。

筆記一下尋找TTAB案例的網頁：
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/trademark-trial-and-appeal-board