Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter , 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1434 (TTAB 2012)

1. Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1434 (TTAB 2012) 1

2. CHIRO-KLENZ v. SUPER CHIRO “FROM THE ORIGINAL MAKERS OF CHIRO-KLENZ”… 2

3. But I Already Own The Mark! In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1397 (TTAB 2012) ANYWEARS

4. The 13thduPont Factor ANYWEARS “Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.” S

5. Dilution Cases NASDAQ v. NASDAQ (sporting goods & clothing) – 2003 The Other White Meat v. The Other Red Meat (salmon) – 2010 [Nike] Just Do It v. Just Jesu It (clothing) – 2011 Motown v. Motown Metal (toy vehicles) - 2011 5

6. Lack of Dilution: Coach v. Coach Coach Services Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 6

7. Dilution:Blackberry v. Crackberry Research in Motion Ltd. v. Defining Presence Mktg. Group and Axel Ltd. Inc.,102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1187 (TTAB 2012) 7

8. Federal Registration Defense Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Alliance of Professionals & Consultants, Inc., 104 U.S.P.Q.2d 1234 (TTAB 2012) 8

9. Federal Registration Defense Section 1125(c)(6) – Ownership of a federal registration is a complete bar to any action: (A)(i) [now (A)] is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State; and (ii) [now (B)(i)] seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment; or (B) [now (B)(ii)] asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement. 9

10. Distinctiveness Spectrum

11. Merely Descriptive – Section 2(e) • SNAP • SNAP SIMPLY SAFER; and • For medical syringes and needles Duopross Meditech v. Inviro Medical, 685 F.3d 1046, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

12. Merely Descriptive vs. Suggestive Duopross Meditech v. Inviro Medical, 685 F.3d 1046, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (Fed. Cir. 2012) • Forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of the goods • Requires imagination, thought, and perception to reach a conclusion about the nature of the goods

13. Merely Descriptive vs. Suggestive Duopross Meditech v. Inviro Medical, 685 F.3d 1046, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (Fed. Cir. 2012) • May ascertain the meaning and weight of each component • Must consider the mark as a whole • Must consider the mark in relation to the goods

14. Duopross Meditech v. Inviro Medical, 685 F.3d 1046, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

16. Merely Descriptive vs. Suggestive Duopross Meditech v. Inviro Medical, 685 F.3d 1046, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (Fed. Cir. 2012) • Self-laudatory and puffing marks are regarded as descriptive • SNAP SIMPLY SAFER - lauds the safety of the products

17. Generic vs. Merely Descriptive In re Tennis Industry Association, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1671 (TTAB 2012)

18. Baroness Small Estates v. American Wine Trade, 104 U.S.P.Q.2d 1224 (TTAB 2012) “A Blend of Cabernets - Merlot - Syrah”

20. Stylizations Apart From Words In re Sadoru Group, Ltd., __ U.S.P.Q.2d ____ (TTAB 2012)

21. Acronyms, Initialisms And Japanese Calligraphy