Before we think predictions for 2019, let’s consider the vast ground we’ve covered in 2018:

Wow, I’m exhausted, and these highlights are only a small fraction of what we delivered in 2018.

You may recall, earlier this year, I predicted more informational and failure to function decisions.

As our friend John Welch reported, there were more than a few (here, here, here, here, and here).

Stay tuned, on March 13, in New York City, I’ll be diving deeply into the failure to function topic, among others, at Practicing Law Institute’s Advanced Trademark Law 2019: Current Issues.

In terms of my big trademark prediction for 2019, it will be revealed whether the scandalous bar to federal registration is invalidated, whether or not the Supreme Court agrees to hear Brunetti.

So, what is your big trademark prediction for 2019?

Earlier this year I posted about a trademark dispute regarding the use of the term “Square Donuts” for square-shaped donuts. The case involved proceedings both in federal court and at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), between the Square Donuts cafe in Indiana (which claimed decades of prior use and a trademark registration); and the Family Express convenience-store chain (which sold square-shaped donuts called “square donuts,” claiming the term is generic). As we discussed, the case raised the interesting question of whether the term Square Donuts is generic for cafe services that feature square-shaped donuts (which still look delicious by the way, see below).

Perhaps fortunately for the parties involved, but unfortunately for our curious readers, it appears there will never be a decision answering this question, as the case is headed to a settlement and dismissal. A docket entry on August 30, 2018 in the federal court proceeding states “Settlement Reached,” following a settlement conference between the parties.

However, the case has not yet been dismissed, as the parties have not yet finalized the settlement and dismissal documents. After the court recently granted a joint motion for extension of time, the deadline to file dismissal papers is by the end of this month. In the meantime, there do not appear to be any public updates or press releases yet, regarding the nature of the settlement, on the parties’ respective websites (here and here). However, I do note that the Family Express sub page, “Our Brands,” no longer features “Square Donuts” as one of their “our proprietary brands,” as it did at the time of my previous post in May.

Therefore, just a guess, but perhaps the parties have reached a licensing agreement, in which Square Donuts will maintain its registration and claim to trademark rights, and Family Express will have a license to continue using the Square Donuts name for its donuts. Alternatively, perhaps Family Express has agreed to entirely give up calling its donuts “Square Donuts.” Based on the deadline for dismissal at the end of this month, I’m sure there will be more significant news soon, regarding the nature of the settlement and any changes to the parties’ branding and websites. What do you think will happen — any predictions? Stay tuned for updates.

Another update on my long-running series of posts following the NHL’s newest hockey team, the Las Vegas Golden Knights, and their embattled trademark applications for VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS that were filed nearly two years ago.

Most recently I posted about a challenge to the trademark applications by the U.S. Army, who opposed registration of the VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS marks in connection with professional ice hockey exhibitions. The Army alleged likelihood of confusion, among other claims, based primarily on the Army’s prior use of a GOLDEN KNIGHTS mark in connection with the Army’s parachute demonstration team.

The hockey team announced last week that they had settled the dispute by executing a co-existence agreement, in which the Army agreed to withdraw the opposition proceeding and allow the hockey team to register the VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS marks, while the hockey team agreed the Army would continue using the Golden Knights name for its parachute team.

This type of settlement involving a co-existence agreement is quite common in opposition proceedings. It is also not surprising for a couple other reasons. As discussed in my last post, the Army would have had a difficult time establishing the necessary “relatedness” factor for its likelihood-of-confusion claim. Although both parties technically are offering types of “entertainment” services, it would have been difficult to show that professional ice hockey exhibitions and parachute demonstrations are sufficiently related to cause likely confusion.

Furthermore, the financial support for the Army by Bill Foley (the owner of the hockey team) may have been a factor that encouraged an amicable settlement. Foley is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and is the biggest donor to its athletic program. Due to his $15 million donation, Foley’s name is on West Point’s athletic center.

Now that the Army has withdrawn its opposition, the VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS marks will likely register in the next couple months. This was a difficult road to registration in light of the various Office Actions and other challenges discussed in previous posts. But it was well worth the effort, in light of the high value of the team’s brand, especially due to the team’s quick competitive success and business growth. The Golden Knights made it to the Stanley Cup in their first season, and the team sold more merchandise last year than any other other NHL team.

My first post on this blog, nearly two years ago, was about a trademark dispute between the State of Michigan, and a Michigan company, M22, LLC.  M22 sells a variety of merchandise bearing an “M22” mark that appears similar to the route marker signs on Michigan Highway M-22, see photos below.

U.S. Registration No. 3992159

Posted to Flickr by Larry Page. License: CC BY 2.0.

M22 was granted several federal trademark registrations, including an “M22” word mark and several M22 design marks. The dispute escalated began back in 2013, when Michigan filed a petition for cancellation at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on several grounds, including that the registration violates federal regulations related to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTDC) (among several other grounds which are now less relevant). In August 2016, the TTAB denied Michigan’s motion for summary judgment.

Shortly after the TTAB denied summary judgment, Michigan turned to a different venue, filing a lawsuit in Michigan state court (ultimately resulting in suspension of the TTAB proceeding), against M22 seeking declaratory relief. M22 quickly removed the case to federal court. In its complaint, Michigan alleged that trademark protection for the M22 design in Michigan’s M-22 route marker signs is prohibited based on Federal Highway Administration standards under MUTCD, which provide that any road signage designs (“traffic control devices”) required on federally funded highways, including the M-22 signs, are in the public domain and shall not be protected by patent, trademark, or copyright.

However, last year, the federal court issued an opinion in favor of M22, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over Michigan’s claim for declaratory relief. Furthermore, the court held that Michigan lacked standing as there was no concrete injury alleged. Michigan’s main argument as to concrete injury was that Michigan risks losing federal highway funding if it does not comply with and enforce state and federal laws and regulations, including the MUTCD. The court disagreed, determining Michigan had not alleged facts showing how the registration of M22’s marks would prevent Michigan from complying with the MUTCD, that there was any risk of losing federal funding, or that Michigan has any power to enforce the MUTCD against private third parties.

But Michigan still didn’t give up after losing the federal court ruling. The case was remanded back to state court, where extensive motion practice ensued. The state court ultimately concluded that: (1) Michigan has standing; (2) the MUTCD has the force and effect of Michigan law; (3) M22 LLC is subject to Michigan law; and (4) the M-22 highway sign is a traffic control device under the MUTCD. However, the court declined to determine whether M22’s trademark registrations and use were unlawful under the MUTCD (as Michigan argued), and held the TTAB may lift its stay.

So now the dispute is right back where it started over five years ago, in the trademark cancellation proceeding at the TTAB.  The TTAB lifted its stay last year, and recently granted an extension of discovery to allow M22 to take a deposition of a designee for Michigan. Most recently–just yesterday in fact–Michigan moved again for leave to file a partial summary judgment motion, on Michigan’s claim that M22’s registration should be cancelled for unlawful use in commerce, based on violations of the MUTCD standards. However, the Board had already ruled twice that Michigan was prohibited from filing further motions for summary judgment. Today, M22 filed a request for a telephone conference with the Interlocutory Attorney, stating that briefing on Michigan’s third motion for summary judgment should be unnecessary based on the Board twice prohibiting such a motion.

This has been an interesting saga so far, and it’s fascinating that Michigan has been willing to invest so much time and money vigorously contesting this registration, when it is unclear (as it was to the Michigan federal court) whether there is a significant risk of any concrete injury to Michigan in allowing this mark to remain registered. How do you think this dispute will end up? Stay tuned for updates.

 

Last week, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held its oversight hearing regarding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). New USPTO Director Andrei Iancu testified (see his written statement here), for the first time in his new official capacity. It was an interesting hearing–a video recording of the hearing is available here (starting at minute 16).

Director Andrei Iancu, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

There was critical commentary at the hearing regarding post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America Invents Act (AIA), which some argue results too frequently in invalidation of patents, and thereby creates an imbalanced system that does not sufficiently protect patent owners. Senator Coons stated: “In the past decade, there have been a variety of actions … which have had the cumulative effect of significantly weakening patent rights…. One cause is the impact of the new post-grant proceedings at the USPTO before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board …. [T]he current review system is systematically biased against patent owners based on statistics from its first five years.” Senator Coons also mentioned new legislation he had introduced, the STRONGER Patent Acts, which he describes as “aligning PTAB standards to district court standards, better accounting for the fact that issued patents have already gone through a significant examination by a governmental agency.”

Although much of the hearing focused on patents, there was also some discussion of trademarks, with some interesting facts and statistics about the Trademark Office. Last year, about 600,000 trademark applications were filed, an increase of about 12%. Historically, average annual increases in trademark applications are between 6-8%. But the rate of growth is predicted to significantly increase in the future. As of this month, filings have increased 15% since last year. And over the next eight years, annual growth is expected to average 10%. According to Director Iancu, the biggest driver of the increase has been a rise in filings from China, which currently represent 10% of new filings. By 2023, filings from China are expected to represent a third of all filings.

This heavy growth in trademark applications has required significant hiring increases at the Trademark Office, with 232 new Examining Attorneys hired in the past five years, resulting in a total of about 580 Examining Attorneys currently. If the expected growth trends continue over the next five years, Director Iancu anticipates over 300 new hires will be required, growing the number of Examining Attorneys to over 900.

Finally, Director Iancu noted that the Trademark Office met or exceeded all trademark pendency and quality targets last year. Most trademark applications are pending for less than the targeted goal of 12 months, from filing through registration (or other final action or abandonment), with the average being about 9.5 months. The Trademark Office is also meeting its target of issuing a first action on pending applications between 2.5 – 3.5 months after filing, with the average being 2.7 months. More interesting statistics and budgetary data are available here.

It is reassuring to hear the Trademark Office is exceeding its pendency targets (particularly in light of the staggering number of new applications last year–600,000–among 580 examiners). Sometimes it feels like things take longer than they should during prosecution, but in light of this heavy volume, one can develop a greater appreciation for how quickly things are able to move.

What did you think of this oversight hearing on either the topics of patents or trademarks? Any thoughts?

Another update on my series of posts following the trademark troubles of the NHL’s newest expansion team, the Las Vegas Golden Knights.

Most recently, I posted about the USPTO’s decision to maintain a refusal to register the team’s marks in connection with clothing, LAS VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS and VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS (Applicant Nos. 87147236, 87147265), based on likelihood of confusion with another registered mark, GOLDEN KNIGHTS THE COLLEGE OF SAINT ROSE & Design.  Those two applications are now suspended.

Now the team is facing another challenge, this time from the U.S. Army. Last week, the Army filed two Notices of Opposition (see here and here) against the team, opposing registration of both of the team’s marks in connection with its entertainment services, namely, professional ice hockey exhibitions (Application Nos. 87147269, 87147239).  (Technically, the applicant and defendant is the team’s business entity Black Knight Sports and Entertainment LLC, but I’ll just refer to “the team”). The Army alleges grounds of likelihood of confusion, dilution by blurring, and false suggestion of a connection, based primarily on the Army’s prior use of the GOLDEN KNIGHTS mark in connection with the Army’s parachute demonstration team.

Notably, the team’s owner, Bill Foley, was quite vocal about the Army inspiring the team name, since he had graduated from West Point. During the process of selecting his hockey team’s name, Mr. Foley had initially considered “Black Knights,” which is also the name of the hockey team at West Point. However, the team eventually landed on “Golden Knights,” and Mr. Foley implied on a radio show that the name was based on the “Golden Knights for the parachute team” at West Point. Mr. Foley also noted in a newspaper article that he had tried to have the Golden Knights parachute team make an appearance at the team’s name-announcement ceremony, but they “couldn’t make it work.” No wonder why, at this point.

Regarding the likelihood of confusion ground, the Army may have a difficult time establishing the necessary “relatedness” factor. Although both parties technically are offering types of “entertainment” services, it may be difficult to show that professional ice hockey exhibitions, and parachute demonstrations, are sufficiently related to cause likely confusion, despite the nearly identical mark. However, the Army’s ground of dilution and false suggestion of a connection do not require relatedness, although those grounds may also be difficult to establish, for other reasons. For one reason, regarding the dilution ground, the Army would need to establish that its mark is nationally famous, which is a high bar. Nevertheless, regardless of how this proceeding turns out, it will be another significant cost and delay in the team’s quest to register its name.

On the bright side, the hockey team itself is having a record-breaking inaugural season, currently with 29 wins and 11 losses, which puts the team in first place in the NHL’s Western Conference. The team also is the first in NHL history to have won eight of its fist nine games ever. I’m sure the team hopes that its success on the rink will follow through to these trademark proceedings, but that remains to be seen. Stay tuned for updates.

Simon Tam wasn’t the only one barred by the Lanham Act from reclaiming a historically derogatory term.

Dykes on Bikes is a nonprofit lesbian motorcycle organization.  According to their website, the group’s mission is to “support philanthropic endeavors in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and women’s communities, and to reach out to empower a community of diverse women through rides, charity events, Pride events, and education.”  In 2015, Dykes on Bikes tried to register their logo as a service mark for entertainment.  The application was put on hold pending the outcome of Matal v. Tam, as the Supreme Court considered whether Simon Tam could register his band name—The Slants.  In view of the Court’s landmark decision holding the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, Dykes on Bikes will move forward with its trademark application as well.

It was in 2003 when Dykes on Bikes first sought to register the name of their organization as a service mark for education and entertainment services.  Registration was refused on the basis that the mark was disparaging to lesbians.  The organization appealed to the TTAB, arguing that the word “dyke” had become a positive term and a symbol of pride and empowerment.  Dykes on Bikes won their appeal before the TTAB.  But when the mark was published for opposition, an individual named Michael McDermott filed an opposition claiming the mark was disparaging to men.  Ultimately, McDermott’s opposition was dismissed for lack of standing.  In particular, McDermott failed to show either (1) he possesses a trait or characteristic implicated by the proposed mark; or (2) others share the same belief of harm from the proposed mark.  The TTAB dismissed McDermott’s opposition and the Federal Circuit affirmed.  DIKES ON BIKES was successfully registered in 2007.

Because they had already won the disparagement battle for their first mark, Dykes on Bikes was surprised to face another disparagement refusal for a second mark.  In 2015, the group sought to register their logo as a service mark.  They sought review by the TTAB, and the case was put on hold pending the outcome of Matal v. Tam.  Dykes on Bikes also filed an amicus brief in the Tam case, arguing in favor of Tam’s position.  After the Supreme Court held in Tam that “the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” the DYKES ON BIKES W M C logo was approved for publication.

Dykes on Bikes and The Slants had similar goals.  As Dykes on Bikes described in their amicus brief, both groups “have chosen to reclaim self-referential terms as trademarks for the benefit of the groups those terms refer to.”  They also drew a distinction with respect to a certain NFL team name: “the Washington Redskins have chosen a term that is unrelated to the people who identify as members of the football team and is commonly understood to be a slur which members of the identified group have not reclaimed.  Whatever the constitutionality of the PTO’s treatment of the Redskins mark, the team’s use of that name is immoral and Dykes on Bikes encourages the Washington Redskins to give up their trademarked name as a matter of respect and decency.”

While the Tam decision may have opened the proverbial flood gates of offensive trademark applications, it also allows for these positive trademark uses in reclaiming derogatory terms.

With the growing popularity of e-sports (multiplayer video-game sports competitions, often played by professional gamers for spectators–also stylized “eSports”), I’ve seen an increasing number of trademark disputes not only between video-game companies, but also between video-game companies and other non-electronics businesses selling physical goods or services.  It is interesting to observe the arguments regarding bridging the “virtual gap” between the physical world and the digitized world, in terms of whether consumers would actually perceive relatedness and confusion.

One example, and a timely update to one of my recent posts, was the potential dispute between Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. (“MLB”) and Blizzard Entertainment, regarding Blizzard’s Overwatch game. The logo used for the Overwatch game had a two-tone background with a silhouette of a figure, arguable with some similarities to MLB’s well-known blue-and-white logo with a white silhouette of a baseball player. As predicted, after filing a request for extension of time to oppose, MLB never followed through with an opposition proceeding. And it seems that MLB didn’t convince Blizzard to make any changes, as the Overwatch League mark appears the same–so a positive outcome for Overwatch there. It seems MLB wasn’t concerned enough about potential confusion in light of the gap between the parties’ goods and services; although, in my view, the lack of concern was probably influenced by the significant dissimilarities in the marks.

Another example recently in the news is a new enforcement action by Adidas (or as their marketing folks prefer, adidas). adidas is often in the news regarding its aggressive enforcement measures, as we’ve blogged about on numerous occasions (such as hereherehere, and here).

This one is interesting as, unlike many examples we’ve blogged about, the enforcement target is not another shoe or clothing company, using a physical similar design with three (or two, or four) stripes. Rather, the target here is the Turner ELEAGUE, which offers popular e-sports competitions.

The ELEAGUE design logo includes an “E” design consisting of three lines, that (arguably) appears similar to the adidas three-stripe design. Turner has applied to register its mark in connection with various types of digital media and software in the field of electronic sports (Application No. 87065837), as well as various types of marketing promotion services, retail store services featuring “clothing,” and “clothing for use in online virtual worlds” (Application No. 87065846). See the “E” design mark below applied-for by Turner, as well as the mark next to the word “LEAGUE” as it typically appears on Turner’s website.

A couple weeks ago, adidas filed an extensive Notice of Opposition (over 100 pages) against registration of Turner’s applications.  The primary goods offered by adidas, and identified in its trademark registrations, are clothing, apparel, footwear, and physical sporting goods. Nevertheless, as argued in the Notice of Opposition, adidas also licenses its mark to be used in video games (e.g., on virtual players’ clothing, and in virtual signs and sports fields), and sponsors electronic sporting events and teams, all of which is helpful for the relatedness argument.  In addition, to the extent that Turner’s ELEAGUE application seems to also cover real-world “clothing,” rather than only  “virtual” clothing, adidas has a stronger case for relatedness. In industry news there have been some skeptical reactions to the dispute, but to be fair, the Notice of Opposition makes some decent relatedness arguments, so we’ll see how this one turns out. No reaction yet from Turner, as the Answer to the Notice of Opposition is not due until November 19.  I’ll be watching this one with interest–stay tuned for updates.

 

 

You’re probably familiar with the song “It’s Five O’Clock Somewhere” by Jimmy Buffet and Alan Jackson. It was the number one country single of the year back in 2003. A few years later, Jimmy Buffet submitted several trademark applications based on the song, which are now registered, including for example, IT’S FIVE O’CLOCK SOMEWHERE and IT’S 5 O’CLOCK SOMEWHERE, for restaurant and bar services (Reg. Nos. 4,125,6634,962,176).  The entity Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC (“Margaritaville”) is now listed as the owner of those marks.

Last year, another business, The Veteran Beverage Company, applied to register the mark IT’S 1700 HOURS SOMEWHERE for beer (Serial No. 87160262). In 24-hour military time, 1700 hours is equivalent to 5:00 PM.  However, the Examining Attorney determined that there were no conflicting marks, and approved Veteran Beverage’s mark for publication.

Margaritaville recently stepped in with a Notice of Opposition, filed a few weeks ago, opposing registration of the IT’S 1700 HOURS SOMEWHERE mark.  The Notice of Opposition alleges a likelihood of confusion based on its various 5 O’CLOCK SOMEWHERE marks. Specifically, Margaritaville alleges that the parties’ marks are similar in sight and sound, “identical in meaning,” and “virtually identical in commercial impression,” with the “only difference being that Applicant’s Applied-for Mark shows 5:00 PM in military time.”

Although there are obvious differences in sight and sound of the marks (the words “1700 Hours” instead of “Five O’Clock”), the “similarity in meaning” factor can be just as significant in supporting a likelihood of confusion, especially where there is an identical meaning. See, e.g.Gastown, Inc., of Del. v. Gas City, Ltd., 187 USPQ 760 (TTAB 1975) (holding GAS CITY for gasoline and GASTOWN for gasoline likely to cause confusion); Watercare Corp. v. Midwesco-Enterprise, Inc., 171 USPQ 696 (TTAB 1971) (holding AQUA-CARE (stylized) and WATERCARE (stylized), for water-conditioning products, likely to cause confusion). Thus, this may be a difficult battle for Veteran Beverage. There are potential counterarguments, such as a lack of sufficient relatedness between the parties’ goods and services, although Margaritaville argues that Veteran Beverage’s beer goods are closely related to its restaurant and bar services. What do you think?

For the past couple years, General Mills has battled to register a yellow color mark in connection with its Cheerios® breakfast cereal.  More specifically, back in 2015, General Mills applied to register (Serial No. 86757390) the mark shown below, described as “the color yellow appearing as the predominant uniform background color on product packaging for the goods,” in connection with the goods “toroidal-shaped, oat-based breakfast cereal.”  (For those wondering, “toroidal-shaped” basically means doughnut-shaped.)  Below is the drawing of the mark:

The use of colors — even a single color alone — on a product or its packaging may be subject to trademark protection and federal registration. For example, in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), the Court held that the greenish-gold color of dry cleaning press pads was protectable as a trademark. As another example, in Christian Louboutin, S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012), the Second Circuit recognized that the use of red lacquered outsoles on shoes is a protectable trademark (provided that such protection is limited to shoes in which there is contrast between the red outsole and the adjoining shoe, and does not extend to monochromatic red shoes).

However, there are relatively steep requirements to obtain a trademark registration for a color mark. To obtain a federal registration for a color mark on the Principal Register, it must be shown that the mark has acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning). This is so because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that color marks can never be inherently distinctive as a source indicator, and therefore the applicant must submit evidence establishing acquired distinctiveness. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 211-212 (2000) (citing Qualitex, 34 USPQ2d at 1162-63); see TMEP § 1202.05(a). Also, as with other types of marks, registration for a color mark will be refused if the mark is functional, such as where there is a utilitarian advantage (e.g., yellow or orange for safety signs), or where a certain color is more economical or competitively advantageous (e.g., where a certain color is a natural by-product of manufacturing, and using other colors would be more expensive). See TMEP § 1202.05(b).

A couple weeks ago, General Mills received some bad news from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which affirmed a refusal to register the applied-for yellow color mark, shown above. In re General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC, Serial No. 86757390 (TTAB Aug. 22, 2017) (precedential). The Board recognized the extensive body of evidence submitted by General Mills, showing the company’s longtime, expansive efforts to create an association between the yellow product packaging and the Cheerios® brand cereal. See id., slip op. at 5-9. For example, numerous print and television advertisements focused on the yellow product packaging, or specifically referred to the phrase the “yellow box” or the “big yellow box.” Id. at 7. However, the Board emphasized that “no matter how hard a company attempts to make an inherently nondistinctive word or symbol serve as a unique source identifier, it is proof of results—that consumers so perceive the purported mark—that is the touchstone of our inquiry into acquired distinctiveness.” Id. at 8.

In the end, the primary basis for the Examining Attorney’s refusal, and the TTAB’s affirmance of that refusal, was the lack of substantially exclusive use of the color yellow by General Mills. Id. at 11-21. The record established that several competitors offered the same goods–toroidal-shaped, oat-based cereals–in yellow, rectangular packaging of similar proportions, such as the brands Trader Joe’s, Meijer, Wegmans, Nature’s Path, One Degree, Ralston, and Barbara’s. See below the product packaging for those cereals:

The TTAB reasoned that “Applicant is not alone in offering oat-based cereal, or even toroidal-shaped, oat-based cereal, in a yellow package,” and that “[t]he presence of products of this type in the marketplace interferes with the development among relevant customers of a perception that the color yellow on packaging indicates that Applicant is the source of the goods (or that there is any single source of such goods).” Id. at 16. The TTAB also referred to numerous other yellow boxes for various types of oat-based cereals that, even if not “toroidal-shaped,” which further detracted from any public perception of yellow packaging as a source-indicator for Applicant, as cereal manufacturers commonly offer many different brands and varieties of cereals side-by-side in stores. Id. at 17-18.

Therefore, the TTAB concluded that “the number and nature of third-party cereal products in yellow packaging in the marketplace [is] sufficient to convince us that consumers do not perceive the color yellow as having source-indicating significance for [Applicant’s goods].” Id. at 19.

What do you think about this decision? Separate and apart from the name “CHEERIOS” itself, do you associate predominantly yellow product packaging with General Mills and its (doughnut-shaped, oat-based) cereal?