M.Z. Berger & Co., Inc. v. Swatch Ag ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Case: 14-1219        Document: 18          Page: 1        Filed: 03/19/2014
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    M.Z. BERGER & CO., INC.,
    Appellant,
    v.
    SWATCH AG (SWATCH SA) (SWATCH LTD.),
    Appellee.
    ______________________
    2014-1219
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
    Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Opposition
    No. 91187092.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.Z. BERGER & CO., INC.,
    Appellee,
    v.
    SWATCH AG (SWATCH SA) (SWATCH LTD.),
    Appellant.
    ______________________
    2014-1220
    ______________________
    Case: 14-1219    Document: 18     Page: 2    Filed: 03/19/2014
    2                     M.Z. BERGER & CO., INC.   v. SWATCH AG
    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
    Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Opposition
    No. 91187092.
    ______________________
    ON MOTION
    ______________________
    Before NEWMAN, MOORE and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
    MOORE, Circuit Judge.
    ORDER
    M.Z. Berger & Co., Inc. (“Berger”) moves to dismiss
    Swatch AG’s (“Swatch”) cross-appeal. Swatch opposes.
    This appeal arises out of Berger’s application to regis-
    ter the mark IWATCH under Lanham Act Section 1(b)
    based on intent to use. In response, Swatch filed a notice
    of opposition praying that Berger’s application “be re-
    fused, that no registration be issued thereon to Applicant
    and that this Opposition be sustained in favor of Oppos-
    er.” In support, Swatch raised various grounds for opposi-
    tion, including: (1) likelihood of confusion and (2) lack of
    bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. The
    Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) sustained
    the opposition based on lack of bona fide intent to use, but
    dismissed the opposition as to likelihood of confusion.
    Berger filed an appeal, and Swatch filed a cross-appeal,
    which is the subject of this motion to dismiss.
    Generally, a party cannot appeal from a favorable de-
    cision. See Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co.,
    
    307 U.S. 241
    , 242 (1939). That general rule is applicable
    to trademark opposition proceedings. See 15 U.S.C.
    § 1071(a)(1) (granting a right of appeal only to parties
    “dissatisfied with the decision” of the Board); Alltrade,
    Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 
    946 F.2d 622
    , 626 (9th Cir.
    1991); Maremont Corp. v. Air Lift Co., 
    463 F.2d 1114
    ,
    Case: 14-1219      Document: 18      Page: 3      Filed: 03/19/2014
    M.Z. BERGER & CO., INC.   v. SWATCH AG                           3
    1116 (C.C.P.A. 1972). Here, the Board sustained Swatch’s
    opposition and refused registration of the IWATCH mark,
    which is exactly the relief that Swatch requested from the
    Board.
    Swatch contends that its cross-appeal is appropriate
    because it is seeking reversal of the Board’s ruling on
    likelihood of confusion. In fact, however, the “appellee,
    may without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a
    decree any matter appearing in the record, although his
    argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of
    the lower [tribunal] or an insistence upon matter over-
    looked or ignored by it.” United States v. Am. Ry. Express
    Co., 
    265 U.S. 425
    , 435 (1924); Maremont 
    Corp., 463 F.2d at 1116
    (“Appellees in trademark oppositions are entitled
    to reargue issues which they raised below but on which
    either they lost or the board did not rely.”). Swatch may
    thus make its arguments regarding likelihood of confusion
    in its response brief as an appellee. See, e.g., Datascope
    Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 
    879 F.2d 820
    , 822 n.1 (Fed. Cir.
    1989) (an appellee may assert alternative grounds for
    affirmance supported by the record).
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The motion is granted. 2014-1220 is dismissed.
    The revised official caption in 2014-1219 is reflected
    above.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2014-1220.
    FOR THE COURT
    /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
    Daniel E. O’Toole
    Clerk of Court
    Case: 14-1219   Document: 18    Page: 4    Filed: 03/19/2014
    4                   M.Z. BERGER & CO., INC.   v. SWATCH AG
    s30
    ISSUED AS A MANDATE (As To 14-1220 Only):
    March 19, 2014
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2014-1219, 2014-1220

Judges: Newman, Moore, Chen

Filed Date: 3/19/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024