A New Deference Standard: The Rebuttable Presumption of Validity for USPTO Trademark Likelihood-of-Confusion Determinations

• Author: Lauren A. Taylor
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2018; B.S.E., Industrial Engineering, The University of Iowa College of Engineering, 2015
• Pages: 367-393

367

A New Deference Standard:

The Rebuttable Presumption of Validity

for USPTO Trademark

Likelihood-of-Confusion Determinations

Lauren A. Taylor*

ABSTRACT: Circuit courts are split on how much deference should be given

to a United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) trademark

likelihood-of-confusion determination during litigation under Lanham Act

section 43(a)(1)(A). While some courts afford a substantial amount of

deference to the USPTO’s findings regarding a likelihood of confusion when

it refuses to register a mark on the principal register, other courts afford little

to no deference to the USPTO’s findings regarding a likelihood of confusion.

This disparity among courts outlines a need for a solution that best fulfills

the goals of the various courts in order to create a unified precedent of

deference. By analyzing each court’s approach as to how much deference to

give and by taking a closer look into the deference given to USPTO patent

determinations, this Note proposes that USPTO likelihood-of-confusion

determinations receive a presumption of validity in subsequent litigation. A

challenger can rebut this when (1) a USPTO examiner failed to consider or

was unaware of relevant evidence; (2) an examiner’s actions were arbitrary

and capricious; or (3) there exists evidence of unfair prejudice. This solution

better fulfills efficiency than reasonable alternatives, and in an overarching

effort to create homogeny, better creates a uniform precedent of deference.

I.INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 368

II.BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 371

A.WHAT IS A TRADEMARK? ......................................................... 372

B.FILING A TRADEMARK APPLICATION ......................................... 373

C.THE USPTO’S REVIEW OF TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS .............. 374

*

J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2018; B.S.E., Industrial

Engineering, The University of Iowa College of Engineering, 2015.

368 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 103:367

D.DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION REGARDING A

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION BETWEEN MARKS .......................... 377

E.WEIGHT GIVEN BY VARIOUS CIRCUITS TO USPTO

DETERMINATIONS ................................................................... 379

III.DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 380

A.EXAMINATION OF CIRCUIT APPROACHES ................................... 381

1.Circuits Giving Substantial Weight to USPTO

Likelihood-of-Confusion Determinations ................... 381

2.Circuits Giving Little to No Weight to USPTO

Likelihood-of-Confusion Determinations ................... 383

B.EXAMINATION OF PATENT LAW AND DEFERENCE TO USPTO

FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS ..................................................... 385

C.A SOLUTION IS NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THE PRINCIPLES OF

ACCURACY AND EFFICIENCY TO INCREASE UNIFORMITY ACROSS

FEDERAL CIRCUITS .................................................................. 387

IV. REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY ..................................... 388

A.SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION SHOULD DEFER TO A USPTO

DETERMINATION UNLESS LIMITING CRITERIA ESTABLISH

THAT DEFERENCE WOULD NOT BE ACCURATE AND

EFFICIENT ............................................................................... 388

1.Presuming Validity of a USPTO’s Likelihood-of-

Confusion Determination ............................................ 389

2.Limiting Criteria That Must Be Satisfied to Rebut

Presumption of Validity ................................................ 389

B.ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED SOLUTION ............................ 392

C.THE PROPOSED SOLUTION BETTER FULFILLS ACCURACY AND

EFFICIENCY ............................................................................. 392

V.CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 393

I. INTRODUCTION

Circuits are split as to how much deference should be given to a United

States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) trademark likelihood-of-

confusion factual determination. Likelihood of confusion with an existing

mark can be grounds for denial of a trademark application.1 Some courts

afford a substantial amount of deference to the USPTO’s findings regarding

1. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) (2012).