Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.
Decision Date | 07 September 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 2011–1482.,2011–1482. |
Citation | 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1435,685 F.3d 1046 |
Parties | MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., Appellant, v. SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE S.A., Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Timothy D. Pecseny, Blank Rome LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant.
Thomas A. Polcyn, Thompson Coburn LLP, of St. Louis, MO, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Matthew A. Braunel.
Before BRYSON, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON. Concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion filed by Circuit Judge DYK.
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board denying registration of its mark, WAGGIN' STRIPS. Because substantial evidence supports the Board's finding of a likelihood of confusion between Midwestern's WAGGIN' STRIPS mark and the registered BEGGIN' STRIPS mark owned by Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. (“Nestle”), and because the Board committed no reversible procedural error in admitting evidence submitted by Nestle, we affirm.
Nestle's BEGGIN' STRIPS registered mark for pet treats has been in continuous use since 1988 and has been registered since 1989. Midwestern manufactures, markets, and sells dog and cat treats. In connection with the introduction of a new product, Midwestern filed an intent-to-use application with the Patent and Trademark Office seeking to register the mark WAGGIN' STRIPS for pet food and edible pet treats. Nestle opposed registration, arguing in relevant part that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
During pre-hearing discovery, Midwestern served document requests and interrogatories on Nestle. Nestle objected to the discovery requests, alleging that various of the requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome, that certain of the requested documents were irrelevant, and that certain of the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine or were proprietary in nature and were not required to be produced prior to the entry of a protective order. In response to several of the requests, Nestle agreed to produce “at a mutually agreeable time and place” nonprivileged documents to the extent the requests were not objectionable on some other basis. In response to several other requests, Nestle agreed to reconsider its responses if Midwestern would narrow its requests. After the entry of a protective order to address concerns about confidentiality, Midwestern did not take any further steps to arrange for the production of the documents that Nestle had agreed to produce, nor did it narrow any of its requests or move to compel the production of any of the requested documents.
Following discovery, the Board conducted a hearing at which both parties presented evidence and witness testimony. Nestle introduced advertising, sales, and marketing evidence. Nestle also relied on evidence of the fame of its mark that post-dated Midwestern's intent-to-use application. Midwestern objected to Nestle's evidence on both of those issues, but the Board overruled most of the objections. As for the advertising, sales, and marketing evidence, the Board struck one exhibit on the ground that the exhibit was responsive to one of Midwestern's document requests, but that Nestle had represented that no documents responsive to that request existed. The Board dismissed Midwestern's objections to the other exhibits, finding that Nestle's discovery responses “in no way led [Midwestern] to believe that no documents satisfied [its] discovery requests.” The Board further ruled that because Midwestern was dissatisfied with Nestle's failure to produce documents in response to its document requests, it was incumbent upon Midwestern to file a timely motion to compel as a means of testing Nestle's objections. Having failed to do so, the Board ruled, Midwestern had waived its right to object to particular evidence on the ground that Nestle should have produced it during discovery but did not. As for the evidence of fame, the Board held that although most of that evidence was not relevant to Nestle's claim of dilution of its mark, the evidence was relevant to the issue of likelihood of confusion.
On the merits, the Board rejected Nestle's claim of trademark dilution because it found that Nestle had not shown that its BEGGIN' STRIPS mark had the fame necessary to support a dilution claim. However, the Board upheld Nestle's claim of likelihood of confusion. After considering each of the factors bearing on the likelihood of confusion, the Board concluded that the marks were likely to lead to consumer confusion, “principally because the goods are identical, the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same, and the marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.” Accordingly, the Board sustained the opposition to Midwestern's application.
Midwestern argues that the Board erred by failing to sustain Midwestern's objection to the admission of Nestle's evidence of its advertising, sales, and marketing activities relating to the BEGGIN' STRIPS mark. Midwestern's argument is based on Nestle's failure to produce those documents in response to various of Midwestern's discovery requests. According to Midwestern, Nestle should not have been allowed to introduce at trial any of the documents it failed to produce in discovery.
As an initial matter, because Nestle's opposition was filed prior to 2007, when Board procedures were amended to require mandatory initial disclosures, see72 Fed.Reg. 42,259 (Aug. 1, 2007), Nestle was not obligated to specify in advance of trial the evidence it intended to present in support of its case or to identify which witnesses it intended to call. See Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc., 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492, 1500 (T.T.A.B.2005); Time Warner Entm't Co. v. Jones, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1650, 1656 (T.T.A.B.2002); British Seagull Ltd. v. Brunswick Corp., 28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1197, 1201 (T.T.A.B.1993), aff'd,35 F.3d 1527 (Fed.Cir.1994); Charrette Corp. v. Bowater Commc'n Papers Inc., 13 U.S.P.Q.2d 2040, 2041 (T.T.A.B.1989). For cases governed by the pre–2007 procedures, the Board has routinely held that parties do not have a right to disclosure of the documents and witnesses the opposing party intends to rely on at trial. Time Warner, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1656;British Seagull, 28 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1201 ().
Moreover, with respect to the documents at issue on appeal, Nestle objected to the production requests on various grounds, including the breadth of the requests. It agreed to produce some of the requested documents at a mutually agreeable time and place, however, and it agreed to reconsider several of Midwestern's document requests if Midwestern would narrow the requests. The Board ruled that if Midwestern was dissatisfied with Nestle's response, it was incumbent upon Midwestern to file a timely motion to compel or to modify its interrogatories. Because “it was applicant's own inaction that prevented applicant from obtaining opposer's evidence prior to trial,” the Board held that Midwestern could not claim prejudice based on Nestle's failure to produce the disputed documents.1
Having objected to Midwestern's propounded discovery, Nestle was not obliged to produce the disputed documents absent a request by Midwestern to have the Board rule on Nestle's objections. Board precedent and procedures applicable to pre–2007 cases such as this one required Midwestern to move to compel production in order to test the sufficiency of Nestle's response. Time Warner, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1656–57 ( ); see Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) § 523.04 (); 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 20:113 (4th ed.2012) (same).
The Board has applied that principle consistently for years, even in cases in which the party that objected to the production of the disputed materials later sought to introduce some of the same materials at trial. See H.D. Lee Co. v. Maidenform Inc., 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1715, 1719 (T.T.A.B.2008) (); Carefirst of Md., Inc., 77 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1500 (); Linville v. Rivard, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1731, 1733 (T.T.A.B.1996) ( ).
The dissent would invalidate that procedure on the ground that it is inconsistent with court decisions applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While the Board has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kate Spade LLC v. Wolv, Inc.
...Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We keep in mind that "[similarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree." In re St.......
-
U.S. Marine Corps v. Healy
......Chesapeake Marine Tours. Inc ., 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1750, 1753 n.6 (TTAB 2013),. ... LLC , 101 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1721; Midwestern Pet. Foods Inc. v. Societe des Produits ......
-
Nike, Inc. v. DeRicco
...... at *10 (TTAB 2021) (quoting Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort. Howard Paper Co. , 544 F.2d ... Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle. ......
-
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Siggy Music, Inc.
...between the parties." Coach Servs., 101 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1721; see also Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); San Fernando Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elec. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 U.S.P.Q. 1, 3 (CCPA 19......
-
Planning discovery
...discovery has ive broad purposes: 1. Eliminating unfair surprise . Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. , 685 F.3d 1046, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The central purpose of the federal discovery rules is to avoid surprise at trial.”). 2. Ascertaining relevant facts and ......
-
Planning discovery
...trials a more fair-minded contest by eliminating unfair surprise . Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. , 685 F.3d 1046, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The central purpose of the federal discovery rules is to avoid surprise at trial.”). 2. Ascertaining relevant facts and ......
-
Planning discovery
...discovery has five broad purposes: 1. Eliminating unfair surprise. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A ., 685 F.3d 1046, (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The central purpose of the federal discovery rules is to avoid surprise at trial.”). 2. Ascertaining relevant facts and their......
-
Planning discovery
...discovery has ive broad purposes: 1. Eliminating unfair surprise . Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. , 685 F.3d 1046, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The central purpose of the federal discovery rules is to avoid surprise at trial.”). 2. Ascertaining relevant facts and ......