Opinion ID: 691765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tacking

Text: The use of one mark may be tacked to the use of another if the two marks constitute legal equivalents that create the same continuing commercial impression. The legal equivalence standard is higher than that used in evaluating two competing marks: two marks may not be legal equivalents even if they are found to be confusingly similar. Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp., 926 F.2d 1156, 1159 (Fed.Cir.1991). Applying this high standard, courts have upheld tacking claims where additional words in one mark do not help identify the origin of the goods--a theory potentially applicable to this case. See American Security Bank v. American Security & Trust Co., 571 F.2d 564, 567 (C.C.P.A.1978) (holding that AMERICAN SECURITY could be tacked on to AMERICAN SECURITY BANK). In rejecting Taco Bell's tacking theory, the district relied primarily on the conclusions of the examining attorney who considered Taco Bell's trademark application for Run for the Border. The findings of the examining attorney are entitled to little deference, however, because they were based on a skimpy record and were made at the lowest administrative level. See Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 434 F.2d 794, 801-02 (9th Cir.1970). Taco Bell presented only one example of its use of Run for the Border to the examining attorney. In contrast, Taco Bell offered several different examples to the district court and introduced evidence that Run for the Border had been used together with Make a Run for the Border in the same advertising campaign. Taken as a whole, Taco Bell's evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Taco Bell's use of Make a Run for the Border and Run for the Border created the same commercial impression.