Opinion ID: 6215969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Argument

Text: On appeal, Mr. Hage-Boutros raises a new argument that the differences between the marks obviate any likelihood of confusion. Appellant’s Br. 9–11. His argument rests on a set of third-party trademark registrations and an application that all use the word ETHIC or ETHICS in connection with clothing. Appellant’s Br. 10. Mr. HageBoutros urges that the third-party trademark registrations demonstrate that the mark is weak and should receive a narrower scope of protection. Appellant’s Br. 9–10. With limited exceptions, we generally will “not consider issues ‘not passed upon below’ or entertain arguments not presented to the lower tribunal.” Hylete LLC v. Hybrid Athletics, LLC, 931 F.3d 1170, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Nokia, Inc., 527 F.3d 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). But “where a party appeared pro se before the lower court, a court of appeals may appropriately be less stringent in requiring that the issue have been raised explicitly below.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Mr. Hage-Boutros proceeded pro se through much of Case: 21-1615 Document: 30 Page: 7 Filed: 02/04/2022 HAGE-BOUTROS v. ETHIKA, INC. 7 the Board proceedings and now appears before us pro se. Under that more forgiving standard, we consider the merits of his new argument on appeal. However, Mr. Hage-Boutros’s new argument fails on the merits. Mr. Hage-Boutros asserts that evidence of third-party use of other marks indicates that the ETHIK mark “is not strong, and therefore not entitled to much protection.” Appellant’s Br. 11. While evidence of third-party use of similar marks on similar goods can show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to a narrow scope of protection, that is not the case here. See Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Mr. Hage-Boutros names three registrations and one application containing the term ETHIC or ETHICS paired with one other term, but he presents no evidence of extent or impact of third-party usage. Appellant’s Br. 10. See Palm Bay Imports, 396 F.3d at 1373 (“The probative value of third-party trademarks depends entirely upon their usage” and “where the record includes no evidence about the extent of third-party uses[,] the probative value of this evidence is thus minimal.”) (cleaned up). Mr. Hage-Boutros’s new argument fails to rise to the level of demonstrating that third-party use relegates the ETHIK mark to a narrow scope of protection.