Court Opinion

ID: 9378005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 16:01:01.839212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.521485
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1213   Document: 36    Page: 1   Filed: 03/09/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

  IN RE: OXITENO S.A. INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO,
                     Appellant
              ______________________

                       2022-1213
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
 88865509.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: March 9, 2023
                 ______________________

    MARY CATHERINE MERZ, Merz & Associates, PC, Oak
 Park, IL, for appellant.

    CHRISTINA J. HIEBER, Office of the Solicitor, United
 States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
 appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by MARY L.
 KELLY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MATTHEW DERRICK
 MCCLELLAN, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN
 RASHEED, MARY BETH WALKER.
                 ______________________

      Before DYK, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
 DYK, Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1213     Document: 36     Page: 2    Filed: 03/09/2023

 2                   IN RE: OXITENO S.A. INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO

      Appellant Oxiteno S.A. Indústria e Comércio (“Ox-
 iteno”) appeals a decision of the Trademark Trial and Ap-
 peal Board (“Board”) affirming the Examining Attorney’s
 refusal to register the mark OXIPURITY for various chem-
 ical products. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Oxiteno filed an intent-to-use trademark application
 for the mark OXIPURITY. The description of goods, as
 amended, included dozens of chemical products “for use in
 the pharmaceutical, veterinary, flavour and fragrance, and
 cosmetic fields.” 1 J.A. 132.

     1   Oxiteno’s full description of goods stated:
     Chemical products for use in the manufacture of
     pharmaceuticals products, veterinary, flavour and
     fragrances, [and] cosmetic; chemical products
     namely, cetostearyl alcohol, cetyl alcohol, diethan-
     olamine, diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, ethox-
     ylated castor oil, fatty alcohol ethoxylated, fatty
     amine ethoxylates, glycerin, glyceryl monos-
     tearate, mixtures of surfactants medium-chain tri-
     glycerides, mineral oil, monoethanolamine, mpeg,
     nonylphenol ethoxylates, oleochemical products,
     petrolatum, phenoxyethanol, phosphate ester, po-
     laxamer, polyethylene glycol, polyoxyethylene, al-
     kyl ethers, polyoxyethylene, castor oil derivatives,
     polyoxyethylene, sorbitan fatty acid esters, polyox-
     yethylene stearates, sodium lauryl sulfate, sol-
     vents, sorbitan esters (sorbitan fatty acid esters),
     sorbitan esters ethoxylated, stearic acid, stearyl al-
     cohol andtriethanolamine, for use in the manufac-
     ture of additives, pharmaceutical auxiliary,
     emulsifier, dispersant, humectant, adjuvant and
     solvents; all of the aforementioned products for use
Case: 22-1213     Document: 36     Page: 3    Filed: 03/09/2023

 IN RE: OXITENO S.A. INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO                    3

     The Examining Attorney refused to register the mark
 due to a likelihood of confusion with a previously registered
 OXYPURE mark. The OXYPURE mark, registered by
 FMC Corporation, covers “hydrogen peroxide intended for
 use in the treatment of public and private potable water
 systems and supplies.” J.A. 50 (capitalization changed).
 The Examining Attorney found OXIPURITY and
 OXYPURE to be similar marks, leading to a likelihood of
 confusion. Although the goods covered by the earlier reg-
 istration and the application were not identical, the Exam-
 ining Attorney found the goods to be related based on third-
 party websites that marketed both hydrogen peroxide (the
 goods covered by FMC’s OXYPURE mark) and one or more
 of the chemicals that Oxiteno sought to be covered by the
 OXIPURITY mark. Oxiteno filed a response challenging
 the Examining Attorney’s refusal and offering evidence in
 support of its position. The Examining Attorney issued a
 final refusal.
      Oxiteno appealed to the Board. The Board considered
 the likelihood of confusion factors laid out in Application of
 E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. (DuPont), 476 F.2d 1357,
 1361 (CCPA 1973). Regarding the first DuPont factor, sim-
 ilarity of the marks, the Board found the marks to be “sim-
 ilar in sound, meaning and commercial impression.” J.A.
 5. Accordingly, the Board found that this factor “strongly
 favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.” J.A. 7.
     The Board then considered the second and third
 DuPont factors, the similarity of the goods and channels of
 trade, and found that the goods are different but related.
 The Board found that the third-party websites “establish
 that [Oxiteno’s] chemicals and [FMC’s] hydrogen peroxide

     in the pharmaceutical, veterinary, flavour and fra-
     grance, and cosmetic fields.
 J.A. 132.
Case: 22-1213    Document: 36      Page: 4    Filed: 03/09/2023

 4                   IN RE: OXITENO S.A. INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO

 are commonly manufactured by a single source, and are
 sold directly to a variety of industries, including the waste
 treatment, pharmaceutical, biotech, and personal care in-
 dustries.” J.A. 9–10. The Board also relied on FMC’s bro-
 chure, which stated that FMC offered other hydrogen
 peroxide products, albeit under different brand names, to
 industries such as the drugs/cosmetics industry.
     In its consideration of the fourth DuPont factor, “[t]he
 conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are
 made, i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing,”
 DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361, the Board found that the nature
 of the goods—chemical products used in manufacturing
 other products—suggested that the consumers would be so-
 phisticated.
      The Board weighed the relevant DuPont factors and
 found a likelihood of confusion. Although the consumers
 were sophisticated, the Board found that “[t]he strong sim-
 ilarity of the marks for related goods, which move in the
 same channels of trade to the same classes of customers
 renders confusion likely.” J.A. 13.
                         DISCUSSION
      Under the Lanham Act, the Patent and Trademark Of-
 fice (“PTO”) can refuse to register a mark if the mark “so
 resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark
 Office . . . as to be likely, when used on or in connection
 with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to
 cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Likeli-
 hood of confusion is a legal conclusion based on underlying
 factual findings regarding the DuPont factors. QuikTrip
 W., Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc., 984 F.3d 1031, 1034 (Fed.
 Cir. 2021). We review the Board’s factual findings for sub-
 stantial evidence and the weighing of the DuPont factors
 de novo. Id.
     Oxiteno’s primary contention is that the actual or po-
 tential consumers for the products covered by the
Case: 22-1213     Document: 36     Page: 5    Filed: 03/09/2023

 IN RE: OXITENO S.A. INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO                    5

 application and the registration are not the same and thus
 there is no likelihood of confusion. The Board found that
 the relevant goods would be “purchased by scientists,
 chemists, and manufacturers.” J.A. 12. Oxiteno does not
 dispute this finding. Instead, it argues that the scientists,
 chemists, and manufacturers purchasing Oxiteno’s prod-
 ucts in the pharmaceutical, veterinary, flavor and fra-
 grance, or cosmetic fields are not the same scientists,
 chemists, and manufacturers purchasing FMC’s hydrogen
 peroxide for potable water systems. Oxiteno’s argument
 falls short for two reasons.
      First, typically the inquiry focuses on “whether there is
 likely to be sufficient overlap of the respective purchasers
 of the parties’ goods and services to confuse actual and po-
 tential purchasers,” Elec. Design & Sales, Inc. v. Elec. Data
 Sys. Corp., 954 F.2d 713, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1992). But it is not
 necessary to show that the consumers are the same to es-
 tablish a likelihood of confusion. The knowledge of the ac-
 tual or potential purchasers potentially leading to source
 confusion is not limited to knowledge generated in pur-
 chase transactions. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy
 on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23:5 (5th ed.,
 2022). Though the buyers may be different, they may have
 overlapping knowledge due to market conditions or chan-
 nels of trade such that purchasers are familiar with both
 products. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 (Fed.
 Cir. 1993) (“It is relevant to consider the degree of overlap
 of consumers exposed to the respective services, for . . .
 even when goods or services are not competitive or intrin-
 sically related, the use of identical marks can lead to the
 assumption that there is a common source.”). Trademark
 law is concerned with “confusion as to source, sponsorship,
 affiliation, endorsement, or connection between the appli-
 cant’s goods and the owner of the registered mark,” In re
 Rittenhouse, 124 F.3d 228 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (unpublished ta-
 ble decision) (citing 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on
Case: 22-1213     Document: 36     Page: 6    Filed: 03/09/2023

 6                   IN RE: OXITENO S.A. INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO

 Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:6 (1997)), even in
 the absence of consumer overlap.
      Here, even to the extent that the buyers are different,
 the goods are related (the second DuPont factor), and there
 is evidence that they are sold in the same channels of trade
 (the third DuPont factor). Several specialty websites sell
 the chemicals for which Oxiteno seeks its OXIPURITY
 mark as well as hydrogen peroxide, the chemical covered
 by FMC’s registration. The fact that “a single company
 sells the goods and services of both parties . . . is relevant
 to a relatedness [DuPont factor two] analysis.” Hewlett-
 Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267
 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
     Second, there is record evidence that there is consumer
 overlap, i.e., to some extent the same customers would pur-
 chase both Oxiteno’s and FMC’s goods. Seidler Chemical,
 a bulk chemical supplier that offers many of the chemicals
 for which Oxiteno seeks its OXIPURITY mark, states that
 “[n]early every business has a need for either purification
 of water for the manufacturing process, or to clean a waste
 stream/effluent,” J.A. 125, that is, every business is a po-
 tential purchaser of hydrogen peroxide for water purifica-
 tion purposes. FMC’s brochure states that it sells hydrogen
 peroxide products, albeit under different trade names, to
 the food processing/packaging and drugs/cosmetics indus-
 tries. Thus, substantial evidence supports the conclusion
 that at least some of the consumers would be the same.
     Oxiteno argues that, even if the same institution or
 manufacturer were to purchase both products, “purchasers
 would fall in completely different departments.” Appel-
 lant’s Br. 15. While evidence that purchasing occurred
 within different departments of the same corporation is rel-
 evant, Elec. Design, 954 F.2d at 717–18, there is no record
 evidence showing that purchasing occurs here in different
 departments of the same institution. Substantial evidence
Case: 22-1213    Document: 36     Page: 7   Filed: 03/09/2023

 IN RE: OXITENO S.A. INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO                 7

 supports the Board’s overall likelihood of confusion deter-
 mination.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Oxiteno’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. The Board’s decision is af-
 firmed.
                        AFFIRMED