In the case between Puma SE and Caterpillar Inc. regarding Puma's trademark application for "procat," the Federal Court dismissed Puma's appeal against the decision made by Judge Fuhrer. The judge had allowed Caterpillar's appeal and refused Puma's trademark application. Puma had filed the application for use in footwear and headgear, but Caterpillar opposed it, claiming confusion with their own design and word marks. The court found that the judge did not make any palpable and overriding errors in her analysis of confusion factors. The judge determined that Caterpillar's CAT & Triangle Design mark had a high degree of inherent distinctiveness and that the word "procat" did not have sufficient distinctiveness. The court disagreed with Puma's arguments that the judge erred in her assessment of inherent distinctiveness and degree of resemblance. Regarding the degree of resemblance between the "procat" mark and the "CAT & Triangle Design" mark, the court supported the judge's view that the marks resemble each other and sound alike due to the shared component "cat." The court rejected Puma's argument that the judge should have considered the marks as a whole and emphasized that a striking or unique element can be taken into account when assessing resemblance. The court also clarified that Caterpillar's mark does not grant them a monopoly over the word "cat." Puma also claimed that the judge made an error in assessing the surrounding circumstances, including the state of the register and Puma's family of cat-nominative trademarks. However, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the judge's assessment and concluded that the judge's conclusions were based on the lack of evidence and insufficiency of Puma's evidence. In conclusion, the court dismissed Puma's appeal and ordered Puma to pay costs in the amount of $20,000 to Caterpillar.

No uploaded documents