CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 33

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
DISTRICTOFMINNESOTA

CEDARVALLEYEXTERIORS,INC.,

CaseNo.13CV2537(PJS/TNL)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

PROFESSIONALEXTERIORS,INC.,
Defendant.

DustinR.DuFault,DuFAULTLAWFIRM,P.C.,forplaintiff.
TheodoreJ.WaldeckandTimothyW.Waldeck,WALDECKLAWFIRMP.A.,
fordefendant.
PlaintiffCedarValleyExteriors,Inc.(CedarValley)broughtthisactionagainst
defendantProfessionalExteriors,Inc.(ProfessionalExteriors),allegingthat
ProfessionalExteriorsinfringedtworegisteredservicemarks.CedarValleysservice
marksarehighlyunusualintworespects:First,bothmarksareforacolor
specifically,thecolororange.Andsecond,bothmarksareextraordinarilybroad.
Together,thetwomarksappeartocoveranyuseofanyshadeoforangeinanyarticleof
clothingoranyformofadvertisementrelatedtoanyaspectoftheconstructionindustry.
Thus,forexample,theuseoforangesafetyvestsonaconstructionsitewouldappearto
beencompassedbytheregisteredmarkssomethingthatwouldnodoubtcomeasa
surprisetothousandsofcontractors.

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 33

HowCedarValleywasabletopersuadetheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademark
Office(PTO)toregistersuchmarksisamystery,particularlygiventhatCedarValley
hasusedonlyparticularshadesoforange;useditonlyonshirts,lawnsigns,andafew
otheradvertisingitems;anduseditonlyinconnectionwithanarrowsliceofthe
constructionindustry.ButthePTOdidregisterthemarks,and,asaresult,thislawsuit
raisesanumberofdifficultlegalandfactualissues.
ThismatterisbeforetheCourtonthepartiescrossmotionsforsummary
judgmentonCedarValleysclaimsundertheLanhamAct,15U.S.C.1051etseq.,and
undertheMinnesotaDeceptiveTradePracticesAct,Minn.Stat.325D.44.Forthe
reasonsthatfollow,theCourtgrantsthemotionsinpartanddeniestheminpart,and
ordersthatCedarValleysregistrationsbesubstantiallyamended.
I.BACKGROUND
CedarValleysbusinessprimarilyconsistsofrepairstoresidences,including
roofing,siding,windows,[and]gutters.ECFNo.421(HausmannDep.)at45:8
48:18.Theserepairsareoftennecessitatedbystormdamageandpaidforby
homeownersinsurance.Id.at44:39;ECFNo.64(MannellaDecl.)4.CedarValley
wasfoundedinMinnesotain1998andhasexpandedthroughouttheMidwestandinto
theeasternandsouthernregionsoftheUnitedStates,thoughitsbaseofcustomers
remainsintheTwinCities.HausmannDep.at14:819,61:762:1;MannellaDecl.3.

-2-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 33

CedarValleygetsitscustomersthroughdoorknockingcampaigns,useofyardsigns,
[and]referralsandotheradvertising,aswellasthroughpreferentialrelationshipswith
insurancecompaniesandtheirintermediaries.MannellaDecl.2;ECFNo.431
(MannellaDep.)at49:1955:2.
ProfessionalExteriorsisinthebusinessofresidentialremodel[ing][and]
restoration,including[r]oofing,siding,windows,[and]gutters.ECF
No.411(HildrethDep.)at30:1633:12.Themajorityofitswork(60to70percent)
consistsofinsurancerestorationofstormdamagedhomes.Id.at34:1321.
ProfessionalExteriorswasfoundedin2010,isheadquarteredinEastBethel,Minnesota,
andperformsitsservicesprimarilyintheTwinCitiesarea.Id.at19:916,58:324,
82:983:14,158:1617.MostofProfessionalExteriorscustomersarehomeownerswho
werereferredbypreviouscustomersorwhorespondedtoadvertisements.Id.at
37:1738:4.
CedarValleybeganusingthecolororangetopromoteitsservicesin1998.
HausmannDep.at65:1821,68:1011;MannellaDep.at182:23183:13.CedarValley
usesorangeonthesignsthatitputsoncustomerslawnsandtheshirtsthatits
employeeswear,aswellasonflyers,doorhangers,andotheradvertisingmaterials.See
ECFNos.871,872,873,874.CedarValleypickedorange[b]ecauseitstandsout
morethanothercolors,HausmannDep.at65:2467:21,andbecauseorangewasthe

-3-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 4 of 33

mostobnoxious,loudcoloritcouldputonsignsandshirts,MannellaDep.at182:23
183:2.
In2008,CedarValleyregisteredtwoservicemarksinvolvingthecolororange.
RegistrationNo.3,429,642(the642mark)isforthecolororangeasappliedtoyard
signsandotheradvertisingmaterialsusedinadvertisingtheservices.ECFNo.11.
Thedrawingdepictsasolidorangeyardsignoutlinedbydottedlines.Id.Registration
No.3,429,643(the643mark)isforthecolororangeasappliedtoclothingworn
duringtheperformanceoftheservices.ECFNo.12.Thedrawingdepictsasolid
orangeshortsleevedpoloshirtoutlinedbydottedlines.Id.Thetwomarksdefinethe
servicestoincludebuildingconstructionandrepair;buildinginspection;
constructionandrenovationofbuildings;constructionandrepairofbuildings;general
constructioncontracting;installingsiding;roofingcontracting;roofinginstallation;
roofingrepair;[and]roofingservices....ECFNo.11;seealsoECFNo.12.1ThePTO
recognizedthemarksasincontestablein2013afterCedarValleydeclaredthatithad
continuallyusedthemforfiveyears.ECFNos.462,463;seealso15U.S.C.1065.
Sinceitsfoundingin2010,ProfessionalExteriorshasalsousedthecolororange
onitsadvertisingandpromotionalmaterials,includingyardsignsandshirts.Hildreth
Dep.at103:23105:2,126:16127:6.InSeptember2011,CedarValleysentProfessional

Thetwomarkslistthesameservices,butindifferentorders.
-4-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 5 of 33

ExteriorsaletterclaimingthatProfessionalExteriorswasinfringingitsservicemarks.
ECFNo.515.TheletterdemandedthatProfessionalExteriorsimmediatelystopusing
orangeinitsadvertisinganddestroyallexistingorangeadvertisingmaterials.Id.
AsecondletterinJuly2013addedademandfor$25,000indamages.ECFNo.516.
ProfessionalExteriorsdidnotrespondtoeitherletter.
InSeptember2013,CedarValleysuedProfessionalExteriorsforinfringingits
registeredmarksunder15U.S.C.1114andforviolatingMinn.Stat.325D.44.2In
2

CedarValleyscomplaintalsoincludesacountforinfringementofcommonlaw
trademarkrightsunder15U.S.C.1125(a),butCedarValleyhasforfeitedanyrightto
obtainsummaryjudgmentonthisclaim.
Afteroralargumentonthesummaryjudgmentmotions,theCourtorderedthe
partiestofilesupplementalbriefsaddressingthefollowingquestion(amongothers):
Doesplaintiffcontendthatithascommonlaworunregisteredtrademarksthat
providebroaderrightsthanitsregisteredmarks?Ifso,plaintiffshouldaddressthe
precedingquestions[regardingthescopeofthemarks]astheyapplytothosecommon
lawrights.Amongotherthings,plaintiffshouldidentifytheprecisescopeofits
commonlawrightsanddescribehow,exactly,itscommonlawrightsdifferfromits
statutoryrights.ECFNo.103at2.TheCourtalsoadvised:Thisprobablygoes
withoutsaying,butthepartiesshouldnotmerelyanswerthesequestions,butalsocite
caselawandotherlegalauthoritythatsupportseachoftheiranswers.Id.at3.
CedarValleyrespondedwithasupplementalbriefthatdevotedfewerthantwo
fullpagestothisquestion.Citingnolegalauthority,CedarValleygenerallyargued
thatsomeofitscommonlawrightsmightbebroaderthantherightsaffordedbyits
registeredmarks,othercommonlawrightsmightbemorelimited,andstillother
commonlawrightsmightbethesame.CedarValleyvaguelyconcludedthat[t]he
precisescopeoftherightsassociatedwitheachitemwillinvariablydependonthe
specificitemsuse.ECFNo.107at1820.Inshort,CedarValleysaidnothingof
substance.
(continued...)
-5-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 6 of 33

answer,ProfessionalExteriorsalleged(amongotherthings)thattheuseofthecolor
orangeintheconstructionindustryisfunctionalandthatCedarValleyslawsuitwas
barredbythedoctrineoflaches.Later,ProfessionalExteriorssoughttoamendits
answertoaddotherdefensesincludingthatCedarValleyhadperpetratedfraudon
thePTOinprocuringitsregistrationsbutMagistrateJudgeTonyN.Leungdenied
thatmotion.
Followingdiscovery,ProfessionalExteriorsmovedforsummaryjudgment,
assertingthatCedarValleysregisteredmarksshouldbecanceledforfunctionalityand
fraud,andalternativelyaskingtheCourttodefinethescopeofthemarks.Professional
Exteriorsalsoarguedthatconsumerswerenotlikelytoconfusethetwocompanies
marks,andthatthetestimonyofCedarValleysexpert(GregoryAnderson)ontheuse
oforangeintheexteriorremodelingindustryshouldbeexcludedunderDaubertv.
MerrellDowPharmaceuticals,Inc.,509U.S.579(1993).CedarValleyalsomovedfor
summaryjudgment,arguingthatProfessionalExteriorsdidnothavesufficient

(...continued)
Initsresponse,ProfessionalExteriorspointedouttheobviousdeficienciesin
CedarValleysanswertotheCourtsquestion.ECFNo.109at1819.Yet,initsreply
brief,CedarValleysaidnothingfurtheraboutitsallegedcommonlawrights.ECF
No.112.BecauseCedarValleysbriefingregardingitscommonlawclaimwaswoefully
inadequate,theCourtfindsthatCedarValleyhasforfeitedanyrightthatitmayhaveto
obtainsummaryjudgmentonthatclaim.
-6-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 7 of 33

evidencetoproveitsaffirmativedefensesandthatProfessionalExteriorshadinfringed
theregisteredservicemarksasamatteroflaw.
TheCourtheldalengthyhearingonthesummaryjudgmentmotions.Atthat
hearing,theCourtandthepartiesprimarilyfocusedonthethresholdissueofthescope
ofCedarValleysmarks.TheCourtexpressedconcernaboutthepotentialbreadthof
themarksandaboutCedarValleysshiftingpositionregardingtheirscope.Asthe
Courtpointedout,themarksontheirfaceappearedtocoveranyuseofanyshadeof
orangeinanyarticleofclothingoranyformofadvertisementrelatedtoanyaspectof
theconstructionindustry.Attimes,CedarValleyappearedtoagree;atothertimes,
CedarValleyappearedtoarguethatthemarkswerenarrower,althoughCedarValley
haddifficultyexplaininghowtheywerenarrower.Followingthehearing,theCourt
orderedthepartiestosubmitsupplementalbriefsonanumberofquestions.
Afterreviewingthesupplementalbriefs,theCourtconcludedthatitneeded
additionalassistancebeforeitcouldruleonthesummaryjudgmentmotions.Because
themarksweresounusual,theCourtwasconfrontingmultipleissuesthatdonot
ordinarilyariseininfringementactions,andonwhichneithertheCourtnortheparties
wereabletofindmuchlegalauthority.3TheCourtthereforesuggestedandthe
3

Seegenerally1J.ThomasMcCarthy,McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfair
Competition7:45.70(4thed.2015)(Largelyunexploredinthecaselawisthequestion
ofthescopeofexclusionaryrightswhenamarkconsistsofasinglecolorora
(continued...)
-7-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 8 of 33

partiesagreedthattheCourtshouldappointanattorneywhoisknowledgeableabout
trademark4lawtoserveasacourtappointedexpertwitnessunderFed.R.Evid.706.
ECFNo.114.Withthepartiesconsent,theCourtappointedScottW.Johnstonof
Merchant&Gould.ECFNos.11618.Inordertominimizeexpense,theCourtdidnot
askMr.Johnstontoprovideawrittenreport,andthepartiesdidnotdepose
Mr.Johnston.Instead,afterreviewingthecourtfile,Mr.Johnstonappearedatahearing
andanswerednumerousquestionsfromtheCourtandtheparties.Mr.Johnstons
testimonywasextremelyhelpful,andtheCourtexpressesitsappreciationtohimfor
servingasanexpertandtothepartiesforagreeingtohisappointment.
Atthehearing,Mr.JohnstondescribedCedarValleysmarksasveryunusual
andthelegalissuesraisedbythosemarksasveryhard.ECFNo.131(HrgTr.)at
41:8.Mr.Johnstonopinedthattheexceedinglybroad(id.at11:67)marksshouldbe
amendedunderthefunctionalityandphantommarkdoctrines.Mr.Johnstonalso

(...continued)
combinationofcolors.Isaregistrationshowingashovelwithareddishorangehandle
infringedbyarakewithahandleinayellowishorangecolor?Isacandypackagetrade
dressdominatedbyadarkpurpleovalinfringedbyacompetitivecandypackagewith
alightpurplecircle?Thesearesomeofthemostunpredictableandtroublesomeissues
ofinfringementintrademarklaw.)
4

TheCourtappreciatesthattrademarksandservicemarksaretechnically
distinct,butwillsometimesfollowthepopularusageoftrademarkasanumbrella
termtorefercollectivelytotrademarks,servicemarks,andrelatedconcepts.
See1McCarthy,supra,4:19.
-8-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 9 of 33

recommendedgrantingCedarValleysmotionforsummaryjudgmentbecause,inhis
view,therecordconclusivelyestablishedthatconsumerswerelikelytoconfusethetwo
companiesmarks.
TheCourtagreeswithMr.Johnstonthattheregistrationsshouldbeamended.
ButbecausetheCourtfindsthatmaterialfactsremainindispute,theCourtrespectfully
disagreeswithMr.JohnstonsrecommendationthattheCourtfindinfringementasa
matteroflaw.
II.ANALYSIS
A.StandardofReview
Summaryjudgmentiswarrantedifthemovantshowsthatthereisnogenuine
disputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatterof
law.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).Adisputeoverafactismaterialonlyifitsresolution
mightaffecttheoutcomeofthesuitunderthegoverningsubstantivelaw.Andersonv.
LibertyLobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).Adisputeoverafactisgenuineonlyif
theevidenceissuchthatareasonablejurycouldreturnaverdictforthenonmoving
party.Id.Theevidenceofthenonmovantistobebelieved,andalljustifiable
inferencesaretobedrawninhisfavor.Id.at255.

-9-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 10 of 33

B.ScopeoftheMarks
BeforetheCourtcanassessthemeritsofCedarValleysinfringementclaimsand
ProfessionalExteriorsdefenses,theCourtmustfirstdeterminethescopeofthe
registeredmarks.Thatis,beforetheCourtcananswersuchquestionsashowstrong
arethemarks?andhowsimilarareProfessionalExteriorsmarkstoCedarValleys
marks?,theCourtmustfirstdeterminetheprecisescopeofCedarValleysregistered
marks.
TheCourtagreeswithMr.Johnstonthatthemarksareunusualand
exceedinglybroadaswritten.HrgTr.10:2211:7.TheCourtalsoagreesthatthe
marksmustbeamendedtocomplywiththefunctionalityandphantommarkdoctrines.
1.Functionality
Thefunctionalitydoctrineprohibitstheregistrationofmarksthatencompassa
functionalfeatureofaproductthatis,afeaturethatisessentialtotheuseorpurpose
oftheproduct,affectsthecostorqualityoftheproduct,orwouldputcompetitorsata
significantdisadvantageunrelatedtoreputationifthosecompetitorscouldnotusethe
featurethemselves.SeeQualitexCo.v.JacobsonProds.Co.,514U.S.159,16465(1995);
InwoodLabs.,Inc.v.IvesLabs.,Inc.,456U.S.844,850n.10(1982).Withoutthedoctrine,a
registrantcouldusetrademarklawtosecureamonopolyonafunctionalfeatureand
stiflecompetition.Qualitex,514U.S.at16465.

-10-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 11 of 33

Thefunctionalitydoctrineappliestocolormarks.Id.at16970;seealso
1McCarthy,supra,7:49.Thedoctrinebars,forexample,theregistrationoforangeas
appliedtoearplugs,becauseorangeisparticularlyvisibleandfacilitatessafetychecks
(i.e.,itmakesiteasiertoconfirmthatemployeesarewearingearplugs).SeeInre
HowardS.Leight&Assocs.,Inc.,39U.S.P.Q.2d1058,at*23(T.T.A.B.1996).Andthe
doctrinebarstheregistrationoforangeoryellowasappliedtopayphones,because
thosecolorsmakepayphoneseasiertofindinanemergency.SeeInreOrangeCommcns
Inc.,41U.S.P.Q.2d1036,at*6(T.T.A.B.1996).
TheCourtagreeswithMr.Johnstonthattheverybroadwrittendescriptionsof
CedarValleysmarksencompassthefunctionaluseoforange.SeeHrgTr.67:2568:25.
Specifically,thedescriptionsofthemarkspurporttoencompassorangeclothingof
anytypeandanyorangeadvertisingmaterialsusedinconnectionwiththemany
listedservices.Thoseservicesencompasstheentireconstructionindustry,from
constructionofaskyscrapertoconstructionofadoghouse:buildingconstructionand
repair;buildinginspection;constructionandrenovationofbuildings;constructionand
repairofbuildings;[and]generalconstructioncontracting....ECFNo.11.Read
literally,CedarValleysmarkswouldcovertheorangesafetyvestscommonlywornby
constructionworkers(becauseavestisanarticleofclothing)andevensomeofthe

-11-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 12 of 33

orangesignsatconstructionsites(becausesomesignscouldbedeemedadvertising
materials).
ProfessionalExteriorshassubmittedunrebuttedevidencethatorangeservesan
important(nonreputationrelated)safetyfunctionintheconstructionindustry.Most
notably,ProfessionalExteriorsoffersanexpertreportbyArnoldKraft,aCertified
SafetyProfessional,whoexplainsthat[o]rangeiscommonlyusedinawidevar[iet]y
ofactivities,forwarningemployees,customers,and[/]orthegeneralpublicof
potentiallyhazardousconditions.ECFNo.465at5.Forexample,orangeisusedin
constructionsitesoncones,vests,andsignstomaketheworkersandhazardsmore
visible;becauseoftheuseoforange,thepublicisbetterwarnedofpotentialdanger,
whileworkersarebetterprotectedfromaccidentssuchasbeingstruckbymotorists.
Seeid.at2,45.
Althoughtherecordleavesnodoubtthatorangeservesanimportantsafety
functiononlargeconstructionsitessuchasthesiteofanewhotelorofficebuilding,or
eventhesiteofanewhousewhere,say,heavymachineryisusedtoexcavatea
basementtherecordisconsiderablylessclearaboutwhetherorangeservesthesame
safetyfunctioninconnectionwiththebulkoftheworkthatCedarValleyand
ProfessionalExteriorsperform:repairingandreplacingresidentialroofing,siding,
windows,andgutters.Atthispoint,then,theCourtfindsthatorangeisfunctionalin

-12-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 13 of 33

most(butnotnecessarilyall)oftheconstructionindustrybecauseitservesanimportant
safetyfunction.5
Aswritten,theregisteredmarkscoverfunctionalusesofthecolororangeinthe
constructionindustry;competitorsofCedarValleywouldbeplacedatasignificant
nonreputationrelateddisadvantageiftheycouldnotuseorangeonclothing,signs,
andotheritems.Underthefunctionalitydoctrine,then,theCourtwillorderthatCedar
Valleysregistrationsbelimitedtoonlythefollowingserviceslistedintheregistrations:
installingsiding;roofingcontracting;roofinginstallation;roofingrepair;[and]roofing
services.ECFNo.11.
2.PhantomMarks
CedarValleysmarksrunafoulofanotherruleoftrademarklaw:theprohibition
againstphantommarks.[U]ndertheLanhamActandtherulespromulgated
thereunder,atrademarkapplicationmayonlyseektoregisterasinglemark.InreIntl

Therecordalsocontainssomeevidencethat,inadditiontoitssafetyfunctionin
theconstructionindustry,orangeservesanaestheticfunctioninadvertising(i.e.,orange
isparticularlyeffectiveincatchingconsumerseyesorinmakingconsumersthinkof
construction).See,e.g.,ECFNo.465at1;HildrethDep.142:24143:1,144:818.Certain
aestheticusesofcolorcanbefunctionalandunregisterable.SeeQualitex,514U.S.at
16970(citingDeere&Co.v.Farmhand,Inc.,560F.Supp.85,98(S.D.Iowa1982),affd,
721F.2d253(8thCir.1983)(percuriam),fortheexampleofgreenbeingfunctionalfor
farmmachinerybecausecustomerswanttheirmachinerytomatchothergreenfarm
equipment).Buttheaestheticfunctionoforangeiscontestedinthiscase;forinstance,
thepartiesdonotagreeabouttheavailabilityandeffectivenessofothercolorsthat
mightattractattentionorcalltomindtheconstructionindustry.
-13-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 14 of 33

Flavors&Fragrances,Inc.,183F.3d1361,1366(Fed.Cir.1999)(emphasisinoriginal).
Thisisbecausetherelevantstatutesandregulationsspeakintermsofregistering
atrademarkorthemark.Id.(emphasisinoriginal)(quoting15U.S.C.1051;
37C.F.R.2.51).Accordingly,amarkmaynotcontainavariableorphantom
elementthatcouldrepresentmultiplemarksastheelementchanges(e.g.,themark
LIVINGXXXXFLAVORcouldencompassLIVINGSTRAWBERRYFLAVOR,
LIVINGCILANTROFLAVOR,oranynumberofothersimilarpermutations).Id.at
136364,1366;seealsoTMEP1214.01(Oct.2015ed.);3McCarthy,supra,19:61.50.
Theprohibitionagainstphantommarksservestheprimarypurposeoffederal
trademarkregistration,whichisprovidingnoticetothepublicoftheregistrants
ownershipofthemark.InthewordsoftheFederalCircuit:
Inordertomakethisconstructivenoticemeaningful,
themark,asregistered,mustaccuratelyreflectthewayitis
usedincommercesothatsomeonewhosearchestheregistry
forthemark,orasimilarmark,willlocatetheregistered
mark.Phantommarkswithmissingelements...
encompasstoomanycombinationsandpermutationsto
makeathoroughandeffectivesearchpossible.The
registrationofsuchmarksdoesnotprovidepropernoticeto
othertrademarkusers,thusfailingtohelpbringordertothe
marketplaceanddefeatingoneofthevitalpurposesof
federaltrademarkregistration.
IntlFlavors,183F.3dat1368(footnoteomitted);seealsoTMEP1214.01;3McCarthy,
supra,19:61.50.

-14-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 15 of 33

Colormarksaregenerallysubjecttothephantommarkrule.SeeOgoSport,LLC
v.MarandaEnters.,LLC,No.10C0155,2012WL683111,at*7(E.D.Wisc.Mar.2,2012)
(Amarkthatcontainsachangeableelement,suchastherelativelycontrastingcolorsin
thiscase,isunregisterable.(citingIntlFlavors));TMEP1202.05(c)(Grantingan
applicationforregistrationofcolorintheabstract,withoutconsideringthemanneror
contextinwhichthecolorisused,wouldbecontrarytolawandpublicpolicy,because
itwouldresultinanunlimitednumberofmarksbeingclaimedinasingleapplication.
(citingIntlFlavors)).Andthus,ontheirface,CedarValleysmarksareinconsistent
withthephantommarkrule.Obviously,aregistrationthatcoversorangeappliedto
shirtsandorangeappliedtopantsandorangeappliedtosocksandorangeappliedto
shoes(andonandon)isnotlimitedtoasinglemark.SeeHrgTr.11:1717:21.
Thereis,however,anexceptiontothephantommarkrulethat,accordingto
CedarValley,savesitsmarks.Specifically,thePTOsTrademarkManualofExamining
Procedure(TMEP)6describesaspecialexceptiontothephantommarkrulefor
6

TheFederalCircuithassaidthattheTMEPisentitledtosomedeference:
WhiletheTMEPisnotestablishedlaw,butonlyprovidesinstructionstoexaminers,it
doesrepresentthePTOsestablishedpolicy...thatisentitledtoourrespect.Inre
PenningtonSeed,Inc.,466F.3d1053,1059(Fed.Cir.2006).Accordingly,federalcourt
decisionsroutinelyrelyontheTMEP,see,e.g.,Aromatique,Inc.v.GoldSeal,Inc.,28F.3d
863,869,873(8thCir.1994),andbothCedarValleyandProfessionalExteriorscitethe
TMEPliberally.

(continued...)
-15-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 16 of 33

servicemarksconsistingofacolor.TheTMEPpermitsanapplicantwhoseeksto
registerasinglecolorasaservicemarkusedonavarietyofitemsnotviewed
simultaneouslybypurchaserstorepresentthemarkasasolidcoloredsquarewitha
dottedperipheraloutline....TMEP1202.05(d)(ii).Thisexceptiontothephantom
markruleisbasedonthenotionthatacolorservicemarkcanbeappliedtoavarietyof
objects(e.g.,stationery,uniforms,pens,signs,shuttlebuses,storeawning,andwallsof
thestore),butstillcreatefortheconsumeraunifieddistinctcommercialimpression.
Id.(citingInreThrifty,Inc.,274F.3d1349(Fed.Cir.2001);InreChem.DynamicsInc.,839
F.2d1569(Fed.Cir.1988)).
Forexample,HomerTLC,Inc.hasregisteredthecolororangeasusedbyHome
Depotstores.Thatservicemarkconsistsofthecolororangeusedasabackgroundfor
advertising,promotionalmaterials,signage,andlabelsforanumberofinstallation
services(including,notably,theinstallationofroofingandseamlessgutters)and
inothercontexts.Thedrawingofthemarkdepictsasquaremadeoutofdottedlines
thatislined7forthecolororange.RegistrationNo.2,276,946,availableat

(...continued)
CitationstotheTMEPinthisorderrefertothecurrent(October2015)edition.
ThepartiesdonotcontendthattheeditioninforcewhenCedarValleyregisteredits
marks(the2007edition)differsinanymaterialrespect,andtheCourthasnot
discoveredanymaterialdifferencesbetweentheversions.
7

BeforethePTOaccepteddrawingsincolor,blackandwhiteliningsorcross
(continued...)
-16-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 17 of 33

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn74695201&docId=ORC20060208182804
#docIndex=19&page=1.
AccordingtoMr.Johnston,thereissomedoubtaboutwhetherthisspecial
exemptionfromthephantommarkruleisvalid:
[O]nemarkperregistrationistherule.Theresanexception
totheruleforthisveryspecialcategoryofsinglecolormarks
inaservicesector.Itsveryunusual.Itskindof
questionablewhetherornotitprovidesadequatenotice,
whetheritsaphantommark.Theresactuallyareferencein
theTMEPaboutthefactthatthishasntbeentested.
HrgTr.32:1723;seealsoid.at33:912(agreeingthattheexceptionisrecognizedas
untested).
TheCourtneednotdecidewhetherthespecialexemptionintheTMEPisvalid,
however,becauseeveniftheexemptionisvalid,neitherofCedarValleysregistrations
fitswithinit.Seeid.at29:710(Ithinkbecausetheydidntfollowthatparticular
conventionaboutthesquarewiththeperipheralline,theydontgettoavailthemselves
ofthatrule.);id.at32:24(Thisdoesnotfittheexception.);id.at33:1316(agreeing
thattheCourtneednotaddressthevalidityoftheexceptionbecausetheCedarValley
marksdo[]ntfitwithinit.).ThetextoftheregistrationsindicatesthatCedarValley
wasseekingtoregisterasinglecolorasaservicemarkusedonavarietyofitemsnot

(...continued)
hatchingswereusedtoindicatecolor.1McCarthy,supra,7:45.30.
-17-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 18 of 33

viewedsimultaneouslybypurchasers.TMEP1202.05(d)(ii).Butneitherofthe
drawingsisasolidcoloredsquarewithadottedperipheraloutline....Id.Instead,
thedrawingonthe642markdepictsalawnsign,whilethedrawingonthe643mark
depictsashortsleevedpoloshirt.
Inthecaseofadiscrepancybetweenthedrawingandthewrittendescriptionofa
colormark,thedrawingcontrolsthetext.3McCarthy,supra,19:58.50;seealso37
C.F.R.2.52(Adrawingdepictsthemarksoughttoberegistered.).Thisistruewith
respecttoboththeobjectstowhichthecolorisappliedandtheshadeofthecolor.
SeeTMEP1202.05(g)(citingtheFederalCircuitasholdingthatthedrawing
controlled,suchthatthe[servicemark]applicationwasforthecolor...appliedtothe
particularitemdepictedinthedrawing);id.807.07(c)(Whenthecolorshownonthe
drawingpageinapaperapplication,oronthedigitizedimageofthedrawingin[an
electronic]application,isinconsistentwiththecolorclaimedinthewrittenapplication
(e.g.,themarkisshowninblueonthedrawing,butthecolorclaimedisorange),the
drawingcontrols.).
TheFederalCircuitappliedtheseprinciplesinInreThrifty,Inc.,274F.3d1349
(Fed.Cir.2001),acasethatisstrikinglysimilartothiscase.InThrifty,theFederal
Circuitnarrowedthescopeofaproposedservicemarkbasedonadrawingthatdidnot
conformtotheconventionofthedottedlinedsquare.Thriftysoughttoregisterasa

-18-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 19 of 33

servicemarkthecolorblueusedinconnectionwithcarrentalsandrelatedservices.
Id.at1350.Theapplicationsdrawingshowedabuilding(mostlikelydepictinga
Thriftyvehiclerentalcenter)indottedlineswithacoloredupperwall.Id.Thrifty
laterattemptedtosupplementitsdescriptionoftheproposedmarktoincludethe
followingtext:Thecolorblueisusedonvehiclerentalcenters,signs,vehicles,
uniforms,andinotheradvertisingandpromotionalmaterialstoshowthatthecolor
blueidentifiesanddistinguishesapplicantsservices.Id.at1351.ButthePTOrejected
theamendmentasinconsistentwiththedrawingandasdescribingmorethanasingle
mark.Id.
TheFederalCircuitaffirmedthePTO.TheCourtofAppealsdeterminedthatthe
drawingofthespecificobject(thebuilding)controlledthebroaderproposedlanguage
thatincludedotherobjects.Id.Thecourtelaborated:
[T]hedrawingconventionforaservicemarkconsistingofa
coloristoshowagenericshape(e.g.,asquare)ofasolid
colorhavingadottedperipheraloutline.WhenThrifty
submitteditsoriginalapplicationincludingadrawing
showingthecolorblueappliedtoaparticularobject,Thrifty
indicatedthatitsproposedservicemarkhadanarrower
scopethanifithadfollowedthisconvention.
Incontrasttotheoriginalapplication,Thriftys
proposedamendmentdescribesthemarkasincludingthe
colorblueappliedtoawidevarietyofobjects(e.g.,
buildings,vehicles,uniforms,signs,keychains,pencilsand
pens,brochures,andplayingcards).Themultiple
impressionscreatedbythewidevarietyofobjectssoughtto
-19-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 20 of 33

becoveredundertheproposeddescriptiondiffer
significantlyfromtheoriginalmarkofacolorplacedona
building.
Id.at1353.
Thiscasearisesinadifferentproceduralposture,butthecontrollingprincipleis
thesame:Thediscrepancybetweenthedrawingandthewrittendescriptiononeachof
CedarValleysregistrationsmustberesolvedinfavorofthedrawing.Becauseneither
drawingdepictsasolidcoloredsquarewithadottedperipheraloutline,TMEP
1202.05(d)(ii),neitherregistrationfallswithintheexceptiontothephantommarkrule
foundintheTMEP.
Toholdotherwisewouldbetoignorethepublicnoticefunctionoftrademark
law.CedarValleysmarkscannotbeallowedtoencompassanytypeofadvertising
materialsandanyarticleofclothing,becausethedrawingsintheregistrationsdepict
onlyayardsignandapoloshirt,andthusindicatetoanybodywhofindsCedar
Valleysregistrationsinatrademarksearchthatthemarksarelimitedtothose
particularobjects.Thedrawingsdonotgiveanyonewantingtoestablishtheirown
servicemarksadequatenoticethatCedarValleysmarksencompassmorethanlawn
signsandpoloshirts.SeeHrgTr.17:1821(Idontthinkitmeetsthisunusual
exceptiontothesinglemarkruleandIbelieve,then,thatthepublicisentitledtobelieve
thiscovers[only]ayardsign.).Justasthedrawingofthebuildinglimitedthegeneral

-20-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 21 of 33

termadvertisingandpromotionalmaterialsintheThriftyapplication,sothe
drawingsoftheyardsignandpoloshirtlimitthegeneraltermsadvertisingmaterials
andclothinginCedarValleysmarks.
Asnoted,thedrawingsalsocontroltheshadeoforangecoveredbythemarks.
Althoughthedescriptionsofthemarkssimplystatethattheyconsistofthecolor
orangewhichcouldbereadtoincludeanyconceivableshadeoforangethe
registrationsinfactcoveronlytheparticularshadeoforangedepictedinthedrawings.
Obviously,though,acompetitorsuseofasimilar(butnotidentical)shadeoforange
couldneverthelessconfuseaconsumerandthusinfringethemark.See1McCarthy,
supra,7:45.70(Ifthedecisionmakerthinksthattheordinarypurchaseroruserwill
seethecolorasasourceindicator,andseethemascloseenoughastobelikelyto
confusesourceoraffiliation,theninfringementwillbefound[,]eventhoughthecolor
shadesarenotidentical.).
Finally,thedrawingscontroltheparticularmannerinwhichorangeisusedon
yardsignsandpoloshirts.Thedrawingsdepictasolidorangeyardsignandasolid
orangepoloshirt;theydonotdepictyardsignsorpoloshirtsthat,forexample,use
orangestripesororangetrimororangeletteringagainstanonorangebackground.
Again,though,itispossiblethatacompetitorsuseofapartiallyorangeyardsignor
poloshirtcouldconfuseaconsumerandthusinfringe.

-21-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 22 of 33

3.Amendment
BecauseCedarValleysregistrationsdonotconformtothefunctionalityand
phantommarkdoctrines,theCourtagreeswithMr.Johnstonthattheirwritten
descriptionsshouldbeamended.SeeHrgTr.30:1132:7.Federalcourtshaveauthority
overtrademarkregistrationspursuantto15U.S.C.1119:
Inanyactioninvolvingaregisteredmarkthecourtmay
determinetherighttoregistration,orderthecancelationof
registrations,inwholeorinpart,restorecanceled
registrations,andotherwiserectifytheregisterwithrespect
totheregistrationsofanypartytotheaction.Decreesand
ordersshallbecertifiedbythecourttotheDirector,who
shallmakeappropriateentryupontherecordsofthePatent
andTrademarkOffice,andshallbecontrolledthereby.
15U.S.C.1119.Thepowertopartiallycancelregistrationsandtorectifytheregister
under1119includestheauthoritytoredefinethescopeoftheregistration.
5McCarthy,supra,30:109;seealsoChristianLouboutinS.A.v.YvesSaintLaurentAm.
Holdings,Inc.,696F.3d206,228(2dCir.2012)(directingPTOtomodifyandlimit
scopeofmarkaccordingtocourtsanalysisofsecondarymeaning).
Therefore,theCourtordersthatCedarValleysregistrationsbeamendedto
conformtothefunctionalityandphantommarkrules8asfollows:
8

Mr.JohnstontestifiedthattheCourthadauthoritytorectifytheregisteron
theseparticulargroundsnotwithstandingtheincontestablestatusofCedarValleys
marks.SeeHrgTr.31:1819(Incontestabilitydoesntimpactyourauthoritytoamend
orrectifyorcancelorresurrectaregistration.);seealsoid.at43:717,64:2066:22.Cedar
(continued...)
-22-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 23 of 33

RegistrationNos.3,429,642and3,429,643arelimitedtothefollowing
services:installingsiding,roofingcontracting,roofinginstallation,
roofingrepair,androofingservices.

RegistrationNo.3,429,642islimitedtothecolororangeasappliedtothe
entiresurfaceofayardsign.

RegistrationNo.3,429,643islimitedtothecolororangeasappliedtothe
entiresurfaceofashortsleevedpoloshirt.
C.LikelihoodofConfusion

HavingdefinedthescopeofCedarValleysregisteredmarksandamendedthe
registrationswrittendescriptionstoreflectthatscope,theCourtproceedstothemerits
ofCedarValleysinfringementclaims.Tosucceedonaclaimfortrademark
infringement,aplaintiffmustdemonstratealikelihoodofconfusion.Inotherwords,
theplaintiffmustestablishthatitislikelythataconsumerexposedtothealleged
infringersmarkwouldconfuseitwiththeownersmark,andtherebywrongly
concludethattheinfringersgoodsorserviceshavesomeconnectiontotheowner.See,
e.g.,LovelySkin,Inc.v.IshtarSkinCareProds.,LLC,745F.3d877,887(8thCir.2014).The
CourtsanalysisisguidedbythesocalledSquirtCofactors:

(...continued)
Valleyhasnotarguedtothecontrary,despitehavingbeengiventheopportunitytodo
sobothatthehearingandinposthearingbriefing.
-23-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 24 of 33

(1)thestrengthoftheownersmark;(2)thesimilarity
betweentheownersmarkandtheallegedinfringersmark;
(3)thedegreetowhichtheproductscompetewitheach
other;(4)theallegedinfringersintenttopassoffitsgoods
asthoseofthetrademarkowner;(5)incidentsofactual
confusion;and(6)thetypeofproduct,itscostsand
conditionsofpurchase.
Id.(citingSquirtCov.SevenUpCo.,628F.2d1086,1091(8thCir.1980)).Professional
ExteriorsassertsandCedarValleydoesnotseemtocontestthatCedarValleys
statelawclaimsunderMinn.Stat.325D.44shouldbeanalyzedsimilarlytoCedar
Valleysfederaltrademarkclaims.SeealsoDaimlerChryslerAGv.Bloom,315F.3d932,
935n.3(8thCir.2003).
TheCourtrespectfullydisagreeswithMr.JohnstonthatCedarValleyisentitled
tosummaryjudgmentonitsinfringementclaim;instead,theCourtfindsthatfactsthat
arematerialunderSquirtCoaregenuinelyindispute.Forinstance,thepartieshave
submittedconflictingevidenceregardingthecommercialstrengthofthemarksandthe
degreetowhichthepartiescompete.Moreover,severaloftheSquirtCofactorsappear
tomilitateagainstafindingofinfringement.Forexample,thereisnoevidencethat
ProfessionalExteriorsintendedtopassoffitsservicesasthoseofCedarValley,thereis
noevidenceofactualconfusion,anditislikelythatconsumerswouldpayclose
attentiontotheoriginoftheservices(giventhattheservicesinvolvedoingextensive
workonconsumershomes).

-24-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 25 of 33

TheCourtthereforedeniesbothpartiesmotionsforsummaryjudgmenton
CedarValleysinfringementclaims;thoseclaimswillhavetobetried.
D.AffirmativeDefenses
1.Functionality
TheCourthasalreadyamendedtheregisteredmarkstoconformtothe
functionalitydoctrine;asamended,themarksapplyonlytotheuseoforangein
connectionwithinstallingsiding,roofingcontracting,roofinginstallation,roofing
repair,androofingservices.ProfessionalExteriorsalsoraisesfunctionalityasan
affirmativedefensetoCedarValleysinfringementclaims.Inotherwords,Professional
Exteriorsarguesthat,evenwithrespecttosidingandroofingwork,orangeisfunctional
bothonclothingandinadvertising.ProfessionalExteriorsmovesforsummary
judgmentonthisground.
AstheCourthasalreadyexplained,however,theCourtfindsthatthereare
factualdisputesaboutthefunctionalityofthecolororangewhenusedinconnection
withtheroofingandsidingworkthatisencompassedbytheamendedregistrations.
TheCourtthereforedeniesbothpartiesmotionsforsummaryjudgmentonthedefense
offunctionality.

-25-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 26 of 33

2.Laches
ProfessionalExteriorsalsomovesforsummaryjudgmentonitsdefenseof
laches.Lachessuppliesadefenseinatrademarkcasewhentheplaintiffinexcusably
delaysbringingsuitandundulyprejudicesthedefendant.Mastersv.UHSofDel.,
Inc.,631F.3d464,469(8thCir.2011)(quotingHubbardFeeds,Inc.v.AnimalFeed
Supplement,Inc.,182F.3d598,602(8thCir.1999)).
Onefactorthathelpscourtsmeasurewhetheraplaintiffsdelayis
inexcusabl[e]iswhethertheplaintifffiledsuitwithinthestatuteoflimitations
applicabletoanalogousstatelawclaims.CedarValleyasserts(andProfessional
Exteriorsdoesnotcontest)thattheapplicableperiodissixyearsunderMinn.Stat.
541.05.Seealso3Mv.BeautoneSpecialties,Co.,82F.Supp.2d997,100304(D.Minn.
2000);6McCarthy,supra,31:23,31:33n.9.
Onefactorthathelpsacourtassesswhetheranyprejudicetothedefendantwas
undue[]iswhetherthedefendanthadnoticethattheplaintiffobjectedtotheuseof
theallegedlyinfringingmark.Suchnoticeaffordsthedefendantanopportunityto
discontinueuseofthemarkandtherebyavoidprejudicecausedbytheplaintiffsdelay
infilingsuit.Accordingly,forewarningofaplaintiffsobjectionsgenerallypreventsa
defendantfrommakingalachesdefense.Roedererv.J.GarciaCarrion,S.A.,569F.3d
855,859(8thCir.2009);seealso6McCarthy,supra,31:12.

-26-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 27 of 33

CedarValleylearnedinJuly2011thatProfessionalExteriorswasusingorangeto
promoteitsbusiness.ECFNo.451at9.Assumingthattheanalogousstatuteof
limitationswouldhavebeguntorunonthatdate,CedarValleyhadnearlytwothirds
ofthesixyearlimitationsperiodtosparewhenitfiledsuitinSeptember2013;indeed,
thelimitationsperiodhasstillnotrun.Thisisclearlynotinexcusabl[e]delay[].
Masters,631F.3dat469.Further,CedarValleysceaseanddesistlettersput
ProfessionalExteriorsonnoticethatCedarValleyobjectedtoitsuseoforange.
ProfessionalExteriorscannotclaimundu[e]prejudice[]whenitcontinuedtopromote
itselfusingsolidorangeshirtsandsolidorangelawnsigns,notwithstandingthe
warninglettersthatithadreceivedfromCedarValley.Id.TheCourtalsonotesthat,
despitetheavailabilityofnumerousshadesoforange,ProfessionalExteriorscontinued
touseashadeoforangethatappearstobenearlyidenticaltotheshadeoforange
protectedbyCedarValleysamendedmarks.
Forthesereasons,theCourtdeniesProfessionalExteriorsmotionandgrants
CedarValleysmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthedefenseoflaches.
3.Fraud
ProfessionalExteriorsnextmovesforsummaryjudgmentonthebasisoffraud.
Fraudisanaffirmativedefensethatmustbepleadedandpleadedwithparticularity
inthedefendantsanswer.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.8(c)(1)&9(b).ProfessionalExteriors

-27-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 28 of 33

answertoCedarValleyscomplaintdoesnotincludeanyallegationoffraud.
MagistrateJudgeLeungissuedapretrialschedulingorderthatsetMarch15,
2014asthedeadlineforthepartiestoamendtheirpleadings.ECFNo.19.On
September16,2014sixmonthsafterthedeadlinehadpassedProfessionalExteriors
movedunderFed.R.Civ.P.15(a)toamenditsanswertoincludethedefensethatCedar
ValleyhadperpetratedafraudonthePTOinprocuringitsregistrations.ECFNos.23,
25.CedarValleyobjectedtothemotionasuntimely.ECFNo.28.JudgeLeungdenied
themotion,rulingthat,notwithstandingthefactthatthemotionwasostensiblyunder
Rule15(a),ProfessionalExteriorsneededtoshowgoodcausetomodifythepretrial
schedulingorderunderRule16(b)(4),andProfessionalExteriorshadfailedtoestablish
goodcausebecauseithadnotacteddiligentlytopursuediscoveryonthefraudissue.
ECFNo.66.
ProfessionalExteriorsdoesnotdirectlychallengeJudgeLeungsruling,but
assertsthatitshouldnowbepermittedtoadvanceafrauddefenseunderFed.R.Civ.
P.15(b)(2),whichprovides:Whenanissuenotraisedbythepleadingsistriedbythe
partiesexpressorimpliedconsent,itmustbetreatedinallrespectsasifraisedinthe
pleadings.
ItistruethatRule15(b)(2)maypermitamendmentevenafterthedenialofan
earliermotiontoamendunderRules15(a)or16(b).SeeAm.FamilyMut.Ins.Co.v.

-28-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 29 of 33

Hollander,705F.3d339,350(8thCir.2013).ButRule15(b)(2),byitsterms,appliesto
issuesthataretried;infact,theheadingofsubsection(b)isAmendmentsDuringand
AfterTrial(ascontrastedwiththeheadingofsubsection(a):AmendmentsBefore
Trial).Rule15(b)(2)doesnotapplyatthesummaryjudgmentstageoratanyother
stagebeforetrial.SeeCookv.CityofBellaVilla,582F.3d840,852(8thCir.2009)(...
Rule15(b)providespartieswithmethodstoamendapleadinganytimeduringorafter
trial,andisthereforenotdirectlyapplicabletothissituationwherethepartiesintended
toamendthecomplaintbeforetrial....);OglalaSiouxTribev.Hallett,708F.2d326,329
n.5(8thCir.1983)(Rule15(b),onitsface,servestoconformthepleadingstothe
evidence[w]henissuesnotraisedbythepleadingsaretriedbyexpressorimplied
consentoftheparties.Wearenotconvincedthatthisrulecanbeusedinapretrial
motionastheTribecontends.(alterationinoriginal)).ButseeLibertyLincolnMercury,
Inc.v.FordMotorCo.,676F.3d318,327n.7(3dCir.2012)(notingcircuitsplitonissue).
Moreover,thetextofRule15(b)(2)requiresthattheopposingparty
consent(eitherexpress[ly]orimplied[ly])totryingthenewissue.Compare
Culpepperv.Vilsack,664F.3d252,259(8thCir.2011)(amendmentnotproperwhen
opposingpartyrepeatedlyobjectedtoinclusionofproposedclaims),withHollander,705
F.3dat350(amendmentproperwhenopposingpartyfailedtoobjecttoevidence
relevanttounpleadedclaim).CedarValleyhasnotexplicitlyorimplicitlyagreedtotry

-29-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 30 of 33

theissueoffraud;tothecontrary,CedarValleyhasconsistentlyobjectedtoanyattempt
byProfessionalExteriorstoaddafrauddefense.
Forthesereasons,theCourtwillnotallowProfessionalExteriorstoassertafraud
defense.TheCourtthereforedeniesProfessionalExteriorsmotionandgrantsCedar
Valleysmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthedefenseoffraud.
4.OtherDefenses
CedarValleycontendsthat,becauseitsmarksareincontestable,Professional
Exteriorsmaynotarguethatthemarksareinvalidbecausetheyneveracquired
distinctivenessorsecondarymeaning.See15U.S.C.1115.ProfessionalExteriors
appearstoagree.ProfessionalExteriorspointsout,however,thatthefirstSquirtCo
factoristhestrengthoftheownersmark.LovelySkin,745F.3dat887.Professional
ExteriorsarguesthattheincontestablestatusofCedarValleysmarksdoesnotprevent
ProfessionalExteriorsfromarguingthatthemarksareweakbecausetheylack
distinctivenessorsecondarymeaning.CedarValleyappearstoagree.
Finally,CedarValleyarguesandProfessionalExteriorsdoesnotdisputethat
ProfessionalExteriorshasnoevidencetosupportitsdefensesofestoppel,waiver,
acquiescence,andfailuretostateaclaimonwhichreliefmaybegranted.TheCourt
thereforegrantsCedarValleysmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthesedefenses.

-30-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 31 of 33

E.DaubertMotion
Finally,ProfessionalExteriorsmovestoexcludeGregoryAndersonsexpert
testimonyregardingtheuseoforangeintheexteriorremodelingindustryunder
Daubertv.MerrellDowPharmaceuticals,Inc.,509U.S.579(1993).AstheCourtexplained
ontherecordattheFebruary23,2015hearing,however,Andersonstestimonyisnot
categoricallyadmissibleorcategoricallyinadmissible,andtheCourtwilltherefore
addresstheadmissibilityofAndersonstestimonyattrialonaquestionbyquestion
basis.SeeECFNo.106at4951.
ORDER
Basedontheforegoing,andonallofthefiles,records,andproceedingsherein,
ITISHEREBYORDEREDthat:
1.

TheClerkofCourtisdirectedtonotifytheDirectoroftheUnitedStates
PatentandTrademarkOfficeofthisorder,whichamendsU.S.
TrademarksRegistrationNos.3,429,642and3,429,643pursuantto
15U.S.C.1119asfollows:
a.

RegistrationNos.3,429,642and3,429,643arelimitedtothe
followingservices:installingsiding,roofingcontracting,roofing
installation,roofingrepair,androofingservices.

-31-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 32 of 33

b.

RegistrationNo.3,429,642islimitedtothecolororangeasapplied
totheentiresurfaceofayardsign.

c.

RegistrationNo.3,429,643islimitedtothecolororangeasapplied
totheentiresurfaceofashortsleevedpoloshirt.

2.

ProfessionalExteriorsrenewedmotionforsummaryjudgment[ECF
No.123]isGRANTEDINPARTANDDENIEDINPARTasfollows:
a.

ProfessionalExteriorsmotionforadeclarationofthescopeof
CedarValleysmarksisGRANTEDtotheextentthatthemarksare
amendedasdescribedin1ofthisorder.

b.
3.

ProfessionalExteriorsmotionisDENIEDinallotherrespects.

CedarValleysrenewedmotionforsummaryjudgment[ECFNo.127]is
GRANTEDINPARTANDDENIEDINPARTasfollows:
a.

CedarValleysmotionforsummaryjudgmentonProfessional
Exteriorsdefensesoflaches,fraud,lackofdistinctivenessor
secondarymeaning,estoppel,waiver,acquiescence,andfailureto
stateaclaimisGRANTED.

b.
4.

CedarValleysmotionisDENIEDinallotherrespects.

ProfessionalExteriorsrenewedmotiontoexcludethetestimonyof
GregoryAnderson[ECFNo.124]isDENIEDWITHOUTPREJUDICE.

-32-

CASE 0:13-cv-02537-PJS-TNL Document 132 Filed 06/29/16 Page 33 of 33

Dated:June29,2016

s/PatrickJ.Schiltz
PatrickJ.Schiltz
UnitedStatesDistrictJudge

-33-