“[A]Adding words or constructs may technically distinguish marks, but does little to reduce confusion. – Federal Circuit
Trademark applicant Charger Ventures LLC has filed a complaint with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) with a finding by the Trademark Trial Board (TTAB) that SPARK LIVING is likely to be confused with the previously registered trademark SPARK. appeal was dismissed. The precedent decision was made by Judge Reina.
Both trademarks cover real estate services, but Charger amended its application to designate residential real estate services, while the previous trademarks designated services related to commercial real estate. Charger also abandoned the term “LIVING” in response to the examiner’s request. However, the examiner finally concluded, “Comparing the respective marks,[s] These are included in either the whole or the majority of the term “SPARK”…and both marks are for real estate services with “overlapping identification of leasing and rental management services.” . Examiner Rejection.
dupont analysis
TTAB consists of five “dupont To assess the potential for confusion between trademarks, first, evidence of third-party registration from a trademark search system presented by examiners who indicated residential real estate services and commercial real estate services was considered a “single It may have come from sources.” The “single mark” had “some probative value” and was ultimately sufficient to show the service’s relevance. The commission next considered the transaction channels through which the services were sold and found that examiners provided evidence that there was “some degree of overlap” between commercial and residential real estate transaction channels. Third, the Board considered the terms of sale, saying that even if the service provided was not “average consumer service,” “even an attentive or sophisticated buyer is not immune to source confusion.” As for the fourth factor, trademark strength, the TTAB stated that “even weak trademarks are entitled to protection.” Although I was not convinced by Charger’s evidence that the trademark SPARK was conceptually weak, I discovered that the trademark had commercial weaknesses. And finally, when assessing the similarity of his two trademarks, the board found that SPARK was the term most likely to be remembered by consumers, and LIVING was the disclaimer, describing real estate services. I discovered that it depends on SPARK because The TTAB therefore determined that SPARK LIVING was “very similar to SPARK overall” and stated that “when assessed as a whole, the differences between the marks ‘do not outweigh the strong similarity’.” rice field.
Additional words don’t necessarily add to the confusion
In its review, the CAFC noted that it was not the court’s job to review the evidence considered by the TTAB, as Charger essentially requested. Instead, the CAFC considered the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and found that the TTAB’s decision was supported on all counts on its basis. Charger argued that the Board’s decision not to give the term “LIVING” any meaningful weight amounted to an analysis of marks prohibited by CAFC case law, which the court disagreed with. , the Commission said it considered the mark as a whole, but the fact that “additional words or components may technically distinguish the mark does little to alleviate confusion.” We likewise agree with the TTAB’s analysis of the remaining factors, stating that “ex parte proceedings are ‘appropriate’ for trademark applicants to launch attacks against trademarks to try to narrow the scope of services described. It’s not a fair forum.'” Addressing Charger’s claims of commercial weakness.
Not clear, but OK
Chargers separately claimed that TTAB failed to show the weight they gave each. dupont Therefore, the analysis lacked substantive evidence. The CAFC acknowledged that it was “important for the board itself to weigh the DuPont factors used in the analysis and explain the results of that comparison,” but ultimately made its decision. Automaker Ass’n of US, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automatic. ins.unit., “If the agency’s path is reasonably identified, a determination of less than ideal clarity may be supported.”
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 254654172
Author: Niro Design
