TTAB Opposition
Similarity of Chocolate Marks Sustained TTAB Opposition
CHOCOVA // CHOCOVIAR
D1: Similarity of Marks
Case summaries focused on the first DuPont factor, examining how the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board weighs similarities in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression between competing marks.
D6: Third-Party Uses
Crowded Field & Weak Mark Defeat Similar Goods in TTAB Opposition
BLUE EARTH // TRU EARTH
D5: Fame of the Prior Mark
TTAB Sustains Shark Tank Opposition: The Impact of Deemed Admissions and Famous Marks
CELEBRITY PITCH TANK // SHARK TANK
D1: Similarity of Marks
Sight and Sound Prevail Over Identical English Translation and Fame in TTAB Opposition
DANKE // MERCI
D1: Similarity of Marks
Descriptive Rhyming Term Fails to Render Mark Unitary or Alter Commercial Impression
ASSASSIN // FLASHIN’ ASSASSIN
2(d) Refusal Affirmed
Descriptive Words in Otherwise Identical Marks Do Not Avoid Likelihood of Confusion
UPSIDE CAPITAL HOLDINGS // UPSIDE
2(d) Refusal Affirmed
Identical Marks and Relatedness Trump Weakness of Cited Mark
DEO // DEO
D1: Similarity of Marks
TTAB Reverses 2(d) Refusal Based on Grammatical and Structural Dissimilarity
I’M SMOKING HOT // SMOKIN’ HOT SHOW TIME
2(d) Refusal Affirmed
TTAB Affirms 2(d) Refusal: Nearly Identical Marks and Related Goods
TRUGRIT // TRUE GRIT
2(d) Refusal Affirmed
Buyer Sophistication Couldn’t Overcome Related Goods to Reverse Likelihood of Confusion
OMNI // OMNITOM
2(d) Refusal Affirmed
TTAB Finds Likelihood of Confusion When Integrated Design Overshadows Disclaimed Text
INFORMATION BUILDERS.
2(d) Refusal Affirmed
Font Stylization Cannot Save a 2(d) Refusal Against Standard Character Marks
BLANCO // BLANCO LABEL