Detroit Tigers Oppose "BUILD-A-TIGER" for Stuffed Toys and Related Store Services
The Detroit Tigers make a visit to the Hot Stove League with an opposition to registration of the mark BUILD-A-TIGER for plush and stuffed toys and accessories therefor, clothing for stuffed and plush toys, and related retail store services. Detroit Tigers, Inc. v. Build-A-Bear Retail Management, Inc., Opposition No. 91191960.
Opposer claims rights in the mark TIGERS for, inter alia, "retail store services, online retail store services, toys, including, without limitation, stuffed and plush toy animals and clothing and accessories therefor, novelty items, clothing, and sporting goods." As usual, the Tigers allege that the applied-for mark will likely cause confusion with the TIGERS mark and will suggest a false association with the Detroit Tigers.
Applicant is, of course, the owner of the well-know BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP retail store chain.
Who do you think will win this one? Isn't the word "Tiger" generic for stuffed toys shaped like a tiger? [Like ATTIC is generic for a type of sprinkler]. Now maybe I can see a problem with BUILD-A-YANKEE or BUILD-A-PATRIOT, but BUILD-A-TIGER? Gimme a break!
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that Opposer doesn't really expect to win this opposition and that Applicant doesn't want to spend the time and money to fight the opposition to it's conclusion. What would be a reasonable settlement in terms of restrictions placed on Applicant's use of the applied-for mark?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2009.