Of course, the marks are nearly identical. That factor "strongly favored" a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Applicant contended that the phrase PICK ME UP is entitled only to limited protection in view of three applications and 11 registrations for closely similar marks. The Board pooh-poohed the applications because they have no evidentiary value other than to show that they were filed. As to the registrations, they merited little weight on the issue of marketplace strength. Moreover, ten of the registrations were for articles of clothing, while the eleventh mark was significantly different from the marks involved here. And even if the cited mark was weak, it is still entitled to protection against registration of a similar mark for related goods or services.
Turning to the issues of the similarity of the goods, channels of trade, and classes of consumers, the goods of the parties are undergarments used to shape portions of the body. Applicant's own website offers "breast lift tape," "butt bras," and "butt lifters." Registrant's website offers both "rear-enhancing padded briefs" and "breast tape." Similarly, a third-party website offers "adhesive breast lifts and tape" and "butt lifter body shapers."
Applicant's argument that the involved goods are not related due to their structural differences and their differing purposes was unpersuasive. Goods need not be identical or even competitive to be related for Section 2(d) purpose; they need only be related in some manner surrounding their marketing that they could give rise to source confusion.
Since the purpose of both Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods is to shape parts of the body and the goods are sold on the same websites in proximity to each other, use of similar (or as in this case, virtually identical) marks could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods emanate from the same source.
This same evidence also established that the goods are sold in the same channels of trade to the same customers (on-line websites selling shapewear clothing to women).
And so the Board found confusion likely, and it affirmed the refusal.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: I found this opinion somewhat uplifting. How about you?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2016.
Definitely not a downer.
ReplyDeleteApplicant's attorney sounds like a patent attorney distinguishing claims in a patent over prior art and not an attorney familiar with how trademark law works.
ReplyDeleteThere really was no way to bolster that argument.
ReplyDeleteThere really was no way to bolster that argument.
ReplyDeleteAs uplifting as a Cubs World Series triumph
ReplyDeleteAs a White Sox fan, I can see the analogy between the Cubs' success and the buttock-lifting garment.
ReplyDeleteLow hanging fruit. Come on people, we expect a more uplifting level of discussion on this board.
ReplyDeleteIt's great to hear from you again. After watching such stuff I am really impressed. Keep up the good work from now on-wards & I will be returning to you for my queries.
ReplyDeleteplak beha