The Board focused its analysis on the mark depicted in the upper left hand corner above, which is registered for clothing items. It found the involved goods to be identical or overlapping. [Strike one]. Since there were no restrictions in the registration or application, the Board must presume that these items travel in the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. [Strike two]. And it found the marks to be highly similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. [Strike three].
The actual channels of trade for the parties goods do not overlap, and so there was no reasonable opportunity for actual confusion to occur. [No pitch]. Finally, for what it's worth, the Cubs failed to prove that applicant adopted its mark in bad faith. [Ball one].
And so the Board sustained the opposition.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: The Board declined to reach the Cubs' false association and dilution claims, which seemed liked losers to me. Do you think confusion is likely in the real world?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.
One shared characteristic of all the Cubs' C logos is that there is no visible discontinuity in the letter. And the two discontinuities in applicant's C-mark are both strikingly visible and unusually asymmetric. So I'd say, no, confusion is unlikely.
ReplyDeleteA five minute search located the following registered similar "C" marks in Class 25, RNs 6725567, 6014627, 5176968, 4157341 and 6004734, which (should) limit the strength to be accorded the Cubs' "C" mark.
ReplyDelete