WYHA? TTAB Affirms Section 2(d) Refusal of "B & Design" in View of Identical Mark, Both for Headphones

When an opinion in an ex parte appeal is only seven pages long, it's usually bad news for the applicant. Here, Applicant Solo Beats applied to register the mark shown below left, for "audio speakers; batteries and battery chargers; earphones; headphones; virtual reality headsets; game headphones," but the Board, not surprisingly, ”found applicant's mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark shown below right, for "headphones." In re Soho Beats, LLC, Serial No. 88454219 (October 18, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Albert Zervas).

The Board perceptively found the marks to be identical and the goods overlapping (headphones). Soho Beats, appearing pro se, did not address the DuPont factors but instead argued that the owner of the cited registration no long exists as an operating business, that the owner procured the registration by impersonating the true owner, and that the registration was obtained via "fraud by impersonation."

Soho Beats asked the Board to investigate the "criminal activity of Apple's officers, directors, attorneys, and other employees . . . [and] the offenders be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extent of law;" and further that the registrations and applications owned by registrant "be annulled and revoked as the products of crime."

The Board, however, refused to hear this collateral attack on the cited registration, which enjoys a presumption of validity under Section 7(b). End of story.

Read comments and post your comment here

TTABlogger comment: If there can be "Super Lawyers," can there be "Super WYHAs?" Why not? This is one of them.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2022.