MOSAIC Opposer Fails to Prove Relatedness Between Vocational Training and its Entertainment Website

In a 50-page decision, the Board dismissed this Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark MOSAIC for "charitable services, namely, providing vocational training in the field of job responsibilities and finding employment for disabled individuals," finding confusion unlikely with the registered mark MOSAEC for, inter alia, "Entertainment services, namely, providing information by means of a global computer network in the fields of celebrities, entertainment, and popular culture." Opposer RLP also claimed common law rights for "providing vocational training," but it failed to prove that it advertised and rendered vocational services at all under the MOSAEC mark, much less prior to Applicant's 2003 priority date. RLP Ventures, LLC v. Mosaic, Opposition No. 91273876 (September 10, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley).

Opposer RLP's website included a "job board," but RLP was unable to identify even one example of providing “vocational training.” Unlike applicant's "clear, specific testimony, backed by documentary evidence showing its use of its mark in connection with its charitable vocational services for the disabled," RLP's testimony was "vague, indefinite and conclusory." The few documents it offered were "scattered, disparate" and did not "fit together to form a cohesive whole."

And so, the Board brushed aside RLP's common law claim and turned to its registration for entertainment services.

The Board found the involved marks to be "similar in sight and sound," and furthermore they "engender a similar commercial impression of resembling a mosaic:" "Applicant brings numerous individuals together to provide charitable vocational training of the disabled. *** Opposer brings together numerous entries and articles about style, art, entertainment, and culture on one website platform."

The Board concluded that the first DuPont factor "weighs heavily" in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion. [Why heavily? -ed.].

As to the services, the Board rejected RLP's "zone of natural expansion" argument: "Opposer cannot expand its recited services into Applicant’s distinctly different services." The Board found that "Opposer RLP has failed to carry its burden of proving that its services are related to Applicant’s. The second DuPont factor weighs heavily against finding a likelihood of confusion." [Why heavily? -ed.].

As to channels of trade and classes of consumer, the Board saw no "no relationship, no connection, no possibility of intersecting purchasing publics, channels of trade, or reputations symbolized by the marks." Moreover, "given the nature of Applicant’s services—providing intensive, long-term training and employment to the disabled—even the least sophisticated of these decisionmakers would likely exercise great care and deliberation in seeking the best environment for the disabled person."

Finally, the lack of actual confusion despite more than two decades of concurrent use of the involved marks favored applicant.

Reviewing the relevant DuPont factors, the Board found that the dissimilarity of the services outweighed the similarity of the marks. The remaining factors either weighed against a likelihood of confusion or were neutral. "On balance, we find that Opposer has failed to satisfy its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that confusion as to source is likely." And so, the Board dismissed the opposition.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: RLP lost another one earlier this year [here], failing to block registration of MOSAIC for trading cards.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.