![]() ![]() ![]() The marks are similar because, when the Italian word “LUPO” is translated into English, it means “WOLF.”īecause the marks include the same design element, they create a similar overall commercial impression, even though the one on the right also includes words plus the design. The marks look very similar, even though the one on the right uses a stylized font. The following are some examples of marks that would be considered similar:Īlthough spelled differently, the marks sound alike i.e., they are “phonetic equivalents.” Similarity in sound, appearance, or meaning may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. To find a conflict, it is not required that the marks and the goods/services be exactly the same instead, it is sufficient if the marks are similar and the goods and or services related such that consumers would mistakenly believe they come from the same source. The principal factors considered in reaching this decision are the similarity of the marks and the commercial relationship between the goods and services identified by the marks. In evaluating an application, the examining attorney conducts a search of USPTO records to determine whether there is a conflict between the mark in the application and a mark that is either registered or pending in the USPTO. The USPTO conducts a search for conflicting marks as part of the official examination of an application only after a trademark application is filed. The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s website has some great information about confusingly similarity: The argument was that since The Row had constructive knowledge of the earlier application and still proceeded to file its application for its mark, it inherently took the position that it was not confusingly similar when it sought to register its junior mark.Īnother argument made by Whiskey Row’s attorneys was that the association of Whiskey Row with the country singer celebrity made confusion unlikely. This case is interesting because one of the issues raised was that Whiskey Row filed its application more than a year before The Row filed. The Row did not agree with the lower court judge’s decision and appealed and now Whiskey Row asks the appellate court to uphold the lower court decision claiming that it was unrealistic to think that customers would be confused between the two businesses and marks. The Row brought the case in federal court when Whiskey Row announced it would be opening a location in Nashville. PHOTO CREDIT: Peter Speyer/Special to the Tribuneĭierks Bentley and his Whiskey Row pub chain succeeded in a trademark infringement claim brought by The Row, a Nashville pub. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |