New & Noteworthy TTAB Filings: The Late March to Early April Omnibus Edition
This edition of New & Noteworthy features highlights from the past month of Trademark Trial & Appeal Board filings. Featured is an ongoing segment on brand owners who believe that their marks meet the high bar of being a “famous” marks for purposes of trademark dilution.
DOGFISH HEAD BREWRY Opposes DOGFISH ACCELERATOR for filmmaking services mark
Grounds for Opposition: Priority and likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act section 2(d)
Dogfish Head Brewery, owner of various DOGFISH HEAD-formative marks, filed a notice of opposition against the owner of DOGFISH ACCELERATOR for filmmaking services. According to Dogfish Head, it is “among the best-known brewers in the United States.” It claims that DOGFISH ACCELERATOR’s filmmaking services are substantially similar and related to Dogfish Head’s various beer and entertainment services offered under the DOGFISH HEAD Marks.
Notice of Opposition Filed Against Florist’s “Burlap Sack” Trade Dress
Bloom That, Inc. filed a notice of opposition against Farmgirl Flowers’ trade dress application for a burlap wrap for flower deliveries. According to the Opposer, burlap is a functional wrap for flowers because it can get wet and dry out repeatedly without losing its shape or durability.
Red Bull Opposes REDEW for Beverages
Red Bull filed a notice of opposition against an application for REDEW based on a likelihood of confusion and a lack of bona fide intent to use the mark under Section 1(B) of the Lanham Act. Red Bull claims that the “Applicant’s REDEW Mark wholly contains … Red Bull’s RED Mark.”
Procter & Gamble Oppose L’Oreal’s STRAIGHT PERFECTING BALM Mark, Claiming Descriptiveness and Genericism
Procter & Gamble filed an opposition against L’Oreal’s STRAIGHT PERFECTING BALM mark for hair care preparation, claiming the mark is generic, or at the very least descriptive. P&G argued that STRAIGHT PERFECTING BALM are descriptive for L’Oreals ointment use to “flawlessly straighten, de-curl, or de-frizz hair.”
The Fame Game: Companies Who Claim Their Marks Are Famous
Warner Bros., owner of THUNDERCATS Mark Opposed THUNDER CAT for Fishing Reels
Warner Bros. filed an opposition against the registration of THUNDER CAR for fishing reels. Warner Bros. claims that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks and that THUNDER CAT will dilute Warner Bros’s “famous” THUNDERCATS mark.
Energizer Opposes Energizer For Tooth Whitening Gels
Energizer opposed the registration of Energizer for tooth whitening gels based on a likelihood of confusion and based on dilution of its allegedly famous ENERGIZER mark.
Tyson Food Opposes HYSON Mark for Honey and Grain, Claims Fame in TYSON Mark
Food company Tyson Food opposed the mark HYSON for honey and grain, claiming that the mark would cause a likelihood of confusion and dilute its “famous” Tyson brand.
CARTIER Claims PARTIER Mark is Likely to Confuse Consumers & Dilute Its “Famous” Mark
Fashion brand Cartier field an opposition against the registration of PARTIER for apparel. It claimed that the PARTIER mark is likely to cause consumer confusion and dilute its “famous” CARTIER mark. Will the average consumer of CARTIER goods be confused by PARTIER, a word with a distinctly different meaning?