To print this text, all you want is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The Board affirmed Part 2(d) refusals to register the
proposed marks IMAGINELABORATORIES.COM,
IMAGINELABS.NET for telecommunications know-how
consulting providers, discovering confusion seemingly with the registered
mark IMAGINATION LABS for, inter alia,
“telecommunications session and recommendation.” Applicant,
showing professional se, pointed to its present registration for
IMAGINATION ARTS LAB, over which the cited registration issued, however
the Board as soon as once more noticed that it isn’t sure by the choice
of an analyzing legal professional in a previous software with a unique
data. In re Think about Labs LLC, Serial
Nos. 88931892, 88931930, and 88931972 (June 21, 2022) [not
precedential (Opinion by Judge Karen Kuhlke).
Applicant argued that the difference between the words
IMAGINATION and IMAGINE distinguished the marks”: “Having
imagination and not actively imagining is equal to not having any
imagination. Therefore the act of imagining something is vastly
different than the inherent ability of imagination in every human
mind.” [Huh? – ed.]. Applicant additionally contended that
as a result of its marks are domains and the cited mark is a
“Model Service identify” there isn’t any trigger for confusion.
[Huh? – ed.]. The Board, not surprisingly, discovered that the
similarities within the marks outweighed their variations.
With regard to applicant’s prior registration, the Board
famous that in “uncommon circumstances” an applicant’s
prior registration might deserve weight within the confusion evaluation.
See In re Strategic Companions, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397 (TTAB
2012). Nonetheless, invocation of that precedent requires that the
marks and the providers be equivalent or almost so. That was not the
case right here.
Applicant argued that the registrant doesn’t really provide all
of the providers listed within the cited registration, however the Board
identified as soon as once more that it should make its choice based mostly on the
providers as recited within the registration, not on the precise use of
the registered mark. In gentle of third-party registration and utilization
proof, the Board discovered the providers to be associated and supplied in
the identical channels of commerce.
And so, the Board affirmed the refusal to register.
Learn feedback and put up your remark right here.
The content material of this text is meant to offer a basic
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation must be sought
about your particular circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Mental Property from United States