8 April, 2020 Revista Digital sobre Patentes, Marcas y Propiedad Intelectual

Although will.i.am. “Scream and Shout”, the Trademark Office won´t register “I AM”

Synopsis: This article will approach the decision of the Federal Circuit, where the Court affirmed the TTAB refusal of the “I AM” trademark registration.

This is “THE E.N.D”. This month, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision issued in 2015 where the TTAB, in a precedential decision, refused the registration of three trademark applications for I AM from i.am.symbolic, llc., for cosmetic and personal products in class 3, for sunglasses and sunglass cases in class 9, and for jewelry, watches, and other goods, including rubber wristbands in the nature of bracelets in class 14.

The TTAB decision was particularly interesting because it involved several Intellectual Property issues; including right of publicity, famous marks and a different perspective from the TTAB of confusion rejections for trademarks.

The applicant of the I AM marks is a company owned by pop star William Adams, an American musician known by his stage name “will.i.am” as the front man of the music group The Black Eyed Peas.

In the cases decided by the board, it concluded that I AM was confusingly similar to the registered marks I AM for perfume in class 3 owned by Danica Siegel, I AM and design for sunglasses and sunglass cases in class 9, I AM and design for jewelry and fashion jewelry, bracelets, watches, and other goods in class 14, both owned by Beeline GmbH, and I AM for silicone stretchable wrist band in the nature of a bracelet in class 14 owned by Justin Finch.

In the description of the goods protected by the I AM marks, the applicant included the language “all associated with William Adams, professionally known as ‘will.i.am.’” Therefore, before the board, the applicant contended that there was no likelihood of confusion between the I AM marks and the cited marks because its marks identified the pop star “will.i.am”; applicant’s goods were exclusively associated with “will.i.am”; the goods protected by the conflicting marks were marketed differently; and the cited marks were not famous.

The main reason the board refused the registration of the I AM marks was because the language included in the product’s description did not limit applicant’s goods in any fashion with respect to either the trade channels or class of purchasers because the board held it was “precatory” language and not binding consumers when they encountered applicant’s marks. In other words, the mentioned language did not represent that “will.i.am” was identified in the promotion of the goods because the applicant was trying to register the mark I AM, not WILL.I.AM.

 

In this regard, the board noticed that in three different trademark registration for WILL.I.AM in classes 9, 41 and 25 owned by Mr. Adams and subsequently transferred to i.am.symbolic llc., the registration included ,a statement that “[t]he name shown in the mark identifies a living individual whose consent to register is of record”, while in the I AM applications such statement was not included. Notwithstanding the above, the board held that even when the applications had included the statement, the statue still protects the senior user from “reverse confusion” of a newcomer.

Moreover, as indicated earlier, applicant argued without providing any evidence that the I AM marks were famous, while the cited marks were not. However, the board explained that in an ex parte analysis, in the absence of proofs the fame of the mark factor is treated as neutral. In other words, the board concluded that “to the extent that Mr. Adams and applicant’s mark are well known, such fact supports refusal of applicant’s application because when confusion is likely, it is the prior registrant which must prevail.”

Now, before the Federal Circuit will.i.am asked for “One More Chance” and argued that the Board erred by: 1) characterizing the “will.i.am” limitation sought during prosecution as precatory and therefore omitted from the Board’s DuPont factor analysis; 2) ignoring third-party use and the peaceful coexistence of the primary and supplemental registers; and 3) finding a likelihood of reverse confusion.

Notwithstanding Mr. Adam´s contentions, the Court said “Shut Up” to will.i.am and found that the Board sufficiently supported its reasoning when it applied the DuPont factors.  Regarding the first DuPont factor, the similarity of the marks weighed heavily in favor of confusion because the word marks were identical (both being “I AM”). The analysis considered the applied-for and registered marks, not the “will.i.am” version that Adams argued should have been considered.  Any failure to consider third-party use was harmless, given the strength of the evidence supporting a finding of confusion, such as the use of identical marks. The Court also rejected Adams’ argument that the Board improperly found a likelihood of reverse confusion.  Instead, the Board’s opinion “merely explains that to the extent the Board agreed with [Adams] that [he] or the mark are famous, such a finding would not support registration of the mark.” Now, will.i.am can “Go Home” without a trademark registration for “I AM”.

Arturo Ishbak Gonzalez

Prolongación Paseo de la Reforma #1000, Ciudad de México.

[email protected]

Twitter: @ArturoIshbak

Comparte tu opinión sobre este artículo

Comentarios

Related Posts

Registran familiares marca ‘Emiliano Zapata’

8 abril, 2019

8 abril, 2019

Édgar Castro Zapata, bisnieto del luchador social originario de Morelos, suscribió el contrato de licencia, la cual estará vigente durante una década

Crean Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales Ligeros para Industria Automotriz

2 agosto, 2017

2 agosto, 2017

Fuente: ANTIMIO CRUZ BUSTAMANTE, Reportero de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Revista Digital Mi Patente, [email protected], www.mipatente.com El estado de Coahuila...

Vigilancia Tecnológica, mecanismo clave para la gestión del conocimiento.

5 julio, 2017

5 julio, 2017

Fuente: ADRIANNI ZANATTA ALARCÓN, KAREN ARANA AYALA, and SAID ROBLES CASOLCO; Politecnico di Milano, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Universidad Autónoma...

PATENTES DE MEDICAMENTOS, PRODUCTOS GENÉRICOS Y COMPETENCIA DESLEAL EN ESPAÑA

13 octubre, 2017

13 octubre, 2017

FUENTE: SANTIAGO NADAL, Lawyer Specialized in IP, Law Director – SN Abogados, [email protected], www.snabogados.com, Barcelona, Spain. I.- PREPARACIÓN LÍCITA O...

Nuevo medicamento detiene 20 meses el cáncer de mama metastásico

1 noviembre, 2016

1 noviembre, 2016

A partir del 17 de octubre, la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS), autorizó la venta en...

LA DIRECTIVA DE LA UE SOBRE SECRETOS COMERCIALES IMPORTANTES CONSECUENCIAS MUNDIALES

12 julio, 2017

12 julio, 2017

(Primera parte)  FUENTE: SANTIAGO NADAL, Lawyer Specialized in IP Law Director-SN Abogados, [email protected], www.snabogados.com, Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona, Barcelona,...

Celebra Cinvestav 55 aniversario con 198 patentes listas para transferencia

18 abril, 2016

18 abril, 2016

Por: Antimio Cruz   Fundado en 1961 por un pequeño grupos de once científicos, que laboraban en un edificio prestado,...

Con patente internacional, mexicanos manufacturan fragmentador de roca en Brasil y Panamá

5 septiembre, 2016

5 septiembre, 2016

Fuente: ANTIMIO CRUZ BUSTAMANTE, Reportero de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Revista Mi Patente, [email protected], www.mipatente.com La empresa mexicana de pirotecnia y explosivos PyroSmart...

ECOSISTEMAS DE INNOVACIÓN EN MÉXICO

5 abril, 2017

5 abril, 2017

FUENTE: I.Q. OMAR ARCINIEGA SÁNCHEZ. Coordinador de Patentes y Diseños Industriales, EC Empowerment Consulting S.C., Hermosillo, Sonora. [email protected] Este concepto,...

UNAM buscará marca para su bebida nutritiva extraída de lactosuero

4 octubre, 2017

4 octubre, 2017

Fuente: ANTIMIO CRUZ BUSTAMANTE, Reportero de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Revista Digital Mi Patente, [email protected], www.mipatente.com Los investigadores de la...

Superindustria niega registro de marca TOP GEAR y protege serie televisiva

6 abril, 2016

6 abril, 2016

FUENTE: Henry Roberto Plazas F., Jefe de Prensa, Delegatura Propiedad Industrial, Superintendencia deIndustria y Comercio, www.sic.gov.co Colombia   La Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio negó la marca TOP GEAR...

Superindustria concede primera marca táctil en Colombia a la textura de la botella de OLD PARR

20 junio, 2016

20 junio, 2016

FUENTE: HENRY ROBERTO PLAZAS F., Jefe de Prensa, Delegatura Propiedad Industrial, Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio. Bogotá, Colombia www.sic.gov.co La Dirección de Signos Distintivos...

Revelan patente de audífonos de Samsung con batería intercambiable

7 mayo, 2019

7 mayo, 2019

La Oficina de Marcas y Patentes de Estados Unidos publicó esta semana una patente de Samsung que reveló Galaxy Buds con baterías intercambiables

Estudiantes buscan patentar termo-cuchara mexicana

21 marzo, 2018

21 marzo, 2018

Fuente: ANTIMIO CRUZ BUSTAMANTE, Reportero de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Revista Digital Mi Patente, [email protected], www.mipatente.com Con menos de 18...

Hecho en México

27 marzo, 2017

27 marzo, 2017

Fuente: FERMÍN RODRIGO REYES FENTANES y RODRIGO VELARDE MIRANDA, Legarreta y Asociados, SC, www.legarreta.com.mx, [email protected], [email protected], Ciudad de México, México....