Because the goods are in-part identical, the Board must presume that they travel in the same, normal channels of trade to the same, usual classes of consumers. So it all came down to the marks.
Both IKEA and NIKEA are coined terms with no particular meaning. The similarities in in sight, sound, connotation and commercial impression to outweigh their dissimilarities.
Ikea claimed that its mark is famous, but its proofs fell short. Although it proved a "fair amount of market exposure," Ikea did not provide "clear context for its sales and advertising numbers with regard to the industry, nor as to how the fame of its IKEA mark in the media relates specifically to its chocolate and candy products."
Ikea argued that candy products are inexpensive and are not purchased with any sophistication, but the Board (rather strangely) pointed to a lack of evidence "regarding the typical price of candy and chocolates or the average sophistication of the consumers thereof." [Since there are no limitations in the application or cited registration, shouldn't the Board assume that the involved goods include inexpensive candy purchased on impulse? - ed.].
Balancing the du Pont factors, the Board found confusion likely and it sustained the opposition.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? Was it like taking candy from ....? Or did you have no ikea what you were doing?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.
Post a Comment