Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MOCAMBO Decision

MOCAMBO Decision

Ratings: (0)|Views: 889|Likes:
Published by Frank Herrera

More info:

Published by: Frank Herrera on Feb 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/14/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Mailed:January 26, 2012
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________In re Licores Veracruz, S.A. de C.V.________Serial No. 77753913_______ Arturo Pérez-Guerrero of the Law Offices of Arturo Pérez-Guerrero for Licores Veracruz, S.A. De C.V.Saima Makhdoom, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office101 (Ronald R. Sussman, Managing Attorney)._______Before Bergsman, Wellington and Lykos, Administrative Trademark Judges.Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:Licores Veracruz, S.A. de C.V. (“applicant”) filed anapplication to register the mark MOCAMBO, in standardcharacter form, for “rum,” in Class 33. In theapplication, applicant stated that “[t]he wording MOCAMBOhas no meaning in a foreign language,” and that it “has nosignificance in the relevant trade or industry … or anygeographical significance.”The examining attorney refused registration underSection 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.§1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s mark, when used in
THIS OPINION IS NOT APRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B.
 
Serial No. 777539132connection with rum, so resembles the registered markMOCAMBO, in typed drawing form, for “cigars,” in Class 34,as to be likely to cause confusion.
1
 Our determination of likelihood of confusion underSection 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of theprobative facts in evidence that are relevant to thefactors bearing on the likelihood of confusion.
In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357,177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973).
See also, In re MajesticDistilling Company, Inc.,
315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201,1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusionanalysis, two key considerations are the similaritiesbetween the marks and the similarities between the goods.
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,
544 F.2d1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976). A. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in theirentireties as to appearance, sound, connotation andcommercial impression and the strength of theregistered mark.The marks are identical. In addition, we note thatapplicant stated in its application that “[t]he wordingMOCAMBO has no meaning in a foreign language,” and that it“has no significance in the relevant trade or industry … orany geographical significance.” There is nothing in the
1
Registration No. 1434163, issued March 24, 1987; renewed.
 
Serial No. 777539133record to indicate that MOCAMBO is anything other than afanciful or arbitrary term and, therefore, it is entitledto a broad scope of protection or exclusivity of use.B. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of thegoods, channels of trade and classes of consumers.In comparing the similarity of the goods, we aremindful that the greater the degree of similarity betweenthe applicant’s mark and the registered mark, the lesserthe degree of similarity between the applicant’s goods andregistrant’s goods that is required to support a finding oflikelihood of confusion.
In re Opus One, Inc.,
60 USPQ2d1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001);
In re Concordia InternationalForwarding Corp.,
222 USPQ 355, 356 (TTAB 1983). Even whengoods are not intrinsically related, the use of identicalmarks can lead to the assumption that there is a commonsource.
In re Shell Oil Co.,
992 F.2d 1024, 26 USPQ2d1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this regard, the issue isnot whether the goods will be confused with each other, butwhether the public will be confused about their source ororigin.
See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.,
518 F.2d 1399, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (CCPA 1975).The examining attorney argues that the goods arerelated because they are complementary products that are

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->