The USPTO refused registration of the mark DIMOND for "bicycle frames, not including bicycle parts," finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark DIAMOND (in standard character and stylized form), owned by the same entity, for "bicycle chains." Applicant Ruster Sports contended that the fact that the goods are sold in the same industry is an insufficient relationship for likelihood of confusion. How do you think this came out? In re Ruster Sports, LLC, Serial No. 88011946 (November 16, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn).
The Board found that the term DIMOND is likely to be perceived as a misspelling of DIAMOND. As to the goods, the evidence showed that "bicycle chains and bicycle frames both are necessary parts of any bicycle, and available to the same end consumers, cyclists/bicycle owners, through some of the same channels of commerce, namely stores that specialize in bicycles and parts therefor." And so the Board found confusion likely and it affirmed the refusal.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: Is this a WYHA?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.