View a Sample Chapter

Similarity of the Marks§ 4:3.1when the goods or services are not competitive or intrinsicallyrelated. 15.1[W]here there are significant differences in the design of the twomarks, the finding of similarity is a less important factor inestablishing a likelihood of confusion than it would be if the twomarks had been identical in design or nearly indistinguishable to acasual observer. 15.2§ 4:3 The Three-Part Test: Sound, Meaning, Appearance§ 4:3.1 Commercial ImpressionThe standard analysis compares the marks in sound, meaning andappearance; 16 these are the primary ways in which marks are “encounteredin the marketplace.” 17 As a separate element or “proxy” forthe sum of the three, one compares “the overall impression createdby the designations as they are used in marketing. . . .” 18 Similarity isMotor Exch. of Houston, Inc., 628 F.2d 500, 208 U.S.P.Q. 384, 388 (5thCir. 1980); Country Floors, Inc. v. Mizak, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1468, 1471(D. Conn. 1993) (“it is, of course, an inescapable conclusion that thegreater the similarity between the plaintiff ’s and defendant’s marks, thegreater the likelihood of confusion among consumers”); Ocean Bio-Chem,Inc. v. Turner Network Television, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 1546, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d1264, 1270 (S.D. Fla. 1990); MCA, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Adjustment Co.,8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1840, 1844 (N.D. Ill. 1988).15.1. In re Majestic, 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir.2003).15.2. In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1344, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1059 (Fed.Cir. 2003).16. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 165 F.3d 419, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1355, 1358(6th Cir. 1999); Miss World (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mrs. Am. Pageants, Inc., 856 F.2d1445, 1450, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 1988); Giant Food, Inc. v.Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 U.S.P.Q. 390, 395 (Fed. Cir.1983); John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 975, 219U.S.P.Q. 515, 524 (11th Cir. 1983); Henri’s Food Prods. Co. v. Kraft, Inc.,717 F.2d 352, 220 U.S.P.Q. 386, 388 (7th Cir. 1983).17. Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 22 F.3d 1527, 30U.S.P.Q.2d 1930, 1933 (10th Cir. 1994); Heartsprings, Inc. v. Heartspring,Inc., 143 F.3d 550, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481, 1483 (10th Cir. 1998).18. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 21(a)(i) (1995); W.W.W.Pharm. Co. v. Gillette Co., 984 F.2d 567, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1593, 1597 (2dCir. 1993) (“general impression”); UMG Recordings Inc. v. O’Rourke, 92U.S.P.Q.2d 1042, 1048–49 (T.T.A.B. 2009) (“When comparing the marks,we must consider the appearance, sound, connotation and commercialimpression of each mark . . . . The overall commercial impressions of themarks is [sic] a consideration occasionally used as a proxy for the ultimateconclusion of similarity or dissimilarity. In the case at hand . . . wespecifically consider commercial impression as a distinct consideration(Kirkpatrick, Rel. #28, 11/12)4–7