Creeping famous-mark-ism

Originally posted 2008-03-24 09:00:57. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The TTABlog comments on a TTAB decision finding, not surprisingly, that two similar looking trademarks are likely to be confused, but raises a key point about how the brand-equity-rich really are different:

I think the marks PLAYBOY and PLAY BODY are just too dang similar in spelling: the latter could easily be misread to be the former. It is interesting to note that the Board didn’t really say that the PLAYBOY mark is famous for clothing. It found the mark generally famous, but as to clothing are sales of $120 million enough for a claim of fame? Playboy pleaded a dilution claim, but did not pursue it. Did Playboy nonetheless get dilution-like protection under Section 2d based on its over-all fame?

It would sure seem that way, wouldn’t it? For perspective on the question, “as to clothing are sales of $120 million enough for a claim of fame?,” consider this earlier, funnier post.

email

Tags: ,

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

Subscribe

If you don't get enough email (who does?), I can send you LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blog posts by email! Free!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Movie title, characters or theme as trademark: And then some | LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® - October 23, 2013

    […] little background in copyright and trademark, that feel a need to ensure that there’s a soft, spongy legal cushion around brand equity and the profitability of the companies that claim […]

Leave a Reply