Apple verliest oppositie door MySpace mp3-logo
USPTO 18 september 2012 Dossier Nr. 85019762 (Apple music icon)
Mp3-logo gelijkenis Apple-inschrijving met MySpace merkregistratie. Gebrek onderscheidend vermogen geconstateerd. Er is verwarring te duchten bij het publiek. Bevestiging van de beslissing afwijzing van de inschrijving van het logo. Verzoeker claimt inschrijving van een muzieknoot als het logo voor de mogelijkheid tot downloaden mp3-bestand, zoals links weergegeven.
Er wordt nader onderzoek ingesteld naar de onderscheidende kracht van het logo. Tussen beide afbeeldingen is gebrek aan onderscheidend vermogen geconstateerd doordat dezelfde muzikale noot wordt gebruikt als logo voor dezelfde soort diensten. Daardoor is er verwarring te duchten bij het publiek. De USPTO bevestigd de afwijzing van het logo registratie.
Onder A: In comparing the marks within the above-noted legal parameters, the marks at issue aresimilar because they comprise a double musical note in an orange rectangle. The designs are notidentical because applicant’s rectangle has rounded corners, the shades of orange are different,and applicant’s double musical note is ascending while note in the registered mark is descending.Nevertheless, we find that the basic similarities in the marks outweigh any specific differencesthat might be apparent upon a side-by-side comparison. The differences in the details of therespective depictions of the double musical notes and their background designs do not suffice todistinguish the marks in terms of their overall commercial impressions. Regardless of the differences which might be apparent in a side-by-side comparison, both marks depict a doublemusical note in an orange rectangle. Thus, when the marks are viewed at different times, therecollection of the first viewed mark will be a general impression that is devoid of the details thatapplicant argues sets its mark apart from the registered mark. What will be remembered is amusical note in an orange rectangle. The fact that the marks are not identical is less significantto our analysis than the basic similarities arising from the fact that both marks include thedepiction of a double musical note in an orange rectangle
B.The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the products and services described in the application and registration. In view of the foregoing, we find that applicant’s software for processing audio content is related to registrant’s services of providing access to nondownloadable software for processing audio and video content.
F. Balancing the factors.In view of the facts that the marks are similar, the goods and services are related and areencountered by the same classes of consumers, we find that applicant’s double musical note anddesign for “computer software for use in reviewing, storing, organizing, and playing pre-recorded audio content, sold as a feature of handheld mobile digital electronic devices comprisedof digital audio and video players, handheld computers, personal digital assistants, and electronicpersonal organizers” is likely to cause confusion with the registered mark comprising a doublemusical note and design for “providing temporary use of nondownloadable software for adding
music and video profiles on the internet, for listening to MP3’s and for sharing MP3’s and musicplaylists with others.”
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed
