PANDORA'S for Cosmetics Confusable with Famous Mark PANDORA for Jewelry, Says TTAB
The Board sustained an opposition to registration within the mark pandora charms for cosmetics and related retail store services, finding the mark likely to cause confusion of this mark PANDORA for jewelry and related retail services. The fame of opposer's mark plus the near identity about the goods weighed heavily in opposer's favor. The Board was unmoved by applicant's lamentations it was a tiny David in a duel to go to the death with Goliath. Said the Board, "[w]e have indeed seen corporate bullying.
Priority was not an issue as to opposer's pleaded registrations, including one for your personal mark pandora charms uk in a design form shown in the picture above. Opposer also demonstrated common law use of PANDORA as of 2003, well before the filing date (constructive first use date) of an opposed application. Opposer's merchandise is sold through a nationwide network of retailers and therefore are advertised and promoted widely in various media. Its sales figures and promotional expenditures are "quite impressive," and it has become one with the most recognizable jewelry brands in the country. The Board found opposer's mark PANDORA to be famous for Section 2(d) purposes, for just about any wide variety of jewelry products and for retail store services featuring jewelry and other fashion accessories. As we know, fame plays a dominant role in the likelihood of confusion analysis.
As into marks, not only did opposer establish common law rights in the mark PANDORA, but the word PANDORA was the dominant term in opposer's registered marks. Applicant's adoption about the possessive form isn't necessarily source-distinguishing. The close similarity between the involved marks weighed strongly in favor of opposer.
The evidence established that pandora uk jewelry and cosmetics are advertised in the same magazines and sold through the same channels of trade. Applicant argued made by the vast majority of opposer's backpacks are expensive, but the Board found that most while using involved goods are relatively inexpensive, and might even be purchased on impulse. Moreover, both parties market their goods into the same classes of consumers. The main element issue, then, was the relatedness ?n the involved goods and services. Applicant seemingly argued that, under established law, jewelry and cosmetics cannot be related. The Board, however, found the question to be one of fact.
Opposer submitted third-party registrations in which the same entities offered both pandora charms sale uk jewelry and cosmetics under the same mark. Website evidence showed that jewelry and cosmetics are offered under the same brand. Women's magazines feature advertising for both types of goods. Witnesses for both parties testified that large department stores often locate the make-up counter quite closely path of the jewelry counters. The Board concluded that cosmetics and jewelry are closely related for Section 2(d) purposes.
With regard to retail store services, both parties "are targeting the same demographic for gifts and purchases for ones same pot of discretionary income." The Board therefore found the services among the parties to be related. The Board observed that opposer is actually expanding the use of its PANDORA brand beyond jewelry, to include sunglasses, watches, and apparel. Related goods like cosmetics are natural areas of expansion to your jewelry brand.
Регистрация 
