No Likelihood Of Confusion Exists Even Where Marks Are Similar
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.13.06
In M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communications, Inc. (No, 05-1599; June 7, 2006), a Federal Circuit panel affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's finding of no likelihood of confusion between Applicant's M2 COMMUNICATIONS mark and Opposer's M2 SOFTWARE mark.
M2 Communications, Inc. applied to register the M2 COMMUNICATIONS mark in connection with interactive multimedia CD-ROMs in the fields of pharmacy and medicine. M2 Software opposed registration of the mark based upon its registration for M2 SOFTWARE for, in relevant part “computer software featuring business management applications for the film and music industries; and interactive multimedia applications for entertainment, education and information, in the nature of artists' performances and biographical information from the film and music industries.” (emphasis added). The board found that while the marks are similar, no likelihood of confusion was present, primarily upon findings that the goods in question were not related and that the channels of trade and purchasers are different.
The board's decision is found to be supported by substantial evidence. Regarding relatedness of the goods, the panel observes that “the board properly found that M2 Communications' goods do not come within the actual scope of M2 Software's registration.”
The panel also agrees with the board's finding that both goods being CD-ROMs did not alone make the goods related, stating “it was proper for the board to ground its determination of relatedness in the fields for which the goods are created, rather than the media format in which they are delivered.” The court also agrees with the board's finding that the channels of trade and purchasers for the goods are different, finding that M2 Software conceded that all of its known customers are in the music or entertainment industries, while M2 Communications deals only with pharmaceutical and medical customers.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
