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 | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
