Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The TTABlog

Intellectual Property Law

: The TTABlog

Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Why Are "ECSTA LX PLATINUM" and "PLATINUM" Not Confusingly Similar for Tires?

Applicant Kumho Tire sought to register the mark ECSTA LX PLATINUM for "tires; inner tubes for vehicle tires; mud flaps for vehicles; inner tubes." [At first, I thought it was a Latin proverb: "Law is platinum" - ed.] The Examining Attorney refused registration, deeming the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark PLATINUM for tires. The Board reversed. Why? In re Kumho Tire Co., Serial No. 77377089 (November 12, 2010) [not precedential].Applicant contended that PLATINUM is a weak mark because the term is laudatory and therefore entitled to a limited scope of protection; that ECSTA is the dominant portion of its mark; and that the ECSTA LX portion is sufficient to distinguish the marks. It relied on website pages and third-party registrations for marks including the word PLATINUM in connection with tires, automotive products, and various other goods...continue to full post

Full post as published by The TTABlog on November 22, 2010 (boomark / email).