Source: http://brianconroy.com/category/todays-interesting-ip/page/338/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:13:07+00:00

Document:
With seed capital plummeting and the funding market softening, the failure by policymakers to create tax reliefs equal to the UK’s EIS-SEIS is shameful, writes John Kennedy.
The post Ireland’s start-ups are sitting on a seed funding time bomb appeared first on Silicon Republic.
External Article – Doctor! Doctor! My trade mark opposition has been dismissed!
Dr Dre, otherwise known by the US Patent and Trade Mark Office as a “hip hop cash king” (seriously), is considered to be the third wealthiest rapper in the world, with an estimatednet worth of $740 million. He is known for hit songs such as No Diggity and I Need a Doctor; and is credited as a key figure in the elevation of a particular style of rap music called West Coast G-funk, which involes synthesizer-based music with slow, heavy beats. As well as those headphones all the cool kats are wearing; Beats by Dre (which he sold to Apple for $3bn).
Dr Dre opposed the registration on the grounds of:1) likelihood of confusion [Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)] 2) false suggestion of a connection [TMA S. 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)] and,3) dilution [TMA S. 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)] (although this claim was not pursued).
Both parties submitted evidence which included printouts of websites, such as pages purporting to show the notoriety, strength, and fame of Dr Dre and his trade marks, and Internet printouts from Amazon.com… regarding Applicant’s principal Draion Burch’s book sales. This evidence is admissible [Trademark Rule 2.122(e)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e)(2)].
However, it declined to apply the exception in relation to printouts relating to Dr Dre’s awards lists, chart history, sales statistics. This was because Dr Dre had not shown that these Internet pages are generally used or relied upon by the public. In addition, Dr Dre had included printouts from Wikipedia, Genius.com…, IMDB.com…, biography.com… and allmusic.com… as “online reference works.” But the Board stated that it had not been shown that any online sources constituted a standard reference work or are were authoritative material. Previously, in re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., 84 USPQ2d 1028, 1032 (TTAB 2007) it had been determined that Wikipedia was unreliable due to its collaborative nature that “permits anyone to edit the entries.” So the Board determined the website printouts as hearsay.
However, Dr Drai also requested the exception for the term “dre” as defined in urbandictionary.com…. The Board noted that slang dictionaries can be appropriate only when they have a print edition, and since Urban Dictionary is a collaborative source, it is treated the same as Wikipedia, so they declined.
Similarity of Marks The Board decided that the marks are similar in appearance in that both are two words with each mark having as the first word an identically pronounced abbreviation for doctor (Dr.), and the second word in each mark beginning with the letters dr. The Applicant attempted to claim that Drai might be pronounced “dry” as in “thai”, “chai”, or “bonsai” but the board decided that the words were phonetic equivalents and capable of being pronounced so as to sound similar, with consumers pronouncing the DRE/DRAI portion of each parties’ mark with a “long a” sound. [All those dictionary printouts for nothing!]As such, the marks are similar as to sound, the words have the same pronunciation and connotation of a name and the Board weighed in favour of a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
Whilst market strength is the extent to which the relevant public recognises a mark as denoting a single source – “the degree of association in the mind of the consumer of the mark with the source of the goods or services based on the exclusivity (and sometimes renown) of the mark."
Relatedness of Goods and Services and Channels of TradeReminding us of the threshold the Broad state that the goods and services do not have to be identical or even competitive in order to determine that there is a likelihood of confusion; rather, it is sufficient that the respective goods and services are related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing must be such that the goods and services will be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that they originate from the same source. [Coach Servs., 101 USPQ2d at 1722, (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechler, 83 USPQ 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000)].
Credit: StarleighDr Dre argued (without any evidence submitted) that it is a common practice of celebrities to use their names in connection with a vast array of goods and services and that a connection would be presumed.

References: § 1052
 § 1052
 § 1125
 § 2
 v. 
 v.