Source: https://ttabcenter.com/ttabcase/rhythm-holding-limited-v-frank-w-ivey-and-christian-patrick-richards-jr-both-d-b-a-rhythm-n/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:09:42+00:00

Document:
intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
2 Issued on April 21, 2009; renewed.
3 Issued November 30, 2010; renewed.
4 Issued December 14, 2010; renewed.
5 Issued January 22, 2013.
In their answer, Applicants denied the salient allegations in Opposers pleading.
1750, 1753 n.6 (TTAB 2013), affd mem., 565 F. Appx 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
6 Notice of Opposition ¶ 1; 1 TTABVUE 4.
p. 7 n.1; 21 TTABVUE 8.
8 13 and 14 TTABVUE.
USPTO electronic database showing that Registration No.
110 USPQ2d 1458, 1461 (TTAB 2014).
the outcome of the proceeding. Ritchie, 50 USPQ2d at 1026.
registrations are of record, Opposer has established its standing. See Cunningham v.
Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982).
source or sponsorship of Applicants goods. Cunningham, 55 USPQ2d at 1848.
USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974)).
In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Herbko Intl, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed.
Registration Nos. 3610417, 3884199, and 3890579, under the second du Pont factor.
walking shorts, and sports shirts with short sleeves. Opposers Registration No.
identical or legally identical in part.
In re Am. Cruise Lines, Inc., 128 USPQ2d 1157, 1158 (TTAB 2018).
not restrict either, we cannot consider the asserted differences in our determination.
15 Applicants Trial Brief, p. 6; 22 TTABVUE 11.
and RHYTHM LIVIN marks and the scope of protection to which they are entitled.
1689, 1694 (Fed Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted)).
17 Applicants Trial Brief, pp. 10-12; 22 TTABVUE 15-17.
18 Id. at pp. 10-11; 22 TTABVUE 15-16.
19Applicants Notice of Reliance, Exhs. M-R and T-U; 17 TTABVUE 117-153, and 159-173.
registration is generally evidence only of the fact that that registration issued. See Bond v.
cancelled registration submitted by Applicants no probative value.
CASINO RESORT sweatshirts, hats and caps.
distinguish them based on minor differences. Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters.
73 USPQ2d at 1693, quoted in Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co.
Juice Generation, 115 USPQ2d at 1674).
sixth du Pont factor is neutral.
the term RHYTHM in the mark for goods in International Class 25.
meaning when used in connection with clothing items.
USPQ2d 1123, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
20 Opposers Trial Brief, pp. 20-21; 21 TTABVUE 21-22.
LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1056 (TTAB 2017).
However, statutory presumptions do not affect the likelihood of confusion analysis.
21 Id.; 21 TTABVUE 21-22.
Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1518 n. 25 (TTAB 2016).
activities in the ladies apparel fields, previously referred to.).
marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties. Coach Servs. v.
restrictions as to price or quality, the average purchaser is an ordinary consumer.
USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016).
marks in their entireties. Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1161.
the two. See, e.g., In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed.
similar to opposers PRECISION mark).
most important things in music is consistent with the third definition submitted by Opposer.
Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed.
be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered).
similar than different in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression.
HAYMAKER emanates from same source or is connected in some way).
wealthy lifestyle. See Applicants Notice of Reliance, Exh. A; 17 TTABVUE 9-10.
sound or connotation is sufficient to support likely confusion).
Thus, the first du Pont factor also favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
deem this du Pont factor neutral.
of buyers vary from the sophisticated fashionista to the ordinary bargain hunter.
impulse. See Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed.
favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
with respect to Applicants intent-to-use application, so this factor is neutral.
confusion cannot yet exist. Accordingly, these du Pont factors are neutral.
24 Opposers Trial Brief pp. 22-23; 21 TTABUVE 23-24.
25 Opposers Trial Brief p. 23; 21 TTABVUE 24.
a finding of likelihood of confusion or are neutral.
allowance solely with respect to the goods identified in International Class 28.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.