Source: https://ttabcenter.com/ttabcase/tivo-brands-llc-v-tivoli-llc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:21:16+00:00

Document:
1By order dated May 19, 2016, the Board consolidated the two proceedings. 16 TTABVUE.
Trial and Appeal Boards publically available docket history system) in Opposition No.
91221632, the parent case in this proceeding.
of the mark on May 30, 2010.
of the mark on September 21, 2015.
television programming, in International Class 41.
multimedia content, in International Class 41.
services in International Class 35.
5 Opposer did not plead a family of marks.
Applicant further asserted a prior registration defense under Morehouse Mfg. Corp.
Inc. v. Am. Wine Trade Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1224, 1225 n.2 (TTAB 2012).
Morehouse defense is, as noted, considered waived.
acquisition by another of a set of rights to which objection is later made.
on July 12, 2018. We sustain the oppositions under Trademark Act § 43(c).
9 27 TTABVUE; continuation of Exhibit B at 28 TTABVUE.
2.120(k)(3)(i), 37 CFR § 2.120(k)(3)(i).
19 41 TTABVUE (confidential version at 35 TTABVUE).
admissions may not be made of record under a notice of reliance.
TIVO was recognized as a household brand name for DVR players.
24 Harrall Decl., 27 TTABVUE 2.
these registrations encompass the DVR product.
29 Coppins Dep., 25 TTABVUE 23.
33 Mr. Briseno testified that all but the TIVOFLEX mark are still in use. 26 TTABVUE 27.
34 Briseno Dep., 26 TTABVUE 30.
35 Coppins Dep., 25 TTABVUE 30.
outcome of the proceeding and a reasonable basis for its belief that it will be damaged.
Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
37 Applicants Response to Opposers Interrogatory No 2, Set One, 20 TTABVUE 10.
Inc. v. George Putnam & Co., 811 F.2d 1470, 1 USPQ2d 1772, 1773 (Fed. Cir.
MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 19:52 (5th ed. 2018 update). Mr.
Reliance, which bear a 2015 copyright notice and the notation 09.21.15. 36 TTABVUE 398.
2015 (or not until the filing of its application in 2016) is immaterial.
competition, or of actual economic injury.
4. Defendants use of its mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring.
Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1723-24 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
factors set out in Section 43(c)(1).
A. IS TIVO A FAMOUS MARK FOR DILUTION PURPOSES?
concepts, and dilution fame requires a more stringent showing.); Palm Bay Imps.
with the marks owner. Coach Servs., 101 USPQ2d at 1725 (quoting Toro Co. v.
services offered under the mark.
1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.
Trademark Act § 1125(c)(2)(A); 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A).
ADVERTISING AND PUBLICITY OF THE MARK.
40 In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).
41 Harrall Decl., 27 TTABVUE 3.
TiVo Brand Digital Video Recorder (March 5, 2002).
Extend The TIVOtogo Experience (January 6, 2005).
46 Keane Dep., 35 TTABVUE 31-2.
finding that the mark is famous for dilution purposes.
3. THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL RECOGNITION OF THE MARK.
48 Harrall Decl., 27 TTABVUE 3; Opposers Brief, 47 TTABVUE 23.
51 Keane Dep., 35 TTABVUE 22.
distributors, and consumer electronics manufacturers.
5324 TTABVUE 45. Mullins, Televisions Record Numbers, TAMPA TRIB. (March 13, 2009).
consumers have been exposed to statements regarding TIVOs notoriety.
54 24 TTABVUE 10, 13 and 17.
seamless consumer experience (May 25, 2010).
Harralls declaration, as bulky exhibits.
popular American television shows during the years 2005-2008.
59 Harrall Decl., 27 TTABVUE 4; Exhibit B.
61 Typically, a hit contains two or three references to TIVO.
Date: 06/24/2007 Time: 01:30AM Aired On: KNTV Affiliate: NBC Show: Tech Now!
early for cocktails.From the tech museum of innovation in the heart of silicon valley.
product watch” gives advertisers a chance to reach subscribers with ads and information.
presley is selling marketing rights to the elvis estate to a promoter, price tag $100 million.
people waiting not for concert tickets or a flu shot. Just make sure that you get TiVo .
thinking? Free TiVo , period. Great gift. I started when i arrived. You are this far already.
§ 2(e). Trademark Act § 14(3), 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3).
Accordingly, this factor also favors a finding of dilution fame.
67 Opposers burden to show that its mark was famous at time of trial is discussed infra.
famous prior to the date an allegedly dilutive mark is first used by the defendant.
we have in each of these cases.
F.2d 1156, 17 USPQ2d 1866 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
that its mark is still famous at trial, when defendants rights are being determined.
additional requirement exists, we draw upon the language of the statute itself.
distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness to bring a claim.
of its mark and trial.
Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1730 (Fed. Cir.
of Opposers primary TIVO mark.
activities may impact determination as of that date).
71 Golden Globes: Top 5 TiVo Moments (Video), hollywoodreporter.com (January 13, 2014).
awareness of TIVO within the United States from 2011 to trial.
73James Poniewozik, Why I still Love TiVo and How a Sous Vide Gadget Rescued Me, N.Y.
TIMES, February 15, 2017, 24 TTABVUE 82.
POST, April 23, 2017, 24 TTABVUE 85.
factors for federal trademark dilution under Section 43(c) of the Trademark Act.
B. IS OPPOSERS FAMOUS MARK DISTINCTIVE?
ALLEGEDLY DILUTES OPPOSERS FAMOUS MARK?
TIVOTAPE (May 30, 2010) and TIVOBAR (2015) marks.
the distinctiveness of the famous mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B).
name and the famous mark.
engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.
to create an association with the famous mark.
1. THE DEGREE OF SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE MARKS.
overall commercial impressions that the required association exists. Id.
element in Applicants marks, and forms the entirety of Opposers mark.
entirety of another mark, as is the case here. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E.
155, 156 (TTAB 1982) (EBONY is similar to EBONY DRUM); In re S. Bend Toy Mfg.
Co., 218 USPQ 479, 480 (TTAB 1983) (LIL LADY BUG is similar to LITTLE LADY).
75 36 TTABVUE 30; 25 TTABVUE 29.
is called company folklore  TiVo has TV in it and the I and O started out as a one and zero.
by the mark. In re Natl Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir.
on the likelihood of confusion.) (quoting Natl Data, 224 USPQ at 752).
Pork Bd. v. Supreme Lobster and Seafood Co., 96 USPQ2d 1479, 1497 (TTAB 2010).
This dilution factor favors Opposer.
also Coach Services, 101 USPQ2d at 1723-24.
particular source. Toro Co., 61 USPQ2d at 1184. This dilution factor favors Opposer.
services. The evidence does not show the term TIVO alone used as a mark by others.
arguing that this shows that Opposers mark is weak, the evidence is unpersuasive.
registrations submitted by Applicant have little, if any, probative value.
that Opposers use is not substantially exclusive.
Quality, Inc., 507 F.2d 1404, 184 USPQ 422, 424-25 (CCPA 1975); Jansen Enters. Inc.
these registrations are not probative and this dilution factor favors Opposer.
4. THE DEGREE OF RECOGNITION OF THE FAMOUS MARK.
recognition of the famous TIVO mark.
favors a finding of dilution by blurring.
association with Opposers TIVO mark. In view thereof, this dilution factor is neutral.
TRADE NAME AND THE FAMOUS MARK.

References: v. 
 § 43
 § 2
 v. 
 § 19
 v. 
 v.

 § 1125
 § 1125

§ 2
 § 14
 § 1064
 v. 
 § 1125
 v. 
 v.