[E-trademarks] Trademarks without vowels

[Jaclyn Ionin]

Don't those types of marks also get the full written word entered as a
pseudo mark on USPTO's end as part of the application record?


JACLYN IONIN, ESQ.
Owner, Principal Attorney, Ionin Law
<https://www.facebook.com/ioninlaw> <https://www.instagram.com/ioninlaw/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ioninlaw/> <https://calendly.com/ioninlaw>
  Trademark & Business Law
  646.470.1167
  www.ioninlaw.com
  31 Hudson Yards, FL 11 New York, NY 10001
<https://maps.google.com/?q=31%20Hudson%20Yards,%20FL%2011%20New%20York,%20NY%2010001>
[image: App Banner Image]


On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 4:25 PM Cumbow, Bob via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Instructive in this regard is the 2023 case of Nike’s application to
> register SNKRS, refused on grounds of genericness and, alternatively,
> descriptiveness without secondary meaning; the TTAB overturned the refusal
> on both grounds. See John Welch’s TTABlog coverage at
> https://thettablog.blogspot.com/2023/08/ttablog-test-is-snkrs-generic-for-or.html
>
>
>
> bob
>
>
> Bob
>  Cumbow
> Partner
> Miller Nash LLP
> 605 5th Ave S, Ste 900 | Seattle, WA 98104
> Direct: 206.777.7468  |
> Cell: 425.443.0990  |
> Office: 206.624.8300
> Email <Robert.Cumbow at millernash.com>  |
> Bio <https://www.millernash.com/professionals/robert-c-cumbow>  |
> Insights <https://www.millernash.com/firm-news>
>  |
> Website <https://www.millernash.com/>
> Our attorneys regularly offer insights to address the challenges faced by
> our clients. To visit the Miller Nash industry-focused blog overview page
> on our updated website: please click this link
> <https://www.millernash.com/firm-news>.
> ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑​​​​
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message may contain confidential or
> privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake,
> please do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute the email. Instead,
> please notify us immediately by replying to this message or telephoning us.
> Thank you.
> ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
>
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Edward Timberlake via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2024 1:14 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Edward Timberlake <ed at timberlakelaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] Trademarks without vowels
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL MESSAGE: This email originated from outside of the firm. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.]*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> The same sound, appearance, meaning, overall commercial impression, etc.
> analysis will apply whether a mark has vowels or not.
>
>
>
> And Trademark Examining Attorneys will be accustomed to seeing such marks
> and searching for their phonetic equivalents, which means a likelihood of
> confusion refusal would be extremely likely in the situation you describe.
>
>
>
> You would of course be welcome to argue that the marks differ in
> appearance, but greater weight is often given to the sound of marks over
> their appearance. And you could argue that one of the marks is pronounced
> differently, but for the purposes of registration there is no "correct"
> pronunciation when it comes to assessing whether confusion would be
> considered likely.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Ed Timberlake
>
> *Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law
> <https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473>*
>
>
>
> *Timberlake Law* <http://timberlakelaw.com/>
>
> Chapel Hill, NC
>
>
>
> Schedule a call on Clarity <https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake>
>
> ed at timberlakelaw.com
>
> 919.960.1950
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:54 PM Dale Quisenberry via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> I feel like there has been some discussion about trademarks without
> vowels, but am not finding it.
>
>
>
> An example is an application is filed on TMBLR
>
>
>
> Suppose a registration already exists for TUMBLER for the same
> goods/services.
>
>
>
> Has anyone encountered a similar situation?  Will the Examiner issue a
> likelihood of confusion refusal?  Are you aware of any cases in this area?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Dale
>
>
>
> C. Dale Quisenberry
>
> Quisenberry Law PLLC
>
> 13910 Champion Forest Drive, Suite 203
>
> Houston, Texas 77069
>
> (832) 680.5000 (office)
>
> (832) 680.1000 (mobile)
>
> (832) 680.5555 (facsimile)
>
> www.quisenberrylaw.com
>
>
>
> *This email may contain information that is confidential and subject to
> the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and other applicable
> privileges.  This email is intended to be received only by those to whom it
> is specifically addressed.  Any receipt of this email by others is not
> intended to and shall not waive any applicable privilege.  If you have
> received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the
> sender by separate email.  Thank you.*
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240515/3c1c2b54/attachment.htm>