Beckett v. Urban et al., No. 15-cv-1407 (C.D. Cal. dated July 6, 2015).
A trademark infringment and dilution claim against country music star Keith Urban, concerning the mark PLAYER, was dismissed on the pleadings. The Court found that plaintiff’s mark of “PLAYER” and Defendant s’ mark “Player by Keith Urban” are not sufficiently similar. Defendants use of the phras e “by Keith Urban” clearly denotes that Keith Urban is the good’s source, dispelling any potenti al confusion with Plaintiff’s band “PLAYER.” Further, the Court found that Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ goods and servicees are not closely re lated. Plaintiff’s trademark is for audio and video recordings featuring music and artistic performances by a rock band and for entertainment services in the nature of live audio performances by a rock band. Defendants are marketing a guitar and guitar lesson kit complete with audio a nd video recordings that teaches a consumer to use and play guitar. As to the dilution claim, Plaintiff failed to allege that his mark is sufficiently famous.
July 9, 2015
July 8, 2015
Jackson 5 Tribute Band Trademark Cancelled
Wonderbread 5 v. Gilles, TTAB No. 92052150 (TTAB 6/30/2015).
This case involves a dispute about who owns the band’s name in the wake of the departure of one of the band’s five members. The band, a Jackson 5 tribute band, filed a petition to cancel a trademark registration obtained by a former member who filed the application for the registration only 3 days after he was fired from the band. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the mark WONDERBREAD 5 was not “personal” to the applicant/departing-band-member (Gilles), or for that matter, any of the band members as individual musicians. Rather, the mark signified the collective “style and quality” of the group, and the partnership, not the departing band member, controlled those qualities. That is to say, the mark WONDERBREAD 5 identified a Jackson 5 tribute band, not a “particular performer combination.” Thus, because the consuming public did not associate the mark with a particular member (but rather, a style of tribute band), the applicant did not "own" the mark when he applied for it. The application was therefore void ab initio, and the registration was cancelled.
This case involves a dispute about who owns the band’s name in the wake of the departure of one of the band’s five members. The band, a Jackson 5 tribute band, filed a petition to cancel a trademark registration obtained by a former member who filed the application for the registration only 3 days after he was fired from the band. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the mark WONDERBREAD 5 was not “personal” to the applicant/departing-band-member (Gilles), or for that matter, any of the band members as individual musicians. Rather, the mark signified the collective “style and quality” of the group, and the partnership, not the departing band member, controlled those qualities. That is to say, the mark WONDERBREAD 5 identified a Jackson 5 tribute band, not a “particular performer combination.” Thus, because the consuming public did not associate the mark with a particular member (but rather, a style of tribute band), the applicant did not "own" the mark when he applied for it. The application was therefore void ab initio, and the registration was cancelled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
