‘Likelihood of Confusion’, the most proactive term heard in infringement cases. Better known as the touchstone of trademark infringement, the term plainly means a degree of confusion that exists between two marks capable of causing potential deception amongst the purchasing force, such that they are under the assumption that the marks are somehow associated with each other. Factors like a visual representation, sound, goods, and services, trade channels, nature of use, amongst others, are usually presented side by side so as to draw a comparison. It prima facie appears like a sound test irrespective of the fact whether or not it fulfills the ultimate purpose. That is, no confusion while seeing the marks together rather deception taking place in the absence of another. Businesses are blooming, the world is large, and the adoption of similar names is not a rare phenomenon anymore. A recent highlight is that Google stepped its foot into the arena this time claiming protection for its multinational brand “Pixel” while raising opposition against GM Photo’s “Blue Pixel”.
The applicant, GM Photo LLC is a New Jersey-based entity dealing in all sorts of in-commerce photography equipment. December last year, GM filed an application for the mark “Blue Pixel” bearing number 88732565 under Class 09 for goods including, “Camera tripods; Camera flashes; Connection cables; Camera lens mounts; Lenses for cameras; Camera handles; Underwater cameras; Microphones; Camera filters; Camera mounts and supports; Dashboard cameras; Camera hoods; Camera lens adapters; Wearable cameras; Lens hoods”.
Nobody messes with Google; the brand proves this every time. This time too, an opposition was filed by Google before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Do not touch my brand name was formally expressed as “likelihood of confusion” between Google’s Pixel and the applicant’s mark. Google pointed, it is the exclusive owner of the Pixel family of marks and has been launching products under the brand “Pixel” worldwide, since 2013. It goes without saying; the applicant’s mark “Blue Pixel” appears similar to Pixel. On top of that, the products in connection with the mark, to be exact “wearable cameras”, “microphone”, “connection cables” and “dashboard cameras”, are almost identical.
Naming it as an attempt “to trade off of Google’s well-known PIXEL marks and reputation”, the brand accuses GM of creating a deception or false connection in the minds of consumers as well as tradesmen. A further accusation pertaining to malafide use of the applied marks was raised contending that the applicant does not intend to use the marks for all the goods applied.
Practically speaking, the world co-relates the mark “Pixel” exclusively with Google. Would a prefix suffice to avert claims raised by Google? Let’s wait for what the deciding authorities have to say.
Tags :
