TTAB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 78/492,687 for the mark ROCKSTAR filed On September
`30, 2004 and published in the Official Gazette Of September 13, 2005.
`
`Opposition No. 91168789
`
`OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`01-17-2007
`
`U45. Patent & TMOfc/TM Mail Rcpt Dt. #;
`
`i
`
`I
`
`
`
`
`RUSSELL G. WEINER,
`
`Applicant.
`
`TAKE—TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC.,
`'
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`

`
`I TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Facts ..............................
`
`............................................................................. ..2
`
`A. Opposer.................................................
`
`.................................................................2
`
`B. Applicant ............................................................................................................... .. 5
`
`II.
`
`Opposer’s Burden on Summary Judgment ........................................................................ .. 8
`
`III.
`
`A Likelihood of Confusion is Not Present ........................................................................ .. 9
`
`A. Standard ...............................................
`
`................................................................ ..9
`
`B. The Similarity of the Parties’ Marks ................................................................... ..11
`
`C. The Parties’ Goods are Not Sufficiently Related .................................................. 13
`
`D. The Marks Make Distinct Commercial Impressions ........................................... ..15
`
`E. The Marks have Different Channels of Distribution....._ ...................................... .. 16
`
`F. Effect of Trade Dress ........................................................................................... ..17
`
`G. The Relevant Consumers are Sophisticated ........................................................ .. 17.
`
`H. Likelihood of Expansion is Unlikely ................................................................... .. 18
`
`I. Take-Two’s “Rockstar” Marks are Not Famous ................................................. .. 19
`
`J. The Nature and Extent of Actual Confusion ....................................................... ..21
`
`IV.
`
`Dilution is Not Likely to Occur ...............................................
`
`................................ .. 22
`
`A. Take-Two’s ROCKSTAR GAMES Marks are Not Famous ............................... ..22
`
`B. The Nature and Extent of Use of the Same or Similar Marks By Third Parties ...22
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Equitable Defenses .....................................................................
`
`........................ ..23
`
`Rockstar May Provide Evidence of Use of the Rockstar Marks ............................... ..23
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... ..24
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
`477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) ............................................................................................................ ..9
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Stanley Works
`59 F.3d 384, 399 (2d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................ ..17
`
`Beer Nuts, Inc. v. Clover Club Foods, Co.
`805 F.2d 920, 925 (10th Cir. 1986) ........................................................................................... .. 15
`
`Big 0 Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
`408 F. Supp. 1219, 1225 (D. Colo. 1976) ................................................................................. .. 18
`Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc.
`I
`293 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... ..20, 21
`
`A
`Carnival Brand Seafood Co. v. Carnival Brands, Inc.
`51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1929 (11th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................ ..19
`
`Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards
`148 F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................... ..10
`
`Coach House Restaurants, Inc. v. Coach and Six Restaurants, Inc.
`934 F.2d1551,1564(11th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................... ..23
`
`Cognis Corp. v. DBC LLC
`73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1766 (T.T.A.B. 2004) ..................................................................................... ..9,13
`
`Country Floors, Inc. v. Gepner
`.1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6049, *18, 16 U.S.P.Q.2D 1941, (E.D. Pa. 1990) ............................... ..18
`
`Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
`222 F.3d 943-44 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................ ..8
`
`Dent Doctor,IInc. v. Bates
`2003 TTAB LEXIS 84 (T.T.A.B. 2003) .........................................................................
`
`........ ..16
`
`Electronic Data Systems Corporation v. EDSA Micro Corporation
`23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1460, 1992 TTAB LEXIS 4, *15-16 (T.T.A.B. 1992) ...................................... ..20
`
`Giant Food, Inc. Nation ’s Foodservice, Inc.
`710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................. ..12
`
`

`
`Greenhouse Sys., Inc. v. Carson
`1995 TTAB LEXIS 1, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1748 (T.T.A.B. 1995) .............................................
`
`.... ..23
`
`-
`In re Bed & Breakfast Registry
`791 F.2d 157, 159 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................................... ..11
`
`In re British Bulldog, Ltd.
`224 U.S.P.Q. 854 (T.T.A.B. 1984) ............................................................................................ ..12
`
`In ‘re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
`476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ......................................................................................... ..9
`
`A
`In re Melville Corp.
`18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1286 (T.T.A.B. 1991) .......................... ... .......................................................... ..14
`
`In re National Data Corp.
`753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................. ..11, 12
`
`‘
`In re Refresh Skincare, Inc.
`2006 TTAB LEXIS 52 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2006) ...................................................................... .. 12
`
`In re Sears, Roebuck and Co.
`2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1312 (T.T.A.B. 1987) .......................................................................................... .. 12
`
`.
`In re Shell Oil
`992 F.2d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ......................... .. ...................................................................... ..11
`
`_
`_
`In re Smith and Mehaffey
`31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1531, 1532 (T.T.A.B. 1994) ..........................
`
`.................................................. ..12
`
`In re Sydel Lingerie Co., Inc.
`197 U.S.P.Q. 629 (T.T.A.B. 1977) ............................................................................................ .. 12
`
`In re Video Gaming Techs., Inc.
`2006 TTAB LEXIS 129 (T.T.A.B. April 4, 1006) .................................................................... ..«13
`
`Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art. Indus., Inc.
`963 F.2d 350, 355 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ......................................
`
`................................................... ..21
`
`.
`Kraft‘, Inc. v. Country Club Food Indus.
`230 U.S.P.Q. 549 (T.T.A.B. 1986) ......................................... .._. ............................................
`
`14
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Linville v. Rivard
`41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1731 (T.T.A.B. 1996) ........................................................................................ ..24
`
`Machine Head v. Dewey Global Holdings Inc.
`61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1313 (W.D. Pa. 2001) ........................................................................................ .. 18
`
`McGregor-Doniger, Inc. v. Drizzle, Inc.
`. 599 F.2d 1126, 1139'(2d Cir. 1979) .......................................................................................... .. 18
`
`I Mejia and Assoc., Inc. v. IBM
`' 920 F. Supp. 540, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) .................................................................................... .. 11
`
`’
`\
`Mele v. Davidson & Assoc.
`79 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1518 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) ..................................................................................... .. 14
`
`Nabisco, Inc. v.‘ PF Brands, Inc.
`191 F.3d 208 (-2d Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... ..22
`
`Nature ’s Best, Inc.‘ v. Ultimate Nutrition, Inc.
`323 F. Supp. 2d 429 (2004) ...............................................................
`
`...................................... ..11
`
`Nina Ricci S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enter., Inc.
`889 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................
`
`16
`
`Oprjyland USA Inc. v. The Great Am. Music Show
`970 F.2d 847, 849-50 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................ ..9
`
`Victor Comptometer Corp. v. Shakespeare Co.
`184 U.S.P.Q. 634 (T.T.A.B. 1974) ....................................
`
`...................................................... .. 19
`
`Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors,» Inc.
`748 F.2d 669, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................... .. 17
`
`The Sports Authority, Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp.
`89 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1996) ................
`........................................................................................ ..9
`
`The W.E. Bassett Co. v. The Scholl Mfg. Co.
`55 C.C.P.A. 821 (C.C.P.A. 1968) ....................................................
`
`........................................ ..23
`
`Toro Co. v. ToroHead, Inc.
`2001 TTAB LEXIS 823, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1164 (T.T.A.B. 2001) ............................................... ..22
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co.
`Ltd., 223 U.S.P.Q.2d 1000 (2d Cir. 1984) ................................................................................. .. 14
`
`_
`Vornado, Inc. v. Breuer Electric Mfg. Co.
`390 F.2d 724 (1968) .................................................................................................................. ..17
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 ................................................................................. ..7..9
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules, Rule 523.04 ............................................................. ..24
`
`

`
`Opposer founds its motion for summary judgment on unsubstantiated evidence and a bit
`
`of sleight of hand.
`
`It purposefully conflates and attempts to confuse the goods and services it
`
`offers under its “2K Sports” mark with its “Rockstar Games” mark, sweeping the goods and
`
`services offered under both of these marks into one amalgamated ‘-‘Rockstar Games” mark. But
`
`by putting forth certain sports-related video games it has offered under its “2K Sports” mark and
`
`mashing them under its “Rockstar Games” mark to try to conjure up an alleged likelihood of
`
`confusion, Opposer fails to reflect the reality of the marketplace, much less satisfy Opposer’s
`
`stiff burden on this motion.
`
`These allegations-that confusion will arise based on Applicant’s proposed use of the mark
`
`“Rockstar” for “Entertainment in the nature of football, baseball, basketball and hockey games;
`
`organization of sports events in the field of football, baseball, basketball and hockey” are simply
`
`unfounded for many reasons, including but not limited to:
`
`0
`
`Opposer does not submit any evidence of prior use of its “Rockstar Games” mark
`
`in conjunction with any sports-related goods or services. To the contrary, Opposer’s own
`
`evidence confirms that any notoriety for Rockstar Games has its genesis in being known for
`
`video games encouraging and rewarding the player for engaging in graphic violence (e.g.
`
`attacking individuals with a chainsaw), misogyny (e.g. viciously beating prostitutes with a
`
`baseball bat), premeditated murder (e.g. slaying homeless people), and other illegal, illicit, and
`
`morally bankrupt conduct in order "to “succeed” as the protagonist in the Rockstar Games
`
`universe.
`
`0
`
`The only evidence submitted by Opposer using the “Rockstar Games” mark for
`
`any “sport” comes from its purported rights arising from its “Rockstar Games Presents Table
`
`Tennis” video game — rights which did not begin to accrue until the filing date of Opposer’s
`
`Section 1(b) application for this mark o_n March 14, 2006,‘ well after the September 30, 2004
`
`
`
`‘ Serial No. 78/836966. Opposer also filed a Section 1(b) trademark application for “Rockstar Presents Table
`Tennis” on that same date, March 14, 2006 (Serial No. 78/836985), but does not appear to be using this mark in
`commerce.
`’
`
`

`
`filing date of the Application at issue. Although Opposer’s papers are rife with references to its
`
`ping-pong- game, such evidence is a red herring, given Applicant’s priority. .
`
`0
`
`Opposer fails to submit any evidence establishing that purchasers of its 2K Sports
`
`games are in any way aware that this imprint is affiliated with or sponsored by Opposer’s
`
`Rockstar Games imprint.
`
`0
`
`Opposer
`
`fails to submit any survey evidence establishing a likelihood of
`
`'
`
`confusion, despite clearly having the time and resources to do so, and the Board may draw the
`
`appropriate negative inference concerning Opposer’s motion.
`
`0
`
`Applicant has already obtained substantial goodwill for his own ROCKSTAR
`
`marks in conjunction with sponsoring various sporting events for several years, prior even to
`
`Opposer’s launch of its 2K Sports imprint.
`
`Accordingly, Opposer starkly fails to meet
`
`its threshold burden of establishing the
`
`absence of a genuine issue of material fact in its favor. The Board should find for Applicant.
`
`1. Statement of Facts
`
`A.
`
`Opposer
`
`As asserted in Opposer’s papers, Rockstar Games (“RG”) is a video game label that is
`wholly owned by Take-«Two Interactive Software,
`Inc.
`(“Take-Two”), a publicly traded
`
`company. Take-Two Rockstar Games publishes video games under different imprints, including
`
`Rockstar Games, 2K, 2K Sports,4Global Star, and Gathering. See Exh. C to the Declaration of
`
`Raffi V. Zerounian (hereinafter “Zerounian Decl.”)
`
`Take-Two established the 2K Sports publishing label in 2005. See Exh. B to Zerounian
`
`Decl., Press Release: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Announces Formation of 2K Games
`
`Publishing Label. Take-Two established the 2K Sports 1abel—which is separate and distinct
`from the Rockstar Games label—to publish sports games. See id. (“2K Games will publish .
`.
`.
`
`I
`
`also Exh. C to Zerounian Decl.,
`label.”);i see
`the 2K Sports
`titles under
`sports
`www.2kgames.com/about (Founded in 2005, 2K develops and publishes [games] .
`.
`. with a
`
`

`
`strong concentration in three distinct categories, sports, high profile licenses and specialty
`
`product”)
`As occurs similarly with book publishers or record labels, Take-Two created different
`
`imprints for different genres of video’ games. See Exh. C to Zerounian Decl., Press Release:
`
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Unveils New Publishing Label: Gotham Games, (“Gotham
`
`Games is being launched to specifically focus on publishing outstanding content accessible to
`
`consumers of all ages at a variety of price points”); Exh. C to Zerounian Decl., Press Release:
`
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Announces Formation of 2K Games Publishing Label (Dan
`
`Houser, the founder of Rockstar Games, described.the genre of Rockstar Games as borrowing
`39
`
`.
`.
`.
`content from “gangster movies, care chases, [the movie] ‘The Warriors, ’ [and] westerns .
`See THE NEW YORK TIMES, Gangs of New York (Oct. 1d, 2005), Exh. D to Zerounian Decl.
`
`(Take-Two’s Exh. 10). Mr. Houser contrasted this genre with games involving “space or
`
`science-fiction or elves” which Rockstar’ Games “couldn ’t do that well” and would not want to
`
`make. Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, by Opposer’s own admission, its imprints are limited
`
`with respect to the genres that they can offer.2
`
`Opposer’s '“2K” imprint is featured prominently in most of the sports-themed video
`games offered under the “2K Sports” label,
`including COLLEGE HOOPS 2K7, NHL 2K7,
`NBAZK7, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 2K6, NHL 2K6, and NBA 2K6.
`See Exh. E to
`
`Zerounian Decl., TT 2154; TT 2159; TT 2160 (NHL 2K6); TT 2227 (ESPN 2K5), TT 2248
`
`(NBA 2K6); TT 2154 (College Hoops 2K6);' TT 2157 (Major League Baseball 2K6). The
`
`Rockstar Games mark does not appear anywhere on the “2K Sports” video games.
`Instead of sports or the other more family-friendly fare offered under the “2K Sports”
`imprint, Rockstar Games offers video games that primarily promote illegal, illicit and graphically
`violentconduct, with certain video games requiring the purchaser to be at least 18 years old due
`
`
`
`2 Thus, for example, Take-Two’.s point that it has entered into agreements with Major League Baseball (for the.2K
`Sports imprint) is a non-starter since these arrangements do not involve the ROCKSTAR GAMES Marks, which,
`again, by Opposer’s own admission, are focused on gangsters, car chases, and westerns.
`
`

`
`to the game’s content. Such titles include the Grand Theft Auto series and Manhunt.
`
`[Zerounian
`
`Decl., 1] 3]
`
`Unlike the “2K Sports” imprint, Opposer does not place the “Rockstar” title in the names
`
`of its video games published under the Rockstar Games imprint.3 See, e.g., Manhunt, Bully,
`
`Grand Theft Auto — Vice City, and Grand Theft Auto — San Andreas.
`
`In addition, neither the
`
`“Take-Two” mark nor the “2K” (or “2K Sports”) imprint appears on Rockstar Games marks.
`
`Zerounian Decl., 113; Exh. F to Zerounian Decl.
`
`I As noted, the only “sports” video game offered under the Rockstar Games imprint is
`“Rockstar Games Present Table Tennis.”4 Opposer makes much of this product, as it is the only
`
`“evidence” tethering Rockstar Games to “sports,” no matter how remotely. However, as noted,
`
`the Application at issue has priority over Opposer’s Table Tennis Applications.
`
`[Zerounian
`
`Decl., 113.] This argument will not save the day for Opposer.
`
`Putting aside the priority that Applicant has over Opposer’s own Table Tennis
`
`Applications, the evidence confirms that a table-tennis themed video game was quite a deviation
`
`for Rockstar Games and its exploitation of violence, far from a logical extension of any rights
`
`Opposer may have in the Rockstar Games mark. No less an authority than the New York Times
`has noted that “Table Tennis” appears misplaced amongst Opposer’s other games sold under the
`
`Rockstar Games label:
`
`“When Ifirst read about Rockstar Games Present Table Tennis, I thought it
`must be some kind of prank. How could Rockstar,
`the developer of such,
`blood-drenched titles as Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, be
`making a table tennis game?”
`
`THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 15, 2006 “From the Maker of Grand Theft Auto Table Tennis?” Exh.
`
`F to Zerounian Decl. (Opposer’s Exh._ 10) (emphasis added). The article continued: “l enjoyed
`
`3 The only exception to date is “Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis,” which, for reasons noted below, hurts,
`rather than supports, Opposer’s case, as Opposer’s rights in this mark are junior to the subject Application.
`
`’4 Table tennis is also known as “ping pong.”
`
`

`
`the game, but not as much as I enjoyed wondering how Rockstar cameito make it. It seems like a
`
`bizarre departure for -a company whose previous games have all revolved around something
`
`illegal.” Id. (emphasis added).5
`
`B.
`
`Applicant
`
`Russell G. Weiner is the applicant. Mr. Weiner is no stranger to the extensive, and quite
`
`successful, use of ROCKSTAR marks in commerce. He is the C.E.O. of Rockstar, Inc. Rockstar is
`
`a well-known producer and international distributor of ROCKSTAR ENERGY DRINK®, DIET
`
`ROCKSTAR ENERGY DRINK®, ROCKSTAR JUICED®, in addition to other beverages, such as
`
`ROCKSTAR ZERO CARBTM, produced under the authority of Rockstar (collectively, “Rockstar
`Energy Drinks”), which are premium, high-quality energy
`Declaration ofRussell G.. Weiner
`
`in Support of Applicant’s Opposition to Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Weiner
`
`Decl.”), ‘W 1-2.
`
`Rockstar Energy Drinks are the number three selling energy drinks in the United States,
`
`trailing only Red Bull and Hansen. As a result of Rockstar’s promotional efforts and success,
`Rockstar’s beverages are ubiquitous in the marketplace. Weiner Decl.,1[ 3.
`
`Mr. Weiner is the owner of the Rockstar Marks, and has continuously and substantially
`
`licensed the ROCKSTAR marks in interstate commerce for Rockstar’s energy drinks since 2001 to
`
`great success. Rockstar grossed over $200 million in revenue in 2005 utilizing Mr. Weiner’s
`
`Rockstar Marks, and realized approximately $300 million in revenue in 2006. Weiner Decl., 11 3, 5.
`
`I
`
`Having begun use of the Rockstar Marks at least as early as 2001, Applicant has established
`
`common law rights since that time through continuous use throughout the United States for~many of
`
`the services referenced above, in addition to their federal registration rights. Rockstar’s products
`
`bear the following ROCKSTAR federally registered trademarks:
`
`(1) ROCKSTAR (stylized),'U.S.
`
`5 Take-Two also asserts a throwaway argument that it “already produces sports games bearing the T2 Rockstar
`Marks for .
`.
`. auto racing.” Upon closer inspection, Take-_Two’s “auto racing” game has no relation to sports, and
`even less relation to the sports identified in the subject Application. The “auto racing” video game that Take-Two
`refers to is its “Midnight Club” series of video games. See Rutcofsky Aff. 1] 25. The game play involved in the
`“Midnight Club” series of video games involves auto theft and illegal street racing, a far cry from the subject matter
`at issue in the pending Application.
`
`
`
`

`
`Trademark Registration No. 2784403, registered on November 18, 2003, in Class 32 for “sports
`
`drinks, namely, energy drinks”;
`
`(2) ROCKSTAR, U.S. Trademark Registration “No. 3107439,
`
`registered on June 20, 2006, in Class 33 for “distilled spirits and alcoholic beverage produced from
`
`a brewed malt base with natural flavors”; (3) ROCKSTAR ENERGY DRINK, U.S. Trademark
`
`Registration No. 2613067, registered on Augusti27_, 2002, in Class 32 for “sports drinks, namely,
`
`energy drinks”; (4) PARTY LIKE A ROCKSTAR, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2545247,
`
`registered on March 5, 2002,
`
`in Class 32 for “sports drinks, namely, energy drinks”;
`
`(5)
`
`ROCKSTAR JUICED, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3190229, registered on December 26,
`
`2006, in Class 32 for “Sports drinks, namely, energy drinks”; (6) ROCKSTAR ENERGY COLA,
`
`U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3181547, registered on December 5, 2006, in Class 32 for “Soft
`
`drinks, namely colas.”6 Weiner Decl., fil5.
`
`Rockstar’s beverages are currently distributed in the majority of the country by The Cola-
`
`Cola Company and maintain approximately 100,000 nationwide points of distribution, including
`
`_ grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores, warehouse retailers, restaurants, bars, nightclubs,
`
`gas stations, taverns, and other retail establishments located throughout the United States. Such
`
`points of distribution include without limitation, Safeway, A1bertson’s, Vons, Walgreens, Longs,
`
`Costco, Circle K, Publix, Sam’s, Wal-Mart, Chevron, _Philips 66, Shell-Texaco, 7‘-Eleven, Home
`Depot, Blockbuster Video, Bally’s Fitness, Best Buy, Six Flags, and many others. Rockstar has also
`successfully launched its beverages in Canada, Europe, and Central and South America. Weiner
`Decl., 11 4.
`I
`Rockstar has expended several millions dollars promoting its beverages in its extensive
`
`promotions and advertisements,’ which include a national billboard campaign costing several million
`
`
`(1) PARTY LIKE A
`6 Applicant also has pending trademark applications that bear the ROCKSTAR mark:
`ROCKSTAR, U.S. Serial No. 78113122, published for opposition November 12, 2002, in Class 33 for “distilled
`spirits and alcoholic beverage produced from a brewed malt base with natural flavors,”; (2) ROCKSTAR (stylized),
`U.S. Serial No. 78192472, published for opposition on October 14, 2003,. in Class 33 for “Distilled spirits and
`alcoholic beverage produced from a brewed malt base with natural flavors”; (3) ROCKSTAR, U.S. Serial No.
`78219472, published for opposition on September 30, 2003,
`in Class 45 for “operating social clubs which feature
`food, drink, and entertainment” and Class 43 for “hotel and restaurant services”; (4) ROCKSTAR 21, U.S. Serial
`No. 78718845, published for opposition on May 23, 2006, in Class 33 for “distilled spirits and alcoholic beverage
`produced from a brewed malt base with natural flavors.”
`4
`
`

`
`dollars, print, on-line‘ advertisements, promotions at various entertainment events including the
`
`American Music Awards, World Music Awards, Radio Music Awards, Soul Train Awards, and TV
`
`Land Awards, among others, automotive and motorcycle racing events like NASCAR, and various
`
`sporting events, as detailed more fully below. Weiner Decl.,1l 6.
`
`The use of the Rockstar products bearing Mr. Weiner’s ROCKSTAR Marks with sports and
`
`entertainment is a natural fit. Athletes and entertainers need energy to perform. Rockstar’s energy
`
`drink beverages provide such energy for professionals and amateurs alike, and Rockstar, in addition
`
`to its energy drink competitors, routinely sponsor various sporting events.
`
`Rockstar has spent millions of dollars marketing its products in sports and sports-related
`entertainment, at which the ROCKSTAR marks were and continue to be prominently featured.
`In
`
`particular, Rockstar’s sports-related promotions include:
`
`taking the lead sponsoring role for the
`
`Fernando Vargas/Shane Mosley boxing match aired‘ live on HBO (R 0002; R 0022-0024);
`
`sponsoring various ESPN ‘X-Games athletes (R 0029-0033); sponsoring race cars used in
`
`automobile racing (R 0001); sponsoring motocross racers at various motocross racing events (R
`
`0003); sponsoring the Rockstar WBR/Suzuki Racing Team (R 0001; R 0025; R 0027-0028); serving
`as primary sponsor for Two-time IndyCar Series champion Panther Racing, which included being
`
`the primary sponsor for a race car in the Indianapolis 500'(R 0093); sponsoring three prominent
`
`fighters in the mixed martial arts.(R 0004; R 0026); hosting the Rockstar Energy Drink US. Open
`
`motorcycle race; sponsoring the Rockstar Drift Team, an auto racing team that competes in races
`
`throughout the United States (R 0007-0010); sponsoring the Gumball 3000 auto rally and a
`
`participating car (R 0011-0019); sponsoring the Pro-Tec Pool Party Skateboard Contest (R 0020-
`
`0021); sponsoring a car in the Indy 500 (R 0090); sponsoring snowmobile racing events‘ (commonly
`known snowcross) and racer Mike Schultz (R 0003; R 0057); sponsoring a highly successful
`
`competition snowboarder who has placed very high at various snowboarding events (R 0003);
`
`sponsoring the Hot Import Nights events featuring drift racing, drag racing, and performances by
`
`well-known artists that is held in numerous locations throughout the United States (R 0034-0037; R
`
`

`
`0045-0046; R 0051-0056; R 0059-0068); and co-hosting the Party Like a Rockstar Superbowl Party
`
`presented by Rockstar (R 0069-0081; R 0083-0084).7 Weiner Decl., 1] 6.
`
`Rockstar also sponsors or holds various other entertainment events, which increases the
`
`public’s recognition of Applicant’s ROCKSTAR marks as well as linking Rockstar to a wide-range
`
`of entertainment events. These entertainment events include: hosting various promotional events
`
`throughout the United States with its Rockstar Van (R 0002); hosting the Rockstar Taste of Chaos
`
`music tour, which visits 41 cities in the United States (R 0002; R 0049-0050; R 0082; R 0085-
`0088); hosting the Rockstar Present the Next on the Decks DJ Mix Contest (R 0003); hosting the
`
`Rockstar Modeling Contest (R 0003); as well as sponsoring charity events (R 0042-0045). Weiner
`
`Decl., 1] 7.
`
`Moreover, the branding of energy drinks in conjunction with sporting events is a logical
`extension for Applicant and his licensee. Rockstar’s primary competitor, Red Bull USA, Inc.,
`manufacturer of Red Bull Energy Drink, purchased the Major Soccer Leaguefranchise of the New
`
`York
`
`Metrostars,
`
`and
`
`renamed
`
`it
`
`Red
`
`Bull
`
`A New
`
`York.
`
`See
`
`http://redbull. newyork. mlsnet. com/news/team_news.jsp?ym_d=20060309&content_id=53.518&vkey
`=news_rbn&fext=.jsp&team=tI07.
`l
`.
`Notwithstanding the ubiquitous‘ uses of his ROCKSTAR Marks which has occurred for
`
`several years, including with respect to various sporting events, Applicantlhas never encountered,
`
`nor is he aware of, any instances of actualconfusion between himself or his licensees, on the one
`
`hand, and Opposer, on the other hand. Weiner Decl., 1] 8.
`
`II. Opposer’s Burden on Summary Judgment
`Take-Two bears the burden of proving a likelihood of confusion by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943-44 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To succeed on.
`its motion for summary judgment, Take-Two must provide sufficient evidence to prove that there is
`
`
`
`from producing. Although these contentions are without merit, as explained below, documentation regarding all of
`the above sports—related sponsorships was in fact produced to Opposer during the discovery period in response to
`Opposer’s propounded discovery requests.
`
`

`
`no genuine issue of material fact and that Take-Two is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
`
`regarding the establishment of likelihood of confusion. See Fed. R.'Civ. Pro. 56 (2006). As the
`
`Opposer before this Board on such a motion, it faces an especially daunting standard.
`
`To defeat Take-Two’s motion for summary judgment, Rockstar need only show a genuine
`
`issue of material fact sufficient to allow a reasonable trier of fact to decide the issue of likelihood of
`
`confusion in Rockstar’s favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);
`
`Opryland USA Inc. v. The Great Am. Music Show, 970 F.2d 847, 849-50 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`When analyzing such evidence, the Board must view all‘ evidence in the light most favorable
`
`to the Rockstar, and must draw all inferences in Rockstar’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`
`477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Opryland, 970 F.2d at 850; Cognis Corp. v. DBC LLC, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1766 (T.T.A.B. 2004) (“The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant,
`
`and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the non-movant’s favor.”); The Sports Authority, Inc.
`v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1996) (reversing district court’s entry of‘summary
`
`judgment where material issues of fact existed with respect to some of the relevant du Pont factors).
`
`III. A Likelihood of Confusion is Not Present
`
`A. Standard
`
`In determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists, the Board of course considers
`
`the relevant factors set forth in In re E.l. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1973)). The relevant factors include:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to
`appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
`
`The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as
`described in an application or registration or in connection with which a
`prior mark is in use.
`
`The similarity or dissimilarity of established,
`channels.
`
`likely-to-continue trade
`
`The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made,
`“impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.
`
`i.e.
`
`

`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`(8)
`
`(9)
`
`The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use).
`
`The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
`
`The nature and extent of any actual confusion.
`
`The length of time during and conditions under which there has been
`concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.
`
`The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark,
`“family” mark, product mark).
`
`(10)
`
`The market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior mark:
`
`(a) a mere “consent” to register or use.
`
`(b) agreement provisions designed to preclude confusion, i.e. limitations
`on continued use of the marks by each party.
`
`(c) assignment of mark, application, registration and good will of the
`related business.
`~
`
`((1) laches and estoppel attributable to owner of prior mark and indicative
`of lack of confusion.
`
`(1 1)
`
`The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its
`mark on its goods.
`
`(12)
`
`The extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial.
`
`(13) Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.
`
`I