Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA603603
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`05/12/2014
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91215658
`Defendant
`Threaks GmbH
`Dr. Ralph Oliver Graef
`Graef Rechtansanwaelte
`Jungfrauenthal 8
`Hamburg, 20149
`GERMANY
`tmdocketing@cozen.com, mgusy@cozen.com, graef@graef.eu
`Answer
`Dr. Ralph Oliver Graef
`graef@graef.eu
`/Dr. Ralph Oliver Graef/
`05/12/2014
`Stellungnahme an USPTO 090514.PDF(857154 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`GRAEF
`RECHTSANWALTE
`
`GRAEF RECHTSANWALTE
`JUNGFRAUENTHAL B. 20|49 HAMBURG
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`USA
`
`Hamburg, May 9, 2014
`Our ref.: CR-I20-12/nas
`
`direct dial: +49.40.80 6000 9-0
`direct fax: +49.40.80 6000 9-10
`
`e-mail:
`
`rauda@graef.eu
`
`DR. RALPH OLIVER GRAEF LL.M.(NYU)
`FACHANWALT FUR URHEBER-
`UND MEDIENRECHT
`
`FACHANWALT FUR GEWERBLICHEN
`RECHTSSCHUTZ
`
`ATTORNEY- AT-LAW (NEW YORK)
`
`DR. CHRISTIAN RAUDA
`FACHANWALT FUR URHEBER-
`UND MEDIENRECHT
`
`FACHANWALT FUR GEWERBLICHEN
`RECHTSSCHUTZ
`
`CAROLIN VON WALDTHAUSEN
`RECHTSANWALTIN
`
`KERSTIN SUSANN SCHKFER PH.D.(UCT)
`DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN LAW
`
`RECHTSANWALTIN
`
`JUNGFRAUENTHAL 8
`20149 HAMBURG
`TEL.: +49.40.80 6000 9-0
`FAX: +49.40.80 6000 9-IO
`HAMBURG@GRAEF.EU
`
`ZWEIGSTELLE BERLIN:
`EINSTEIN PALAIS
`FRIEDRICHSTRASSE l7l
`I01 I7 BERLIN
`TEL; -0-49.30320 383 0776
`FAX: -O-49.30320 383 0777
`BERLINQGRAEEEU
`
`WWW.GRAEF.EU
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Application Serial No.: 85/717284
`Opposition No. 91215658
`
`BEATS ELECTRONICS LLC,
`
`Opposer
`
`V.
`
`Threaks GmbH
`
`Applicant
`
`PARTNERSCHAFTSGESELLSCHAFT. SITZ HAMBURG. AMTSGERICHT HAMBURG PR 576
`DEUTSCHE BANK. BLZ 20070024. KONTO14S4545. BIC: DEUTDEDBHAPI. IBAN: DE 54200700240145454500.
`ANDERKONTO 1454560. BIC: DEUTDEDBHAM. IBAN: DE 032007002401454S6000
`
`

`
`
`
`page2
`
`GRAEF
`RECHTSANWALTE
`
`ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`COMES NOW the Applicant, Threaks GmbH, to Answer the Notice of Opposition.
`
`Any allegation not specifically admitted herein is denied. Applicant specifically denies any
`
`confusing similarity or damage to Opposer.
`
`The numbered allegations are answered as follows:
`
`1. Admitted
`
`2. Admitted
`
`3. Denied. Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of Opposer’s averments in paragraph 3.
`
`4. Denied. Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of Opposer’s averments in paragraph 4.
`
`5. Denied. Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of Opposer’s averments in paragraph 4.
`
`6.
`
`It is admitted that Opposer obtained the cited registrations. It is denied that all the marks
`
`cover goods identical or closely related to some of Applicant’s goods. Applicant’s mark
`
`was applied for downloadable electronic game programs. This very specific type of goods
`
`is completely different from the hardware (headphones, audio products) Opposer distrib-
`
`utes.
`
`7. Admitted.
`
`8. Denied.
`
`/3
`
`

`
`
`
`5
`
`page3
`
`GRAEF
`..
`RECHTSANWALTE
`
`9. Denied. Opposer claims that its marks contain the element “beat”, however this element is
`
`highly descriptive for anything in connection with musical equipment It has to be stressed,
`
`that the scope of protection of the Opposer’s trademarks are with exception of some marks,
`
`e.g. “BEATS BY DR. DRE” and “DIDDY BEATS” is very limited as they have a clear
`
`meaning which is closely connected to the goods and services for which they are protected.
`
`The term “BEAT” is closely tied to music and acoustics. A “beat” is an interference be-
`
`tween two sounds of slightly different frequencies. . A “beat” in music is a notion every
`
`consumers understands and links directly to music. The Opposer’s trademarks containing
`
`the element “BEAT” are therefore highly descriptive and their scope of protection is
`
`strongly reduced. The term “BEAT” is widely used in music and acoustics e. g. in terms
`
`such as “beats per minute”, “give me the beat” and also in the pun of the band “The Beat-
`
`les”. There are several magazines dealing with music topics called “Beat Magazine”. A
`
`Google search with the terms “BEAT” and “music” reveals close to two billion results.
`
`a) Opposition based on the marks “BEATS”
`
`There is no risk of confusion between “BEATS” and “BEATBUDDY”.
`
`The marks “BEATS” and “BEATBUDDY” are completely dissimilar. It is true that
`
`both signs share the four characters “BEAT”, however, the following five characters of
`
`Applicant's mark are sufficient to distinguish the same from the Opposer's trademark
`
`“BEATS”. Moreover, it is clear that the mark “BEATS” is in its plural and therefore
`
`consumers will have a very clear image of the Opposer 's trademark. This image is
`
`completely
`
`different
`
`from the
`
`image
`
`created
`
`by Applicant's
`
`trademark
`
`“BEATBUDDY”. The length of the words “BEATS” and “BEATBUDDY” are totally
`
`different, with Applicant's trademark being nearly twice as long as the Opposer’s
`
`trademark “BEATS”. Also, from an acoustic stance, the two marks differ significantly.
`
`Whereas the Opposer’s trademarks “BEATS” just have one syllable,
`
`the mark
`
`“BEATBUDDY” consists of three syllables. Hence, there is no way that consumers
`
`may confuse the trademark “BEATS” for the sign “BEATBUDDY”.
`
`/4
`
`

`
`page4
`
`GRAEF
`.
`RECHTSANWALTE
`
`b) BEATS BY DR. DRE
`
`The public will not confuse “BEATBUDDY “ and “BEATS BY DR. DRE”.
`
`The Opposer's trademark “BEATS BY DR. DRE” consists of four short words which
`
`are clearly distinguishable. The element “DR. DRE” is clearly perceived as a personal
`
`name and the element “DR.” in itself will be identified as an academic title. When
`
`compared with Applicant's trademark “BEATBUDDY”, apart from the four first char-
`
`acters there is no similarity between the marks. The number of syllables is completely
`
`different with “BEATBUDDY” having three syllables and “BEATS BY DR. DRE”
`
`having five syllables. The optical image of the two marks are completely different as
`
`well. Hence, the mark “BEATS BY DR. DRE” will in no way be confused with Appli-
`
`cant's trademark “BEATBUDDY”.
`
`HEARTBEATS
`
`“BEATBUDDY” and “HEARTBEAT” will not be confused.
`
`Everybody knows what a “heartbeat” is. It is clearly descriptive and everybody has a
`
`specific
`
`idea of a heartbeat. This
`
`is
`
`contrasted by Applicant's
`
`trademark
`
`“BEATBUDDY” which is a artificial word combination of “BEAT” and “BUDDY”.
`
`The marks are optically and acoustically dissimilar. We would like to stress that
`
`“BEATBUDDY”'s special perception by consumers is heavily supported by the fact
`
`that the two first syllables starting with the letter “B”. It is therefore an alliteration
`
`“B...B...”. Such a characteristic alliteration is not present in any of the Opposer's
`
`trademarks.
`
`There is no similarity between “HEARTBEATS” and “BEATBUDDY”.
`
`BEATS PRO X
`
`The trademark “BEATSAUDIO” and our Applicant's trademark “BEATBUDDY” are
`
`dissimilar. The elements “PRO X” (Opposer's mark) and “BUDDY” (Applicant's
`
`/5
`
`

`
`page-5
`
`GRAEF
`..
`RECHTSANWALTE
`
`mark) do not share a single common character. The marks are dissimilar optically and
`
`acoustically. It has to be taken into account that the element “BUDDY” in Applicant's
`
`trademark in combination with “BEAT” produces a specific image in the consumers
`
`mind. “Buddy” is a synonym for “friend”. “BUDDY” and “BEATBUDDY” therefore
`
`have a warm and intimate notion whereas “BEATS PRO X” produces a cold technical
`
`image in the consumers mind. The different meanings separate the two marks even fur-
`
`ther from one another.
`
`All other trademarks on which the Opposer’s opposition is founded are completely dis-
`
`similar when compared with Applicant’s trademark “BEATBUDDY”, a comparison of
`
`the goods and services covered by each of the trademarks is obsolete. Even if the
`
`Opposer's trademarks covered identical goods or services — quod non- , this would not
`
`lead to a risk of confusion on behalf of the consumer because such a risk is excluded by
`
`the dissimilarity of the marks and the completely different meaning of the marks.
`
`Hence, the mark BEATBUDDY does not produce confusdion, mistake or deception in
`
`violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d).
`
`10. Denied. As there is no risk of confusion, there is no damage or injury to Opposer nor the
`
`public.
`
`11. Denied. As there is no risk of confusion, there is no damage to impair Opposer’s trademark
`
`family. There is moreover no harm for Opposer’s reputation.
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant requests that the Notice of Opposition be dismissed on the merits
`
`and with prejudiced, Opposer taking nothing. Applicant further requests that its trademark ap-
`
`plication be advanced and receive a Notice of Allowance.
`
`Service was made to Opposer's attorneys Neal Gerber Eisenberg
`
`a) by fax (Annex 1)
`
`b) by e-mail
`
`to khinner@ngelaw.com,
`
`ljames@ngelaw.com, mkelber@ngelaw.com,
`
`beatstm@ngelaw.com.
`
`c) by mail.
`
`/6
`
`

`
`page6
`
`GRAEF
`..
`RECHTSANWALTE
`
`Please find annexed a confirmation that the undersigned is a member of the New York Bar in
`
`good standing (Annex 2).
`
`Respectfiilly submitted
`
`'e~%¥8*‘*°t
`
`Dr. Ralph Oliver Graef
`Rechtsanwalt
`
`

`
`GRAEF Rechtsanwéilte I Sekretariat
`
`Von:
`Gesendet:
`An:
`Betreff:
`Anlagen:
`
`312 269 1747 ["0013122691747"@faxmaker.com]
`Freitag, 9. Mai 2014 19:53
`GRAEF Rechtsanwélte l Sekretariat
`Erfolgreich: (Fax gesendet an 0013122691747) [::resend=s329da089]
`20140509_190946_00001.pdf
`
`Am 13.:
`
`ttitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii**i****i*iii‘li'ii‘i
`
`FAXSENDEBERICHT
`iiiiiiiI‘*iii'*i*iiifiiiiiiiii-iii‘iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
`
`(Fax gesendet an 0013122691747)
`Betreff: Erfolgreich:
`Absender: Nadine Sachs
`
`Absender E-Mail: sachs@graef.eu
`Status: Sent
`Datum/Uhrzeit: 09.05.2014 19:53:10
`
`Geschwindigkeit: 9600 bps
`Verbindungsdauer: 34:21
`Seiten: 8
`
`Seiten gesamt: 8
`Aufldsungz Fine
`Remote-ID: 312 269 1747
`
`Leitungsnummer: 0
`Wiederholungsversuche: 1
`Beschreibung: Fax erfolgreich verschickt : Success
`iiiiii‘*****i‘iiii'*iiiiiiiiiitiiiiifi‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘ii‘ii‘***ii'i'iii‘i‘ii‘*
`
`From: 80600010
`
`To: 0013122691747
`
`Page: 1/8
`
`Date: 09.05.2014 19:18:47
`
`G RAE F
`9~ECE~!"¥".’Sf!'-I‘.-W‘35xL7'E
`
`9-‘Ml’ "(<1-‘M-«-‘4'~M<':
`;L!Nf.‘I"lMJ£.’~"£'Ht\'. S ["2099 I--'.lv.!‘|I=;?.'..
`
`Neal, Gerber & Eisenbcrg LLP
`
`Mrs. Kristi Spiccr
`2
`LaSalle Street
`
`Suite 1700
`
`Chicago, IL 60602-3801
`USA
`
`firs! by fax:
`
`(101 3.12 26‘)--1747
`OOI 312 980-£18‘)?
`
`firs! by e-mail
`
`nu. n.AL.r-H «.>LwEa musr LL."1.(NTLl','
`I-AC )--II=.NW.-v.L‘*‘ Fain. IJIHEBER
`‘JND MEDQESV-éREC1M.':'
`
`‘F/\C.v-§l!.P-‘ WALT ‘<1! {$¢:'VV:-RQSLHZHP: N
`IE5!-¢'rsS‘.'.'HU‘TZ
`
`'-.3 "':.‘lu-H‘ A? LAW 1.r~-aw YCWN)
`
`UR. CHRISTIAN IAUDA
`fr’\CH’\NV'»'.‘:£.‘i' F-UR g;‘.lH!"}.'-Fgl.
`-INC‘! "4El')'f-I»-F~E-',H“
`'r‘Ar:.--«'M~i'~Iw.£.7' ms» 2;:-we It£lLu‘,H§.~‘.‘«l
`ae~.r::=;*.as.'.:-mu:
`
`€flflt'JL.lN VON WALD"! I-QEUSEN
`RE-ZN’! 5.4Nv"/‘ALTIN
`
`mass rm SUIANN scmhinss we 2;-.u.4<:n
`s.3'€.‘:C1‘<}R "!'n~ F5-4l3..(3.'~."J)“-E 1' in: Law
`RE.-‘:HT‘.:A"l -VLLTH-c
`
`H )!\;(‘CIJnI£¢-k.'P>.4A: 5
`
`
`
`»-..u'~v.ro~u-'-r-3+4o-at-54--.\\,~.~I-.-.-v-.r..-«-.-...~~4......,....A.....-...~..~.-..-.,...._........~—.-..-"Ar.
`
`

`
`A/V71/z:>< .2
`
`Appellate Eiuisiun of the gmpreme Llnurt
`
`of the fitatz of New Burk
`
`ifiirst Zluhitial ifienartxneut
`
`3!. Qlatherine (|D'1*{agan Bflnlfe. Qllerk at the Appellate Eiuisitm cf the
`
`ééupreme Qlnurt of the §§'tate of New Earle. first Sluhitial Eepartmeut.
`
`rertifg that
`
`RALPH OLIVER GRAEF
`
`was hulg lirenseh
`
`anh ahmitteh tn practice as an Atmrneg zmh (Ummaellur at {flaw in
`
`all the cuurtz at the State at New {lurk an the 16th
`
`hag
`
`uf
`
`macs
`
`1999 . has hulg taken anh mxharriheh
`
`the math nf affine prencriheh bu law, has been eurulleh in the E101! nf
`
`Attnmegz anh Gluunsellura at {flaw an file in mg affine. has hulg
`
`registereh with the ahminiztratiue nffite nf the warm, uni: atrurhing tn
`
`the recnrha at this cuurt is in gunh sstanhiug as an attnmeg anh
`
`mumsellnr at law.
`
`3111 lliitneza mhereuf. 3! have hereunto set mg
`
`hanb ant: affixeh the 5281 uf this mutt an
`
`March 16, 1999
`
`Caal4«.ué-2.. Ofioaqou.
`
`Cilerk
`
`
`
`
`
`a _ .$__'_<§_-‘-—‘-—jj"’_,,

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket