`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"’_,,