The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruled that the
standard-character mark NIKEA, for "chocolates, candy,"
was likely to cause confusion with the mark IKEA, in typed-drawing
format, for "as relevant, coffee, bread, biscuits, cakes,
pastry, candy, mustard, sauces, excluding cranberry and applesauce,
and spices.'" Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v.
Manasyan, Opposition No. 91194783 (T.T.A.B. May 17, 2012)
(nonprecedential).
Inter-IKEA Systems filed an opposition against Arsen
Manasyan's application for the mark NIKEA, to cover
"chocolates, candy," on the grounds that the mark was (1)
likely to cause confusion with its IKEA mark and (2) likely to
dilute that mark. Only the opposer submitted a brief, testimony or
evidence.
In analyzing the likelihood of confusion, the TTAB found it
unnecessary to consider any of the opposer's pleaded
registrations beyond Registration No. 1661360 for IKEA, which
covered "the most relevant goods and mark." The Board
began by considering the goods and channels of trade, and found
that the parties' goods overlapped because both identified
"candy." It further found that the parties' other
goods were related as the opposer showed that it sold both cake and
cookies. As the noted goods were identical in part, the TTAB
presumed that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers were
the same. Thus, these factors heavily favored a finding of a
likelihood of confusion.
Turning to the marks, the TTAB considered and compared the
"appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression of
the marks in their entireties," while noting that "the
more similar the goods at issue, the less similar the marks need to
be for the Board to find a likelihood of confusion." It
determined that the mark IKEA was a "coined and arbitrary or
fanciful term with no apparent meaning in any language." The
applicant's NIKEA mark appeared to rhyme with IKEA, differing
only by one letter, and possessed no apparent meaning in any
language. The TTAB noted, moreover, that NIKEA fully incorporated
IKEA, and that "[l]ikelihood of confusion has been found where
the entirety of one's mark is incorporated within
another." Thus, this factor also favored a finding of a
likelihood of confusion.
Next, the TTAB analyzed the fame of the IKEA mark, based on the
evidence submitted, which covered only the years 2009 through 2011.
The opposer's testimony characterized its business as selling
"everythingâ''all furnishings products...."
Evidence showed that IKEA sweets and chocolates were sold "via
restaurants at every IKEA store and also as retail products at each
one," and that sales appeared to be "substantial."
Although it concluded that the IKEA mark was strong, the Board
found that the opposer had not established how extensive media
coverage and market exposure of the mark related specifically to
chocolate and candy products and that the time frame covered was
not sufficient to show fame for purposes of this proceeding.
Finally, the TTAB considered consumer sophistication for the goods
at issue. The Board found "no evidence of record regarding the
typical price of candy and chocolates or the average sophistication
of the consumers thereof." Because chocolate and candy could
vary greatly in price, the TTAB found that this factor was
neutral.
On balancing the above factors, the TTAB found a likelihood of
confusion between the NIKEA and IKEA marks. It held that "the
goods are identical in relevant part, and are likely to be marketed
through the same channels of trade to generally unsophisticated
consumers" (this last point despite the discussion above), and
that "the IKEA mark is arbitrary and strong, and the marks are
substantially similar." Finding a likelihood of confusion, the
TTAB held that it was unnecessary to consider the opposer's
claim of dilution.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
