TTAB finds “VIVA MAUDE” for TV Comedy Production Services can be confused with “MAUDE” for Continuing Comedy TV Series – Trademark

“Maudwas a television sitcom that aired in the 1970s, starring Bea Arthur. I’ve never seen it, so I can’t comment on its quality, and if I could, no one would care. anyway. Here the Council confirmed the refusal to register the mark VIVA MAUDE for, among othersproduction of humorous television programs, taking into account the trademark MAUDE for “entertainment services, namely an ongoing comedy television series”. In re Viva Maude, Inc.serial number 90269302 (October 13, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion of Judge Christen M. English).

Marks : The plaintiff argued that the word VIVA dominates its mark and makes the marks different in sound and appearance. The Council, bearing in mind the fallibility of human memory [tell me about it! – ed.] found the marks more similar than dissimilar. As for meaning and connotation, the word VIVA is subordinate to the word MAUDE. VIVA conveys “the acclaim, endorsement, applause, or support of a person named Maude. In this way, the term VIVA draws attention and emphasizes the name MAUDE in the applicant’s mark.”

The applicant asserted that the USPTO took a position on the VIVA marks by allowing the following mark pairs to exist on the register: VIVA DELICIOUS and DELICIOUS TV; VIVA SPRITZ and SPRITZ; and LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION! and REVOLUTION. The Council was not impressed. Two of the three pairs were for irrelevant goods and services. In any event, only three pairs of records “barely support” Applicant’s claim. Finally, the Commission noted once again that each case must be decided on its own merits.

The plaintiff then argued that the cited mark MAUDE “is diluted somewhat”, not by a third party’s use of the term as a trademark or descriptor in television entertainment, but by “multiple Wikipedia entries of famous Maudes “. [five in
all, none of whom I ever heard of – ed.]. Once again, the Council did not budge. Only one Maude was linked to entertainment services (a Simpsons character), and there was no evidence regarding public recognition of these individuals.

In summary, the board concluded that “the marks in their entirety are similar overall in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression”.

Services: The Board concluded that the service narratives in the application and registration reflect an inherent relationship between the services involved. Additionally, the Examiner submitted 19 third-party use-based registrations for trademarks covering both ongoing television series in general, including those in the area of ​​comedy, and television production services and cinematographic. This was sufficient for the Commission to find the related services for the purposes of Article 2(d).

Commercial channels/Consumer categories:The plaintiff argued that the services at issue are marketed to different audiences – members of the entertainment industry versus viewers – but the Board was not persuaded, noting that there was no limitation in the recitations of services.

Consumers of an ongoing television comedy show include “media providers” who purchase or license the program to air or broadcast, including major television networks and streaming providers as well as smaller media companies independent. These are the same potential purchasers of the applicant’s identified services.

Moreover, the services end up reaching the same “end user”, the viewer. “Likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) encompasses situations in which the relevant non-purchasers are confused, mistaken or deceived.” Although the VIVA MAUDE mark is not the title of a television program, the applicant acknowledged that viewers may be exposed to the VIVA MAUDE mark in the credits at the end of a production.

Buyer Refinement: The Commission concluded that purchasers of the services are “relatively sophisticated” and are likely to exercise a degree of caution in their purchasing decisions. However, the Commission observed that even informed buyers are not immune to source confusion.

Conclusion: The Commission found that there was confusion and therefore upheld the refusal to register.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Intellectual Property