On Wednesday, Beats Electronics, LLC filed an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against applicant Super Megatronix LLC’s application for the MUSICY BEAT mark. The opposer claimed that it will be damaged by the registration of the applicant’s mark.
Beats stated that it owns many trademarks that consist of and incorporate BEATS, which “have been utilized in connection with well-known, high-quality audio- and music-related products and services.” Beats averred that the goods covered in the applicant’s mark are identical, similar, or related to the BEATS family of marks. For instance, Super Megatronix has the MUSICY BEAT and MUSICY BEAT Design in International Class 09, covering, for example, “Audio equipment for vehicles…Audio mixers; Audio mixing consoles; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Car stereos…Megaphones; Microphones,” among other things. Beats added that its BEATS and BEATS-formative marks are in International Class 9, among other classes, and cover audio speakers and loudspeakers, as well as headphones and earphones.
Beats claimed that its marks are famous and that it has prior rights to the BEATS marks because its marks were registered and had prior use before the applicant filed for its marks. Beats asserted that there is goodwill and a high level of consumer recognition between the BEATS family of marks and Beats’ products.
Beats further alleged that there is a likelihood of consumer confusion between the applicant’s MUSICY BEAT mark and Beats and its family of BEATS marks, as well as their respective goods. Specifically, Beats pointed to the “virtually and phonetically identical element ‘beat/beats,’” and that the marks are “substantially similar in sight, sound, and meaning.” Beats noted that its BEATS-formative marks, such as URBEATS and POWERBEATS also suggest confusion with MUSICY BEAT because of the incorporation of -BEAT in the applicant’s mark.
Moreover, the headphone depiction in the applicant’s design mark also increases the likelihood of confusion, according to Beats. Thus, Beats proffered that registration of the mark would be likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception in regard to the origin, source, or sponsorship of the marks and products. Consequently, Beats argued that the registration of the applicant’s mark will damage it and dilute the distinctive quality of the BEATS marks.
Beats has sought for its opposition to be sustained and for the applicant’s registration request to be refused. Beats is represented by Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.
