On Tuesday, Lenovo PC International filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against LG Electronics Inc.’s application for the THINQ mark, alleging that it will be harmed by the registration of this mark because of the likelihood of confusion with its THINK marks.
According to the opposition, Lenovo “is the current owner of a portfolio of THINK-formative marks acquired from International Business Machines Corp. (‘IBM’) in 2005.” For example, the THINK PAD mark has continuously been used since 1992, first by IBM, and later by Lenovo both for “a variety of computers and computer-related goods and services.” Other THINK-formative marks include THINKPAD, THINKLIGHT, THINKVISION, and THINKPLUS, these marks are in International Class 9, 16, 18, 37, and 42. Lenovo asserted that its THINK marks are “valid, subsisting, and in full force and effect and most of these registrations have become incontestable.”
The opposer has used these marks in connection with a variety of goods and services, including “computers, computer monitors, computer peripherals, computer accessories, along with software and related services.” As a result, Lenovo asserted that the “THINK Marks comprise a family of THINK-formative marks, and they are recognized by consumers as such.”
Lenovo reported that in May 2019, LG Electronics applied to register its THINKQ mark for various goods in International Class 9 and International Class 42, covering “development of operating system software for controlling electric power consumption; computer hardware and software design for energy management,” as well as International Classes 4, 35, 37, 39, and 40. LG Electronics purportedly claimed a bona fide intent to use its mark in the future. This action caused Lenovo to claim that it has prior rights over LG Electronics’ mark.
The opposer proffered that LG Electronics’ mark is similar to its THINK marks “in sight, sound, and commercial impression.” Moreover, “the Opposed Goods and Services are identical or closely related to the goods and services that Opposer offers under Opposer’s THINK Marks and that are covered by Opposer’s registrations for Opposer’s THINK Marks.” As a result, Lenovo alleged that there is a likelihood of consumer confusion, mistake, or deception for both parties’ goods and services as well as the origin or sponsorship of these goods and services.
Lenovo has sought for its opposition to be sustained and the registration of the applicant’s mark to be denied. Lenovo is represented by Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.
