GoPro Opposes Highero Trademark, Citing Confusion With its Hero Trademark

On Wednesday, GoPro Inc. filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Meifeng Chen’s application for the Highero trademark, citing a likelihood of confusion with its HERO Marks and the dilution of its marks.

According to the opposition, the applicant seeks to register the Highero mark for “cameras; megaphones’ scanners; baby monitors; car video recorders; computer hardware and peripheral devices” in Class 9.

GoPro asserted that it owns several registered trademarks, including the HERO and HERO-based marks, such as HEROCast, Be a HERO, and stylized HERO marks, as well as the common law rights in these marks (the HERO Marks) through its widespread and continuous use of the HERO Marks. GoPro stated that its rights in the Hero Marks predates the applicant’s filing date; specifically, it has used the Hero Marks since at least 2004 in connection with its family of cameras, camera accessories and equipment and related software. 

Moreover, GoPro claimed that its HERO Marks have a high level of consumer recognition, thus consumers will associate GoPro’s goods and services with the HERO Marks.

GoPro alleged that there is a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source or origin of the goods and services of GoPro and the applicant’s products, if the mark is approved, because of the purported similarity of the marks and the related goods and services. As a result, GoPro proffered that consumers are likely to believe that the goods and services offered under the applicant’s mark are related to GoPro or that GoPro is the source of these goods. GoPro added that consumers are also likely to mistakenly assume there is some kind of association between the applicant and GoPro and their respective goods.

Additionally, GoPro averred that the registration and use of the applicant’s Highero mark will dilute the distinctive quality of GoPro’s famous Hero Marks. Therefore, GoPro will be damaged by the registration of the applicant’s mark.

GoPro seeks for its opposition to be sustained and the application to be rejected. GoPro is represented by Fenwick & West LLP.