Apple filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Trademark Review and Appeal Board (TTAB) Proposed modification "APPLE MUSIC" Motion for trademark application, demand TTAB Allow it to be removed from the application "Live performance services and related services" . 2023 years 8 month 18 day, "APPLE JAZZ" The trademark owner disputes this.

2023 years 7 month, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Denied Apple's request for a retrial (2023 years 4 month, CAFC Actually canceled the tech company's "APPLE MUSIC" Trademark registration application) .

"APPLE JAZZ" Trademark owner Charles．Bertini (Charles Bertini) According to, Apple Inc TTAB The relief and redress sought by the motion CAFC Dismissed relief is the same.

The trademark dispute began 2015 years, That's when Apple submitted its No 86/659444 No "APPLE MUSIC" Trademark application. And Bertini was already 1991 Registered as a trademark for entertainment services in New York "APPLE JAZZ" . 2016 years, He's on Apple "APPLE MUSIC" Federal registration is challenged, Also to USPTO Apply for registration "APPLE JAZZ" .

Apple said in its motion, "It had no reason to foresee CAFC Will be based on the dissent first 'APPLE JAZZ' For use in live music, Because the objection did not make that argument. " therefore, The tech company asked TTAB Allow them to reapply for trademarks, In order to exclude "Live performance services and related services" .

therewith, Bertini said: "Apple did not provide any legal basis to support the position that the administrative Tribunal could ignore or overturn the federal appeals court's ruling. "

Bertini went on to claim, Apple's motion is ill-timed, Because it's trying to amend the application after the trial. Bertini also sought to poke holes in the precedent Apple used to support its motion.

"APPLE JAZZ" The trademark owner wrote: "Apple doesn't even cite a single case that allows an application to be amended after a trial or an appellate ruling. "

Mr Bertini argued further, Since the objection process is over, Some of the rules cited by Apple don't apply.

Possibility of confusion

This year 4 month, CAFC Rejected Apple's trademark application, The reason is that the trademark may cause confusion with Bertini's trademark.

In addition to timely application, Bertini also believes that, Apple's motion also needs to overcome the likelihood of confusion found by the circuit court. "APPLE JAZZ" The trademark owner believes that, Simply removing some text at Apple's request does not reduce the likelihood of confusion.

Bertini wrote: "Apple has not proven that removing certain services will eliminate them 'APPLE MUSIC' and 'APPLE JAZZ' Between the possibility of confusion. "

Bertini went further, Apple's motion seeks to bypass the ruling, repudiate 2 There is any possibility of confusion between the signs. He added, Although some expressions have been deleted, But this 2 The two logos are still very similar in terms of the services they provide.

Service variance

Apple wrote in its motion, Bertini "Only the prior use of live music was demonstrated, For other services in the application, There is no need for further fact-finding on priorities" .

however, Bertini reiterated, He was in 1998 Use the trademark for a variety of other services, Including online services. He added, He did not mention every service for which he used the trademark, Because it's not necessary, Because he only needs to mention one of the services in the application to get it rejected.

Bertini wrote, "The committee focused on 'arrange, tissue, Conducts and presents concerts and live music performances' Up, It was not necessary for the Committee to review the entire list to reach a decision. "

Apple's main argument is this, Bertini did not make this argument, So Apple can't predict CAFC The decision will be based on live music.

Mr Bertini retorted: "Did Apple fail to foresee how the authorities might decide the case, This cannot be the legal basis for Apple to amend its application after the appeals court's decision, There is no law or rule to support this request. " (Be compiled from ipwatchdog. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.