It has been an exciting year for trademark cases involving pageants.
Yesterday, the Mrs. Colorado America pageant prevailed over the Mrs. Colorado United States pageant in the District of Colorado.
U.S. District Judge Marcia S. Krieger ruled Mrs. Colorado United States cannot use the title “Mrs. Colorado” alone without “United States” on the end while in Colorado because it infringes on the trademark held by the operators of Mrs. Colorado America.
Mrs. Colorado United States must also change her sash so that it clearly contains her entire title.
Krieger ruled that in national pageants – such as Mrs. America and Mrs. United States – the infringement of “Mrs. Colorado” does not occur because the public is able to discern which pageant the contestant is competing in. (source)
The order was given orally, so the PACER documents don’t reveal much of the reasoning. However, it seems that the court feels that “Mrs. Colorado America” and “Mrs. Colorado United States” are not confusingly similar as long as the “America” and “United States” elements are displayed.
This doesn’t seem to gel with Miss Universe v. Community Marketing, Inc., Opposition No. 91160627 (TTAB 2007). In that case, the TTAB ruled that “Miss Universe” and “Mr. Gay Universe” were confusingly similar. (TTABlog discussion of the case here).
“[T]he issue is not whether the two pageants will be confused for one another or whether the relevant public will be able to distinguish between the pageants themselves. Rather, the issue is whether the relevant public will assume, due to the similarity of the marks, that there is a source, sponsorship or other connection between the two pageants.”
Now this is great logic. I strongly agree with it. But, when it comes to making a decision regarding the “relevant marketplace”, the USPTO doesn’t seem to care if its “evidence” is tea leaves or mere conjecture.
It seems that in the USPTO’s opinion, the relevant public is essentially brain dead – which isn’t such an unfair opinion, but not something that I like to see as a presumption. I just with they had the courage to come out and say it. “The public that cares to watch these examples of cultural dreck is so brain dead that they are lucky if they can tell their ass from their elbow with two hands, a picture book, and a flashlight. Therefore, in order to make sure that the complete losers in the evolutionary lottery are not misled, we are going to rule this way.”
Now THAT would be refreshing to read.
By Email
By RSS Feed
November 8, 2007 at 2:06 pm |
[...] When Pageants Attack Likelihood of confusion? [...]
November 12, 2007 at 4:53 pm |
The decision in the Mrs. Colorado seems to be based on sound logic. The “united states” and “america” seem to identify the source of the pageant and/or sponsership. The two would undoubtedly cause consumer confusion if the “america” and “united states” were to be removed and I think the court did the right thing by forming a reasonable decision in having the sash and name changed to eliminate any likelihood of confusion. Randazza I liked your view on the “relevant public” for this crap. I know absolutely nothing about the pageant world other than the fact it rewards people that have nothing better to offer society other than their looks and the sick twisted parents that start this disgusting cycle of “your appearnce is the only value you have” in their kids when they start dressing them up like little dolls at age five. I am dissapointed the courts have to waste their time on such crap, but hey everyone has a right to take their case to court and we have to accept the good with the bad.
kurt brickman
November 12, 2007 at 7:08 pm |
I certainly agree with the statement that intellectual level of people that are entertained, and agree to participate in these events, is low. They need to develop a better social circle and hobby………I just wonder if the ruling involving Mr Gay Universe was based more upon the issue of sexual orientation rather than legitimate trademark issues…….finding it confusingly similar is interesting but not compelling…..it seems more likely that the thought process is that “we cant have people with a different sexual orientation, “those gays” gaining a mark. We may not be able to rule that way through 2A, so instead calling it confusing…is acceptable……do you think there is any merit to that idea?
Bill Kuzbyt
Bill Kuzbyt