|
October 13, 2025
Hello Reader,
Problem (real story, simple lesson):
Two groups used almost the same name: MOSAIC and MOSAEC. One group helps people with disabilities get job skills and find work. The other runs an entertainment website and said it also used its name for “vocational training.” They tried to block the MOSAIC registration by saying the names were too close. What did the trademark board decide? The board said the names were very similar, but the services were not—so there was no likely confusion. The opposition was dismissed.
What went wrong for the opposer (in plain language)
- They could not prove they used the mark the way they claimed.
They said they used MOSAEC for “vocational training,” but the board looked for real proof: dated records, program materials, signed agreements, or examples of actual training given to real people. The items they showed were vague, undated, or didn’t match the service. The board wants clear, specific evidence that you advertised the service and actually provided it.
- The services were miles apart.
Helping disabled people learn job skills and get placed in work is not the same as running an entertainment site. Trademark cases are not only about the name. They are also about the thing you do. If the services don’t line up, even a very similar name may still be okay. Here, the board said the “vocational training for disabled individuals” and “entertainment information” were so different that shoppers would not think they came from the same source.
- The channels and buyers didn’t match.
One side reaches caretakers and families looking for serious, long-term help for a loved one. The other side speaks to readers who want entertainment news and reviews. Different audience. Different path. The board found no real overlap.
- No confusion, even after many years.
Both sides used their names for a long time—about two decades—yet there was no proof of real-world mix-ups. That history weighed against confusion.
What this means for you (problem → solution)
If you want to stop a rival:
- Match the service, not just the name.
Before you file an opposition, ask: “Do our services look the same in the real world?” If not, you’ll need strong facts showing why customers would still think the goods or services come from one source.
- Bring real proof of use.
Don’t rely on memory or broad claims. Show dated ads, invoices, program rosters, event photos, training outlines, and signed agreements. The board looks for use in the market, not plans or ideas.
- Don’t over-stretch your story.
If you run content or reviews, that is not the same as providing training or care. Stretching your category can hurt your credibility. The board wants your actual lane, not your “someday” lane.
If you are defending your application:
- Document your timeline.
Keep a simple file with start dates, brochures, web pages, and third-party press showing what you do and when you started doing it. In the case above, long, steady use since 2003 helped the applicant.
- Explain who you serve and how you serve them.
Spell out your audience and your service steps (for example, assessment, skills training, job placement). Make it easy for the examiner or board to see how your service works in real life.
- Show differences that matter.
If your market, buyers, and channels are different from the opposer’s, say so—and show it. The board cares about where and to whom you sell, not just what your mark looks like.
Quick checklist for your team this week
- Do we have dated proof that shows our mark used on our services (not just on a website footer)?
- Can we point to actual customers served under the mark (with records, not guesses)?
- If we claim certain services, do our pages, brochures, and receipts match those services?
- If we plan to oppose a rival, can we show that our services and their services really meet in the marketplace?
- Have we seen any real confusion (emails, misdirected calls, reviews)? If not, how long have we coexisted?
Bottom line
A look-alike name is usually not enough by itself. You still have to prove that the services line up and that real customers would likely mix up the sources. In this case, the board saw similar marks, but very different services, different buyers, and no confusion over many years—so the opposition failed. If you want to protect your brand (or defend it), build your case with facts on the ground: who you serve, what you do, where you do it, and proof that you really did it.
Keep Your Brand Safe and Protected,
J.J. Lee and the Trademark Lawyer Law Firm Team!
P.S. If you’re about to oppose a new filing or you need to defend your own, contact us before you act. We’ll review your evidence, spot gaps (priority, use, services, channels), and craft a simple plan to file—or reply—with the strongest proof first.
|
|