The USPTO refused registration of the
mark DIMOND for "bicycle frames,
not including bicycle parts," finding a likelihood of
confusion with the registered
mark DIAMOND (in standard character and
stylized form), owned by the same entity, for "bicycle
chains." Applicant Ruster Sports contended that the fact that
the goods are sold in the same industry is an insufficient
relationship for likelihood of confusion. How do you think this
came out?
In re Ruster Sports, LLC, Serial No. 88011946 (November
16, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A.
Dunn).
The Board found that the term DIMOND is likely to be perceived
as a misspelling of DIAMOND. As to the goods, the evidence showed
that "bicycle chains and bicycle frames both are necessary
parts of any bicycle, and available to the same end consumers,
cyclists/bicycle owners, through some of the same channels of
commerce, namely stores that specialize in bicycles and parts
therefor." And so the Board
