Flying Mojo, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2015

No. 86009264 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2015)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: August 25, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Flying Mojo, LLC
_____

Serial No. 86009264
_____

Luke Brean of BreanLaw, LLC,
for Flying Mojo, LLC.
Linda M. Estrada, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 104,
Chris Doninger, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Bucher, Cataldo and Adlin,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Flying Mojo, LLC (hereinafter “Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark PURPLE HAZE (in standard character format) for “electronic
sound pickup for guitars and basses” in International Class 9.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has taken the position that Applicant’s
mark, when used on or in connection with Applicant’s goods so resembles the

1 Application Serial No. 86009264 was filed on July 12, 2013, based upon Applicant’s claim
of first use anywhere at least as early as January 1, 2013, and use in commerce since at
least as early as June 1, 2013.
Serial No. 86009264
- 2 -
registered mark HAZE for “sound amplifiers,” also in International Class 9, that it
is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive.
After the Trademark Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant
appealed to this Board. We affirm the refusal to register.
Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based upon an analysis of all probative
facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of
confusion. In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567
(CCPA 1973); see also, In re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65
USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two
key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the relationship
between the goods and/or services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper
Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry
mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential
characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”). We discuss each of the
du Pont factors concerning which Applicant or the Trademark Examining Attorney
submitted argument or evidence.
A. Similarity of the Marks
We turn first to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the
similarity or dissimilarity of “the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation, and commercial impression.” Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (quoting du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567). “The proper test is not a side-by-side
Serial No. 86009264
- 3 -
comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently similar in
terms of their commercial impression’ such that persons who encounter the marks
would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Coach Servs., Inc. v.
Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(citation omitted).
Applicant argues that although the marks share the common term “Haze,” that
alone is not enough to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. Applicant takes
the position that the Trademark Examining Attorney has violated the “anti-
dissection rule” by focusing on this shared feature of these respective marks while
ignoring differences between the marks as a whole. Applicant also points out that
these marks have entirely different “phonetic profiles.”
The cited mark is the word HAZE in standard character format. The Trademark
Examining Attorney contends that Applicant has simply taken the entirety of
Registrant’s mark and added the modifier “purple” to this registered mark to form
its mark, PURPLE HAZE. “When one incorporates the entire arbitrary mark of
another into a composite mark, inclusion in the composite mark of a significant,
nonsuggestive element will not necessarily preclude a likelihood of confusion.” See
Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (CCPA 1977)
(finding “ CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design” confusingly similar to
CONCEPT). Applicant cites other 1970s cases arguing that likelihood of confusion
does not automatically result when a junior user’s mark contains in part the whole of
another mark. We find that despite the addition of the word “purple” to Registrant’s
mark, the similarities outweigh the dissimilarities as to appearance and sound.
Serial No. 86009264
- 4 -
The term “Purple Haze” calls to mind the famous Jimi Hendrix song of the same
name. In fact, on its home page, Applicant makes a reference to pickups from a
Stratocaster once owned by Jimi Hendrix, and the purple-on-black design of its
“Purple Haze” mark is reminiscent of psychedelic posters of the 1960s and ‘70s:

Flying Mojo “Purple Haze 1969” options:
• PH69 — CBS purple colored Forbon set $350
• PH69-O — CBS original black and grey Forbon $325
• PH69-OR — CBS original black and grey Forbon Reverse Wound Middle set $350
• PH69-R— CBS purple colored Forbon Reverse Wound Middle set $375
CATEGORIES: ELECTRIC GUITARS, PICKUPS.
Product Description
Flying Mojo proudly presents the
“Purple Haze” 1969 CBS exact replica
Strat® style pickup set.
This 3 pickup Strat®-Style set was copied from a 1969 Black
Fender Stratocaster serial number 240186 that Jimi Hendrix
gifted to his friend Larry Lee in late September of 1969. The
pickups were copied exact, measuring the Resonant Peak and
the DC output of the 3 pickups. Knowledge of the vintage raw
materials, prints, CBS tooling, winding machine and techniques
were imparted from the original sub-contractor that made
pickups for CBS when they purchased the Fender® Guitar
Company in January 1965.
2

The Trademark Examining Attorney also points to a dictionary definition of
“Haze” as follows:
haze n.
1. a. Atmospheric moisture, dust, smoke, and vapor that diminishes visibility.
b. A partially opaque covering: Let the polish dry to a haze before buffing it.
2. A vague or confused state of mind. 3
When used in connection with Registrant’s and Applicant’s goods, the word
“haze” appears to be a somewhat unusual and arbitrary choice. Perhaps as the
dictionary entry suggests, in a setting such as a nightclub, the word “Haze” may
create a mental image for some consumers of vapor, smoke or even a confused state
of mind. Similarly, in its request for reconsideration, Applicant argues that its own
“mark brings to mind a purple, psychedelic vapor or a mental state of blurriness

2 Applicant’s response of April 27, 2014, at 9-12 of 69.
3 https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=haze&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,( 5th ed. 2015).
Serial No. 86009264
- 5 -
and confusion.” The Trademark Examining Attorney points out that both the
dictionary definition and Applicant’s proffered connotation of its own mark convey
commercial impressions relating to “vapor.”
We agree with Applicant’s suggestion that potential consumers may well
recognize the association of “Purple Haze” with Jimi Hendrix, psychedelic rock and
the counterculture of the 1960s. In comparing the possible meanings of these two
marks, to the extent there is overlap between a confused state of mind (“haze”) and
the prevalence of a drug culture in the 60s frequently associated with a truly
legendary piece of music (“Purple Haze”), we find that these marks could well create
similar connotations.
Given that the average purchaser normally retains a general, rather than a
specific impression of trademarks, the question is whether the marks are
sufficiently similar in their entireties that confusion as to the source of the goods
offered under the respective marks is likely to result. See Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott
Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975). We are convinced that when this closeness
in connotation is added to the similarities in appearance and sound, these
respective marks create similar overall commercial impressions, and this critical
du Pont factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
B. Relationship of the Goods
We next turn our attention to an evaluation of the relationship between the
goods in the cited registration and the goods identified in the application. Octocom
Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computers Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783,
1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d
Serial No. 86009264
- 6 -
1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It is settled that it is not necessary that the
respective goods be identical or even competitive in order to find that they are
related for purposes of our likelihood of confusion analysis. That is, the issue is not
whether customers would confuse the goods themselves, but rather whether they
would be confused as to the source of the goods. See In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830
(TTAB 1984). The goods need only be sufficiently related that customers would be
likely to assume, upon encountering the goods under similar marks, that the goods
originate from, are sponsored or authorized by, or are otherwise connected to the
same source. See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223
USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991).
As noted above, Registrant’s goods are sound amplifiers while Applicant’s goods
are electronic sound pickups for guitars and basses – both in International Class 9.
In support of its argument that confusion is unlikely, Applicant relies upon letters
from eight individuals in the retail music store industry, all of whom indicate that
sound amplifiers and sound pickups are different products, which would not be
confused by their consumers. Of course, the issue is not whether even the most
unsophisticated of newbie guitar-playing customers would confuse small guitar
pickups with larger amplifiers. We must determine instead whether potential
consumers, upon encountering guitar pickups and amplifiers being sold under
similar marks, might erroneously assume that the goods originate from the same
source.
In explaining the different functions of the respective goods, Applicant itself
argues that pickups are essentially the equivalent of a microphone for the sounds
Serial No. 86009264
- 7 -
coming from the strings of a musical instrument, while the amplifier is, by contrast,
a critical component for producing the ultimate sound through a loudspeaker.4
Rather than creating legal distance, this complementary function is indeed a
basis for finding these goods to be related. Without a pickup, the amp will not be
able to amplify the sound of an instrument, and vice versa. That is, in view of their
complementary nature, the goods are likely to be purchased together and used in
conjunction with each other. See, e.g., In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.,
748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MARTIN’S for bread is
confusingly similar to MARTIN’S for cheese, in part because the goods are
complementary and often used and consumed together); In re Sela Prods., LLC, 107
USPQ2d 1580 (TTAB 2013) (finding that in the course of purchasing a television,
audio or home theater system, purchasers would encounter both surge protectors
(marketed specifically for television, audio and home theater equipment) and wall
mounts and brackets (used in connection with same)); In re Cook Medical
Technologies LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1377, 1380 (TTAB 2012) (medical guiding sheaths
used in conjunction with catheters are closely related, complementary goods). In
this case, Applicant’s evidence supports a finding that an amplifier and guitar
pickup work together in order to provide amplification for an electric guitar or bass.
Applicant also argues that its position is supported by the fact that Registrant
does not sell electronic pickups. However, that alleged fact is not especially relevant
to our inquiry either. Applicant points to no authority for its apparent position that

4 See Applicant’s response of April 27, 2014, at 14 of 78, and Wikipedia pages on Pickups
and Amplifiers, at 26-66 of 78.
Serial No. 86009264
- 8 -
Registrant must offer identical goods in order to support a finding of likelihood of
confusion as to related goods.
Rather, the Trademark Examining Attorney, in support of her contention that
the goods at issue are commercially related, has made of record examples of
webpages from third-party vendors – both retailers and manufacturers – offering
types of goods that are similar in nature to those of both Applicant and Registrant
under the same service mark and/or trademark, including the following, inter alia:5
6

5 Office actions of October 28, 2013, May 30, 2014, and January 11, 2015.
6 http://www.carvinguitars.com/guitarparts/guitarpickups.php, Office Action of October 28,
2013, at 29-30 of 34.
Serial No. 86009264
- 9 -
7
8

9

7 http://axepalace.com/, Final Office Action of January 11, 2015, at 74-85 of 87.
8 http://www.suhr.com/, Final Office Action of January 11, 2015, at 39-47 of 87.
9 http://www.evhgear.com/, Final Office Action of January 11, 2015, at 20-25 of 87.
Serial No. 86009264
- 10 -
10
11
12

10 http://www.uptonbass.com/, Office Action of October 28, 2013, at 17-19 of 34.
11 http://www.fishman.com/products/filter, Office Action of October 28, 2013, at 20-28 of 34;
and Office Action of May 30, 2014, at 9-16 of 79.
Serial No. 86009264
- 11 -
13
14

12 http://www.deanguitars.com/, Final Office Action of January 11, 2015, at 63-73 of 87.
13 http://www.fender.com/, Office Action of May 30, 2014, at 24-37 of 79.
14 http://www.fralinpickups.com/, Final Office Action of January 11, 2015, at 14-17 of 87.
Serial No. 86009264
- 12 -
15
16

15 http://www.guitarcenter.com/, Office Action of May 30, 2014, at 17-23 of 79, and Final
Office Action of January 11, 2015, at 32-38 of 87.
16 http://www.rolandus.com/products/category/477 & http://www.rolandus.com/products/
category/447, Office Action of May 30, 2014, at 41-49 of 79, and Final Office Action of
January 11, 2015, at 12-13 of 87.
Serial No. 86009264
- 13 -
17
18
In addition to all of these websites, the Trademark Examining Attorney also
made of record a number of third-party registrations showing that both Applicant’s

17 http://www.deanmarkley.com/, Final Office Action of January 11, 2015, at 26-31 of 87.
18 http://www.aguilaramp.com/, Office Action of October 28, 2013, at 16 of 34.
Serial No. 86009264
- 14 -
type of goods (e.g., “electronic sound pickup”) and Registrant’s type of goods (e.g,
“sound amplifiers) are offered under a single mark by others:19
DANELECTRO20 EXPRESSION SYSTEM21
TAYLOR GUITARS K422 HARTKE23
24
SUHR25 EGNATER26
SCHECTER27 Bring Tone to Life28
PRS29 JAZZ FUSION30 31
HELLRAISER32 Harparatus33 RIO GRANDE34

19 Office actions of May 30, 2014, and January 11, 2015.
20 Registration No. 2116570 issued on November 25, 1997; renewed.
21 Registration No. 2849699 issued on June 1, 2004; renewed. No claim is made to the
exclusive right to use the word “System” apart from the mark as shown.
22 Registration No. 2921736 issued on January 25, 2005; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
23 Registration No. 3017601 issued on November 22, 2005; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
24 Registration No. 3340605 issued on November 20, 2007; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
25 Registration No. 3470385 issued on July 22, 2008; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
26 Registration No. 3573193 issued on February 10, 2009; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
27 Registration No. 4222161 issued on October 9, 2012.
28 Registration No. 4300859 issued on March 12, 2013.
29 Registration No. 4305318 issued on March 19, 2013.
30 Registration No. 4329561 issued on the Supplemental Register on April 30, 2013.
31 Registration No. 4653034 issued on December 9, 2014. No claim is made to the exclusive
right to use the word “Gear” apart from the mark as shown.
32 Registration No. 4452021 issued on December 17, 2013.
33 Registration No. 4651640 issued on December 9, 2014.
34 Registration No. 4533415 issued on May 20, 2014.
Serial No. 86009264
- 15 -
Although such third-party registrations are not evidence that the marks shown
therein are in use or that the public is familiar with them, they nonetheless may
have probative value to the extent they are based on use in commerce and serve to
suggest that the goods identified therein are of a kind which may emanate from a
single source under a single mark., i.e., that the same entity may provide amplifiers
and guitar pickups under the same mark. See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92
USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009); and In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d
1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993).
We find that the third-party website evidence is competent to show that some
merchants and manufacturers use a single mark to identify both Applicant’s and
Registrant’s types of goods and that the third-party registrations suggest that
pickups and amps may emanate from a common source. Accordingly, we must
assume that the goods are complementary or otherwise-related products, and we
find that Registrant’s goods are related to those provided by Applicant for purposes
of our determination herein.
This evidence shows that consumers searching for information about pickups
and amps will likely see them commonly associated with each other, either by
retailer or by brand. Hence, based upon widespread industry practice, customers
would be likely to assume, upon encountering these complementary products under
such similar marks, that the goods originate from the same source. Specifically, a
consumer acquainted with the HAZE amplifier who is looking for an electronic
sound pickup for a guitar or bass is likely to believe the PURPLE HAZE pickup is a
brand or product extension from the same source that offers the Marshall HAZE
Serial No. 86009264
- 16 -
amplifier. This critical du Pont factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion
herein.
C. Channels of trade and conditions of sale
In many of the websites placed into the record by the Trademark Examining
Attorney, the amplifiers are displayed on different pages than are the electronic
sound pickup for guitars and basses. Additionally, as pointed out by Applicant,
pickups and amps are presumably located in different sections of most brick-and-
mortar music stores. However, given what we have seen of industry practice,
prospective consumers will be accustomed to seeing an array of guitar parts,
accessories and auxiliary components like amplifiers offered in these sites under a
single brand, such as Fender, Roland or EVH.
In its brief, Applicant argues that “[m]usicians are sophisticated consumers to
the extent that they understand the tools of their trade.” The record shows that
Applicant’s goods retail for more than three-hundred dollars. However, Applicant
has not offered evidence about the sophistication of its customers, and its
identification of goods is not limited to a particular type of consumer or price point.
See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110
USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Hence, we presume that these goods will be
sold to ordinary consumers exercising an average level of care. To the extent we
were to conclude based solely upon the price points of Applicant’s pickups that the
musicians comprising its customer base may be fairly sophisticated, we note that
even careful purchasers can be confused as to source when presented with highly
similar marks used on related and/or complementary goods. See In re Research,
Serial No. 86009264
- 17 -
Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 230 USPQ 49, 50 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Carlisle Chemical
Works, Inc. v. Hardman & Holden Ltd., 434 F.2d 1403, 168 USPQ 110, 112 (CCPA
1970) (“Human memories even of discriminating purchasers ... are not infallible.”)).
These du Pont factors also support a finding of likelihood of confusion.
D. Effect of purported consent agreement
Evidently in response to a request from Applicant, on September 18, 2014,
Jonathan Ellery, Managing Director of Marshall Amplification plc, the owner of the
cited HAZE registration, sent Applicant a “consent to use letter,” which was then
forwarded to the Office on September 23, 2014. This letter reads as follows:
This consent to use serves as formal confirmation that Marshall
permits Flying Mojo, LLC, 578 Washington Blvd, Suite 105, Marina
Del Rey, California 90292, U.S.A (“Flying Mojo”) incorporating Haze
(on a non-exclusive basis under the terms contained herein.) as part of
the brand name for Flying Mojo manufactured guitar pickups
(“Pickups”).
It is expressly understood and agreed by Flying Mojo that it shall (at
its own expense and liability) seek all necessary permissions in
respect of any term, name or other brand name to accompany Haze,
and that furthermore, any and all Marshall intellectual property,
including, but not limited to, any Marshall product and/or any
Marshall trade mark (including Haze), shall remain the sole property
of Marshall.
Although Applicant argues that this letter constitutes Registrant’s consent to
the registration of Applicant’s proposed mark, the Trademark Examining
Attorney has rejected this argument. We agree that this is not sufficient to
overcome the statutory refusal grounded in likelihood of confusion.
This alleged “consent to use,” by its own terms, does not provide Registrant’s
consent to Applicant’s registration of its claimed mark. Instead, Registrant
consents to Applicant’s non-exclusive inclusion of the word “Haze” into its
Serial No. 86009264
- 18 -
composite mark for guitar pickups. In addition, the second paragraph of this
“agreement” suggests that Applicant needs to seek additional consent from
Registrant for an action such as registration.
We recognize that our primary reviewing court has repeatedly indicated that
consent agreements should be given great weight, and that we should not
substitute our judgment about likelihood of confusion for the judgment of the real
parties in interest. However, this case is an outlier. This “naked consent” fails to
set forth the reasons why Registrant believes there is no likelihood of confusion
and does not describe any arrangements undertaken by Applicant and Registrant
to avoid confusion among members of the relevant public. See In re Mastic, 829
F.2d 1114, 4 USPQ2d 1292, 1295-96 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Permagrain Prods.,
Inc., 223 USPQ 147, 149 (TTAB 1984). Without additional factors to support the
conclusion that confusion is unlikely, this naked agreement is accorded little
weight inasmuch as it does not constitute a proper and credible consent
agreement between the parties. See In re du Pont, 177 USPQ at 568; see also In re
Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., 987 F.2d 1565, 26 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re
N.A.D. Inc., 754 F.2d 996, 224 USPQ 969 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, this is a neutral du Pont factor in our final determination.
E. Conclusion on Likelihood of Confusion
When comparing the involved marks in their entireties, we find that they are
similar as to sound and appearance, create similar connotations and convey quite
similar overall commercial impressions. The goods are complementary products
that will be sold through the same channels of trade to the same classes of
Serial No. 86009264
- 19 -
purchasers. Despite Applicant’s attempt to secure Registrant’s consent to
Applicant’s use of Applicant’s claimed mark, we find the naked consent to be
insufficient (and on its face, somewhat contradictory) to overcome the statutory bar
to registration herein. Hence, after considering all of the applicable du Pont factors,
we find that Applicant’s mark, PURPLE HAZE for “electronic sound pickup for
guitars and basses” is likely to cause confusion with the cited mark, HAZE for
“sound amplifiers.”
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s PURPLE HAZE mark under
Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act is hereby affirmed.