Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega LTD.)v.FaLonda Hanif

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2013

No. 91186138 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2013)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed:
August 5, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega LTD.)
v.
FaLonda Hanif

Opposition No. 91186138
Ser. No. 77091956
_____

Jess M Collen, Jeffrey A. Lindenbaum, and Govinda M. Davis of Collen IP
Intellectual Property Law for Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega LTD.).

Leslie A. Thompson of Leslie A. Thompson & Associates for FaLonda Hanif.
_____

Before Kuhlke, Gorowitz, and Hightower, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judge:

FaLonda Hanif (applicant) filed an application to register the mark OMEGA-
OPOLY for “board games and game component pieces sold as a unit therewith;
equipment sold as a unit for playing board games; printed positionable toys for use
in board games; board game played with movable pieces; games, namely, board
Opposition 91186138

2

games, party games and parlor games and component pieces thereof for use as a
set” in Class 28.1
Omega S.A. (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) (opposer) opposed the application on
the grounds of likelihood of confusion and dilution.2 Opposer alleges that its mark
is famous and that it is the owner of the following registrations:
• Reg. No. 25036 for the mark OMEGA & design
(version 1)3 for “watch movements and watch cases”
in Int. Class 14 (issued May 23, 1894; fifth renewal
September 23, 2004);
• Reg. No. 566,370 for the mark OMEGA
for “watches and parts thereof” in Int. Class 14
(issued November 4, 1952; fourth renewal
November 4, 2012);

• Reg. No. 578041 for the mark OMEGA & design
(version 2)4 for “watches (including pocket watches,
wrist watches with or without straps, bands or
bracelets, pendant watches, calendar watches, and
stopwatches) either stem-wind or automatic; clocks;
chronometers, chronographs, and parts for all of
the foregoing” in Int. Class. 14 (issued July 28,
1953; third renewal September 6, 2003);

1 Application Serial Number 77091956, filed January 26, 2007 on the basis of intent-to-use,
pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act.
2 Opposer did not address the dilution claim in its brief and thus the claim is deemed
waived.
3 (version 1)
4 (version 2)
Opposition 91186138

3

• Reg. No. 660541 for the mark OMEGA & design
(version 2), for “automatic recording machines and
apparatus for use in determining the results of
sporting events-namely, electrical or mechanical
equipment for determining elapsed times in games
or sporting events comprising a plurality of
instruments for placement at the starting and
finishing lines of a racing course, the same being
electrically operated and connected to and actuated
by the starting gun or other signal so as to
automatically provide a permanent visible record of
the order in which one or more contestants finish
the race and of the corresponding elapsed times” in
Int. Class 9 (issued April 15, 1958; third renewal
May 9, 2008);

• Reg. No. 1969071 for the mark OMEGA & design
(version 2) for “metal key rings” in Int. Class 6;
pens and pencils” in Int. Class 16; “umbrella and
parasols” in Int. Class 18; and “scarves and
neckties” in Int. Class 25 (issued April 23, 1996;
renewed August 5, 2006);

• Reg. No. 3146117 for the mark OMEGA & design
(version 2), for “retail store services featuring
watches, clocks, horological and chronometric
instruments and their accessories, jewelry” in Class
35 (issued September 19, 2006; Section 8 accepted);
and

• Reg. No. 2912918 for the OMEGA symbol design,5
for watches, chronometers, chronographs; watches
made of precious metals; watches partly or entirely
set with precious stones (issued December 21, 2004;
Section 8 accepted; Section 15 acknowledged).

5
Opposition 91186138

4

Opposer also alleges prior common law rights in “related goods,” including a
poker game set.
In her answer, applicant denied all of the salient allegations in the notice of
opposition. She also asserted three “additional” defenses. However, applicant did
not file a brief and thus no argument was submitted in support of these defenses.
Accordingly, no discussion of these “additional” defenses is warranted and any
affirmative defenses actually pled are deemed waived.
This matter has been briefed by opposer.
Evidentiary issues.
Opposer’s objections to applicant’s evidence.
Opposer has objected to the following documents introduced by applicant by
notice of reliance: (1) applicant’s responses to opposer’s discovery requests; (2) third-
party registrations for marks consisting of or containing the word OMEGA or the
symbol therefor; (3) Internet evidence including a list of trademark registrations
from the Trademark Electronic Search System.
(1) Applicant’s response to opposer’s discovery requests.
Applicant introduced portions of her responses to opposer’s interrogatories,
requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. Trademark Rule
2.120(j)(5) prohibits the introduction by notice of reliance of discovery responses by
the party responding thereto unless they are submitted “so as to make not
misleading what was offered by the receiving or inquiring party.” See 37 C.F.R. §
2.120 (j)(5). Although opposer did submit certain of applicant’s discovery responses,
Opposition 91186138

5

applicant’s notice of reliance does not include “a written statement explaining why”
applicant needs to rely upon the additional discovery responses, nor did applicant
respond to opposer’s objection. Id. Further, documents produced in response to a
request for production are generally not admissible by notice of reliance.
Trademark Rule 2.120(j)(3)(ii), 37 C.F.R. § 2.120 (j)(3)(ii). Accordingly, opposer’s
objection is sustained.
(2) Third-party registrations for marks consisting of or containing the
word OMEGA or the symbol therefor.
Applicant introduced ten live third-party registrations for marks consisting of
or containing the word OMEGA or the symbol therefor, owned by six different
entities.6 Opposer objected to the introduction of these documents because
applicant did not include a statement regarding the relevance of the registrations.
However, “it is not the practice of the Board to suppress evidence regularly
introduced in evidence in accordance with the applicable rules of practice on the
basis of an indefinite statement or on the omission of a statement, the substance of
which was known or could have been easily ascertained from a cursory review of the
documents.” United States Olympic Committee v. International Federation of Body

6 Reg. No. 1283471 for the mark OMEGA RACE was cancelled and accordingly has not been
considered. Reg. No 3360443 for the mark DECALOGUE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
GAME, as set forth below, is not relevant and thus has not been considered.

Opposition 91186138

6

Builders, 210 USPQ 128, 134 (TTAB 1981) (emphasis added?). Accordingly, the
objection is overruled.
(3) Internet evidence.
Applicant’s evidence identified as “internet evidence” has been categorized as
“printouts providing background for how and why applicant created the OMEGA-
OPOLY mark (Exhibits 11-15)”; printouts from the USPTO electronic database
showing results of a search for registered marks containing the word OMEGA, with
copies of several of the registrations for marks consisting of or containing the word
OMEGA, owned by third-parties and by opposer (Exhibits 16 and 17)7; and
printouts of GOOGLE search results (Exhibits 19-22).
Documents obtained from the Internet may be admitted into evidence
pursuant to a notice of reliance in the same manner as a printed publication in
general circulation in accordance with Trademark Rule 2.122(e) if each document
identifies its date of publication or date that it was accessed and printed, and its
source (e.g., the URL). Safer Inc. v. OMS Investments Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031, 1039
(TTAB 2010). None of the documents identified as Exhibits 11, 13-15 include URLs
or dates of publication or access. Accordingly, opposer’s objections are sustained
and these documents will not be considered.
Exhibits 12 and 16 are official documents. Although none of these documents
include URLs, there is other source identifying information on the documents, as
well as the dates on which they were accessed, i.e., Exhibit 12 is a business name

7 As discussed above, the registrations in Exhibit 17 are admissible.
Opposition 91186138

7

search of the Georgia Secretary of State records accessed on August 10, 2012 and
Exhibit 16 is the results of a search of the Trademark Electronic Search System,
accessed on August 13, 2012. The Georgia Secretary of State’s business name
history records for Expressations Embroidery, LLC are not relevant to this
proceeding and thus will not be considered. Further, as set forth in Edom
Laboratories Inc. v. Lichter:
while the listing that applicant has submitted, of third-
party marks downloaded from the USPTO's Trademark
Electronic Search System (TESS), is of record, the
registrations listed therein are not of record, and the list
itself has little, if any, probative value. The list consists of
marks and their … registration numbers …. We cannot
determine from a mere listing like this the nature of the
goods or services for which these purported marks have
been applied-for or registered and many of the marks
themselves appear to contain substantial additional
matter. The Board does not take judicial notice of
registrations … residing in the Office.
Edom Laboratories Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1560 (TTAB 2012). Thus,
although these exhibits have little if any probative value, they are admissible and
the objection is overruled.
Exhibits 18-22 are printouts of Google search summaries. A Google search
summary is inadmissible by notice of reliance because it merely offers links to
information not otherwise of record. Id. at 1550. Cf. Calypso Technology, Inc. v.
Calypso Capital Management, LP, 100 USPQ2d 1213, 1219 (TTAB 2011) (Google
search results summaries “which are more in the nature of listings of documents,
i.e., the website pages that the summary links to, than to the documents per se”
Opposition 91186138

8

may not be made of record by notice of reliance). Accordingly, opposer’s objections
are sustained and the Google search summaries will not be considered.
The record.
By rule, the record includes applicant’s application file and the pleadings.
Trademark Rule 2.122(b), 37 CFR § 2.122(b). The record also includes the
testimony deposition of Gregory Swift, Brand President, Omega North America
dated March 29, 2012 and exhibits thereto, the rebuttal testimony deposition of
Gregory Swift dated September 17, 2012 and exhibits thereto, the rebuttal
testimony of Lauren Kennedy, paralegal at Collen IP, the following documents that
opposer introduced by notice of reliance:
1. Opposer’s pleaded registrations;
2. Applicant’s responses to opposer’s discovery requests;
3. Articles and advertisements from various publications;
4. Webpages evidencing use of “opoly” in connection with
games;
5. Third-party registrations for “OPOLY” marks;
6. Pages from opposer’s website and the Omega Mission
Hills World Cup website;
7. Articles about the James Bond movie, “Casino Royale”,
(introduced as rebuttal evidence); and
the following documents that applicant introduced by notice of reliance8:
1. Applicant’s registrations for marks containing the
suffix “OPOLY”;

8 All of the other documents proffered by applicant have been stricken.
Opposition 91186138

9

2. Third-party registrations for marks consisting of or
containing the word OMEGA; and
3. A list of live registrations for marks consisting of or
containing the word OMEGA.
Discussion
Opposer’s Background
Opposer has been selling timepieces under the trademark OMEGA in the
United States for over 100 years.9 While timepieces are the primary goods sold,
opposer also sells other products, i.e., jewelry and small leather goods.10
Opposer sells its Omega branded products in Omega brand stores and
Tourbillon retail locations (company-owned stores carrying a limited number of
brands).11 Opposer’s products are also sold in third-party retailers that carry high-
end products comparable to opposer’s.12
Opposer extensively advertises and promotes its goods.13 Opposer and its
third-party retailers distribute branded promotional items, i.e. pens, golf clubs, golf
balls, travel bags, writing pads, apparel and headgear.14 In addition, opposer
engages in promotional activities including sponsorships and celebrity
endorsements. Opposer has been the official timekeeper of many of the Olympic

9 Swift Test., 14:23-24, 15:3-14 and 18:6-11.
10 Id.
11 Swift Test., 20:1-21 and 13:9-13 (Swatch Group Limited is the parent company of Omega
SA).
12 Swift Test., 21: 6-16.
13 Sales and advertising/promotional expenses have been designated confidential and will
not be discussed in this decision.
14 Swift Test., 15:17-25 and 16:1-13.
Opposition 91186138

10

Games since 1932.15 Opposer also sponsors the World Cup of Golf and in 2012 was
the official timekeeper for the PGA of America PGA Championship.16 Opposer’s
“Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch” is the only watch ever certified by
NASA for its space missions.17
Opposer’s watches have been worn in the James Bond films starring Pierce
Brosnan and Daniel Craig.18 The OMEGA watch was mentioned in the James Bond
movie Casino Royale.19 In conjunction with the release of the Casino Royale movie
in November 2006,20 opposer produced a game set, which contains a Casino Royale
card set and branded poker chips.21 The mark OMEGA is also used on the attaché
case in which the set is packaged and on the box containing the cards.22 The Casino
Royale game set is still distributed in the United States.23
There is no specific evidence of sales or distribution of the games set, nor is
there evidence that Opposer filed any trademark applications covering games.

15 Swift Test., 75:3-5 and 13-14.
16 Swift Test., 76:19-20 and 77:4-7.
17 Swift Test., 82:14-20.
18 Swift Test., 93:19-25 and 94:15-16.
19 Swift Test., 94:23-24.
20 Swift Rebuttal Test., 5:16.
21 Swift Test., 29:12-25 and 30:1-4.
22 Swift Test., 30:11-14.
23 When asked whether this product is presently being distributed in the United States, Mr.
Swift replied: “It was recent, yeah. It was just as of recently, yes, yes.” at Swift Test.,
30:19:25.
Opposition 91186138

11

Opposer submitted annual sales figures for goods sold in the United States,
for the ten year period between 1999 and 2009. While Opposer designated the
actual figures as confidential, they were substantial.
Applicant’s background.
Applicant, an individual, filed an application to register the mark OMEGA-
OPOLY, based on intent-to-use, on January 26, 2007.24 As of May 5, 2012, the
mark had not been used in commerce and no goods had been sold thereunder.25
Standing.
Because opposer has made its pleaded registrations of record, and further has
shown by submitting evidence of use of the pleaded mark in connection with various
goods, including game sets, that it has a personal stake in the outcome of this
proceeding, we find that opposer has established its standing. See Coach Services
Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1727 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Lipton
Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185 (CCPA 1982).
Priority.
Priority is not an issue here in view of opposer's submission with its notice of
reliance of its pleaded registrations for the mark OMEGA, both with and without an
omega design.26 See Toro Co. v. ToroHead Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1164, 1167 (TTAB
2001); and King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen, 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108

24 Application file for opposed application, Serial Number 77091956.
25 Opposer’s NOR – Exhibit 8 (Applicant’s responses to interrogatory number 6 and 8 served
on May 5, 2012).
26 Opposer also submitted a pleaded registration for a mark consisting entirely of an omega
design.
Opposition 91186138

12

(CCPA 1974). In addition, opposer has established prior common law use in
connection with poker game sets.
Likelihood of Confusion.
Our determination of likelihood of confusion is based on an analysis of all of
the probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors set forth in In re E. I.
du Pont de Nemours & Co. 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also In
re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In
any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and the similarities between the goods and/or services. See
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24
(CCPA 1976). See also In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We start our analysis with the fifth du Pont factor, the fame of the prior
mark. “Fame for confusion purposes arises as long as a significant portion of the
relevant consuming public … recognizes the mark as a source indicator.” Palm Bay
Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F3d 1369, 73
USPQ2d 1689, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Opposer’s goods are sold in Omega branded
stores, Tourbillon retail locations (company-owned stores that carry only a selected
number of brands, which are high-end stores in key retail locations) and third-party
retailers that sell high-end products comparable to Omega.27 Opposer’s primary

27 Swift Test. 20:1-25 and 21:14-16.
Opposition 91186138

13

products are timepieces.28 Thus, the relevant consuming public for purposes of the
fame analysis is purchasers of high-end products, primarily timepieces.
Opposer has been selling its timepieces under the trademark OMEGA in the
United States for over 100 years.29 Opposer’s sales and advertising figures
combined with the evidence of prolonged and wide consumer exposure to its marks
are sufficient to establish the fame of opposer’s mark with respect to opposer’s
timepieces, including timekeeping devises. Accordingly, we find, for the purpose of
determining likelihood of confusion, that applicant’s mark is famous. While opposer
sells other high-end luxury products,30 virtually all of the advertisements and
unsolicited articles produced by opposer relate to opposer’s timepieces. There is no
evidence that opposer has established fame with respect to goods other than
watches. Accordingly, we find that the mark OMEGA is famous for the purpose of
likelihood of confusion in connection with timepieces.
Fame of the prior mark plays a dominant role in the likelihood of confusion
analysis because famous marks enjoy a broad scope of protection or exclusivity of
use. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1305
(Fed. Cir. 2002). However, the fame of opposer’s mark is insufficient in itself to
establish likelihood of confusion under § 2(d) of the Trademark Act. As set forth by
the Federal Circuit in University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food
Imports Co., Inc., 703 USPQ 505, 217 USPQ 505,507 (Fed. Cir. 1983):

28 Swift Test., 14:23-25.
29 Swift Test., 14:23-24.
30 Swift Test., 15:3-14.
Opposition 91186138

14

The fame of the University's name is insufficient in itself
to establish likelihood of confusion under § 2(d). “Likely *
* * to cause confusion” means more than the likelihood
that the public will recall a famous mark on seeing the
same mark used by another. It must also be established
that there is a reasonable basis for the public to attribute
the particular product or service of another to the source
of the goods or services associated with the famous mark.
To hold otherwise would result in recognizing a right in
gross, which is contrary to principles of trademark law
and to concepts embodied in 15 USC § 1052(d).
With this in mind, we consider the second du Pont factor, the
similarity/dissimilarity between the goods. Opposer’s game sets and applicant’s
board games are related goods in that they are both games. With regard to
opposer’s timepieces, while they may not be directly related to applicant’s board
games, opposer’s use of the OMEGA mark on game sets establishes that there is a
reasonable basis for the public to associate games with opposer’s famous mark used
on timepieces. Accordingly, this du Pont factor favors a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
There is no restriction on the channels of trade in the identification of goods
in the application. Accordingly, it is presumed that applicant’s board games will
move in all channels of trade that would be normal for board games, and that the
goods would be purchased by all potential customers. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639,
640 (TTAB 1981) (“[W]here the goods in a cited registration are broadly described
and there are no limitations in the identification of goods as to their nature, type,
channels of trade or classes of purchasers it is presumed that the scope of the
registration encompasses all goods of the nature and type described, that the
identified goods move in all channels of trade that would be normal for such goods,
Opposition 91186138

15

and that the goods would be purchased by all potential customers.”). On the other
hand, opposer’s rights in the OMEGA mark in connection with its game sets are
common law rights and thus there is no presumption about channels of trade.
Other than testifying that the game was released in conjunction with the James
Bond Casino Royale movie, opposer introduced no evidence about the distribution of
its game. Accordingly, we cannot establish the channels of trade in which this
product travels. With regard to opposer’s registrations for timepieces, while we
presume all ordinary channels of trade for them, which would include watch,
jewelry and department stores, this is not sufficient to determine that the channels
of trade are the same or overlapping with applicant’s boardgames. As such, we treat
the third du Pont factor as neutral.
While the channels of trade cannot be established, we agree with opposer
that board games are relatively inexpensive items the purchasers of which would
not be sophisticated. Thus, the fourth du Pont factor favors a finding of likelihood
of confusion.
Next, we consider the marks at issue. Applicant’s mark is OMEGA-OPOLY
(in standard character form). Opposer’s marks are OMEGA and OMEGA with
omega symbol, as set forth below:
.
Opposition 91186138

16

Applicant’s mark incorporates opposer’s mark OMEGA,31 with the only
addition being the hypen and suffix “OPOLY,” which applicant asserts is “a literal
element extensively and primarily used with marks associated with board games.”32
Applicant’s assertion is substantiated by opposer’s evidence of the extensive use of
“OPOLY” in connection with board games, examples of which include “Brew-Opoly,”
“Dog-Opoly,” “Grillin-Opoly,” “Grateful Deadopoly, and “Ranger Rick-opoly.”33 As
such, the suffix “opoly” is weak. The evidence also shows that it is a common
practice to add a brand name for other types of goods or services to the suffix “opoly”
on board games and consumers have been exposed to this type of branding. See,
e.g., YANKEE CANDLE-OPOLY, HERSHEYPARK-OPOLY, YAHOO!OPOLY.
Applicant has introduced several third-party registrations that we perceive
are for the purpose of demonstrating the weakness of the term OMEGA. However,
these registrations do not establish that the term OMEGA is weak for games.
There are no third-party registrations for games and only two of the registrations
introduced by applicant are for toys. Both of these are owned by Hasbro. The other
registrations are for unrelated goods. Moreover, since these registrations do not
establish actual use of the marks, they are entitled to little, if any, weight in
determining the strength of the mark in the cited registration. Evidence of
weakness or dilution consisting solely of third-party registrations, such as those
submitted by applicant in this case, is generally entitled to little weight in

31 In opposer’s OMEGA & omega symbol mark, the omega symbol reinforces the impression
of the dominant literal element, OMEGA.
32 Opposer’s NOR – Exhibit 12 (Applicant’s supplemental response to interrogatory no. 36).
33 Opposer’s NOR – Exhibit 33.
Opposition 91186138

17

determining the strength of a mark, because such registrations do not establish that
the registered marks identified therein are in actual use in the marketplace or that
consumers are accustomed to seeing them. See AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods.,
Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (CCPA 1973); In re Davey Prods. Pty
Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1204 (TTAB 2009); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634,
1639 (TTAB 2009); Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 216 USPQ 989,
992 (TTAB 1982).
OMEGA is the dominant portion of applicant’s mark. There is no evidence
that the word OMEGA has any meaning in connection with games. Further, it is
the first part of applicant’s mark, which is the portion most likely to be impressed
upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered. See Presto Products Inc. v. Nice-
Pak Products Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988).
While “the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks is determined based on the
marks in their entireties… there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational
reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark,
provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their
entireties.” In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir.
1985).
Comparing the marks in their entireties, and giving greater weight to the
distinctive element OMEGA which dominates the applicant’s mark and is the
entirety of opposer’s famous mark, we conclude that the marks are similar in
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. See Palm Bay Imports
Opposition 91186138

18

Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73
USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also In re Chatam International Inc., 380
F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (found likelihood of confusion between
JOSE GASPAR GOLD for tequila and GASPAR’S ALE for beer or ale because
marks convey the same commercial impression; discounted the word ALE in the
registered mark and the words JOSE and GOLD in the contested mark).
Accordingly, these du Pont factors favor a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Based on the evidence of record, we find that: (1) the marks OMEGA and
OMEGA-OPOLY are similar; (2) opposer’s games sets are related to applicant’s
board games; (3) purchasers of games are not sophisticated customers; (4) opposer’s
mark OMEGA is famous for timepieces, and (5) there are few, if any, similar marks
used in connection with similar goods.
Having considered all the evidence and argument on the relevant du Pont
factors, whether specifically discussed herein or not, we conclude that applicant’s
mark OMEGA-OPOLY for board games is likely to cause confusion with opposer’s
mark OMEGA for its goods, and in particular, its game set. To the extent that
there is any doubt on this issue, it is a well-established principle such doubt must
be resolved in favor of the prior registrant because the newcomer has the
opportunity of avoiding confusion and is charged with the obligation to do so. See In
re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1209, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re
Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir.
1988); In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1372 (TTAB 2009).
Opposition 91186138

19

Decision: The opposition is sustained on the ground of likelihood of
confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.