Artificer filed an application for the mark ARTIFICER and a 3-ring design for use in connection with clothing and jewelry. Target opposed the application on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with Target’s “bulls eye” mark which Target uses for retail store services featuring clothing and jewelry (the “Bulls Eye Mark”).
Click here to view the image
Target asserted rights in 14 registrations for its Bulls Eye Mark, as well as common law rights, but failed to submit the required evidence of the current status and title of its asserted registrations. Thus, the Board determined that Target could not rely upon any of its 14 pleaded registrations for the Bulls Eye Mark and could only rely upon common law rights.
Nevertheless, Target submitted sufficient evidence that the Bulls Eye Mark is famous, including that it has been used since the 1960’s, is recognized by 96% of Americans, is used at 1,700 stores and online, and is incorporated into numerous registered trademarks owned by Target.
The Board found Target’s retail store services in the field of clothing and jewelry sufficiently related to Artificer’s items of clothing and jewelry.
The tougher issue was the similarity of the marks. Yet, the Board found the commercial impression of the marks to be sufficiently similar finding that Artificer’s mark seems to be a hand drawn version of Target’s Bulls Eye Mark. The Board found the addition of the term ARTIFICER next to the design to be insufficient to create a commercial impression that is separate from that of Target’s famous mark.
Target Brands, Inc. v. Artificer Life Corp. Opposition Nos. 91206421 and 91206422 (TTAB May 2014).
