The Board sustained this opposition to registration of FOUNDATIONAL MEDICINE REVIEW for “journals in the field of medicine” and “providing on-line non-downloadable articles in the field of medicine and health care” [MEDICINE REVIEW disclaimed], finding confusion likely with Opposer’s registered mark FOUNDATION MEDICINE for the provision of medical data and information to healthcare professionals [MEDICINE disclaimed]. The Board found the involved goods and services to be legally identical and the marks to be highly similar – a solid foundation for its ruling. Foundation Medicine, Inc.v.Albert F. Czap, Opposition No. 91243763 (September 18, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin).
In short, FOUNDATION MEDICINE (in both its standard character and design forms) and FOUNDATIONAL MEDICINE REVIEW are highly similar in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, so much so that some consumers familiar with Opposer’s marks could even perceive Applicant’s as identifying one of Opposer’s publications.
Czap pointed to seven third-party registrations in an attempt to show that FOUNDATION is a weak formative, but the Board found them to be “qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient: “either the marks, or the goods or services, or both, are too different from Opposer’s mark and services for the third party registrations to be probative.”
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: Opposer Foundation Medicine is represented in this proceeding by Douglas Wolf, John L. Strand, and Ryan van Olst of Wolf Greenfield.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2020.