opinion TwinCessna.com is a TM issue with TwinCessna.org?

[mani0307]

Hi,
I have a domain TwinCessna // dot// com and when i check twincessna.org and look like TM so i decided to not contact with .org and after one month i delist this domain from every where but today i check both domains on way back machine and looking same year registration so please tell me its a TM or Not, what do you think?

Thanks in Advance!

 

[jberryhill]

No, it's not a trademark issue with TwinCessna.org.

It's a trademark issue with Cessna.

Whether Cessna permits an aircraft owners organization to use TwinCessna.org is beside the point that CESSNA is a well-known mark for aircraft, regardless of whether they still manufacture twin engine prop models.

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn77868280&docId=OOA20100223100109#docIndex=1&page=1

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 0576100 & 0867435. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See TMEP §1207.01. However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

The registered marks are for CESSNA. Applicant has entirely incorporated the registrant’s marks in the applied for mark. The applicant’s services are directed to owners of twin Cessna flyers or airplanes. The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Rather, it is sufficient that the goods and/or services are related in some manner and/or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source. In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).