{"id":878,"date":"2018-03-02T01:04:12","date_gmt":"2018-03-02T01:04:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=878"},"modified":"2023-11-24T05:59:02","modified_gmt":"2023-11-24T05:59:02","slug":"diversify-and-idiversify-deemed-confusingly-similar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/?p=878","title":{"rendered":"\u201cDIVERSIFY\u201d AND \u201cIDIVERSIFY\u201d deemed confusingly similar."},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE SERVICES (\u201cJOHN HANCOCK\u201d) opposed the trademark application of PNB LIFE INSURANCE (\u201cPNB\u201d) for \u201cDIVERSIFY\u201d covering life insurance product in class 36.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">PNB argued that it has a batter right to the mark as the first filer and registrant for the trademark DIVERSIFY on December 12, 2014 as opposed to JOHN HANCOCK which registered IDIVERSIFY only on January 16, 2016. JOHN HANCOCK registered the trademark \u201cIDIVERSIFY\u201d under class 9 (computer applications), 36 (providing services for research on financial investments) and 42 (software for analyzing investments).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The IPO rejected PNB\u2019s argument since \u201cit is not the application or registration that confers ownership of a mark, but it is the ownership of the mark that confers the right to registration\u201d. The presumption of ownership yields to superior evidence of actual and real ownership of the trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The IPO pointed out that both parties use the same literal elements \u201cD-I-V-E-R-S-I-F-Y\u201d, differing only in that the Opposer uses a first letter \u201cI\u201d, hence \u201cIDIVERSIFY\u201d. Deleting the letter \u201cI\u201d is negligible and insignificant because the resultant marks are still the same. There are no appreciable differences between the marks except for the letter \u201cI\u201d\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Applying the dominancy test in determining the likelihood of confusion, the word \u201cDIVERSIFY\u201d is the dominant, central, prevalent feature of both marks\u201d. It is of no moment that PNB\u2019s DIVERSIFY\u2019s mark is written in script type as this does not detract from the fact that the public, when availing of financial services or insurance products, will recall the dominant word \u201cDIVERSIFY\u201d, which is connected to JOHN HANCOCK\u2019s mark \u201cIDIVERSIFY\u201d. Likewise, although \u201cIDIVERSIFY\u201d is used on computer applications, the software services provided by JOHN HANCOCK relate to analyzing investment portfolios and strategies that are related and connected to insurance. As such, the public may be deceived that JOHN HANCOCK has branched out or have a connection, affiliation, or sponsorship to the business of PNB.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In conclusion, the IPO ruled that \u201cthe public interest, requires that two marks, identical to or closely resembling each other and used on the same and closely related goods\/services, but utilized by different proprietors, should not be allowed to co-exist. Confusion, mistake, deception and even fraud, should be prevented\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(BLA decision in IPC NO. 14-2015-00201 dated 22 December 2017)<\/span><\/p>\n<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE SERVICES (\u201cJOHN HANCOCK\u201d) opposed the trademark application of PNB LIFE INSURANCE (\u201cPNB\u201d) for \u201cDIVERSIFY\u201d covering life insurance product in class 36. PNB argued that it has a batter right to the mark as the first filer and registrant&#8230;<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ip"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/878","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=878"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/878\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3153,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/878\/revisions\/3153"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}