BlackBerry Limited filed a notice of opposition on Tuesday before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Qumulex Inc.’s application for the QX mark; BlackBerry asserted that it would be harmed by the registration of the applicant’s mark.
According to the opposition, the applicant’s QX mark is in Class 9 and 42, covering “Computer hardware and computer hardware systems for video surveillance” and “Platform as a service featuring computer software platform for accessing, configuring, managing, and controlling video surveillance.”
BlackBerry stated that since at least 1982, “BlackBerry, its predecessor-in-interest and through subsidiary QNX Software Systems Inc., has used the trademark QNX (the QNX Mark) to identify its goods and services, inter alia, computer/device/Internet security and connectivity solutions; software development platforms and embedded software.” BlackBerry stated that the QNX Mark is in Class 9, 16, 41, and 42. Additionally, BlackBerry stated that it is used in connection with “real-time operating systems, middleware, development tools, and professional services for connected embedded systems for developing,” for example, “indoor home and in-vehicle infotainment, consumer electronics … video surveillance, network switches & routers, and data center products.”
BlackBerry stated that it promotes and sells goods and services using the QNX mark and that the mark has garnered media coverage. According to BlackBerry, the extensive use and distribution of the goods and services under the QNX mark indicate the goodwill, reputation and recognition of the mark and goods in connection with one another and BlackBerry. BlackBerry claimed that the QNX mark is famous and its mark predates that applicant’s mark.
Additionally, BlackBerry alleged that the applicant’s QX mark “is identical or highly similar to the QNX Mark in sight, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression.” BlackBerry alleged that the applicant’s goods “are identical, complementary, similar and/or related to the goods and services with which Opposer is using the QNX Mark” and “for which the QNX Mark is registered.”
As a result, BlackBerry averred that this similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception. BlackBerry contended that consumers are likely to falsely associate the applicant’s mark and goods with those of BlackBerry. Consequently, BlackBerry proffered that this is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the QNX mark.
BlackBerry seeks for the opposition to be sustained and for Qumulex’s application to be refused. BlackBerry is represented by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.