On Friday, opposer DISH Network LLC filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against applicant NVIDIA Corporation’s application for the NVIDIA Hopper mark, asserting that it will be damaged by the registration of the applicant’s mark because of the likelihood of confusion with its Hopper-related marks.
According to the opposition, DISH owns a variety of registered trademarks related to its Hopper service. The trademarks cover “Digital video recorders … communications equipment, namely, set-top boxes for receiving video programming; Television receivers; and satellite receivers.” These marks include Hopper, the stylized Hopper, HopperGo and Hopper Duo, as well as other Hopper-formative marks. DISH claimed that its marks predate those of NVIDIA both for the filing date and first date of use, some as early as 2011 and 2012, respectively. Additionally, DISH noted that the Hopper marks “have achieved great strength and public recognition as a result of extensive and continuous use” by DISH. As a result, DISH asserted that there is goodwill associated with the Hopper marks and the public associates these marks with DISH.
DISH alleged that NVIDIA filed an application in December 2019 for the NVIDIA Hopper mark to use in connection with goods in International Classes 9 and 42, covering, for example, “Downloadable application programming interface (API) software for computer software for ray tracing and image rendering, modeling, and image manipulation and processing, … Downloadable computer software,” and “application service provider (ASP) services featuring application programming interface (API) software for ray tracing and image rendering, modelling, and image manipulation and processing; cloud computing services.” \
According to DISH, in February 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office suspended three of its applications (90189396, 90189376, and 90189386) for Hopper Plus, Hopper 2 Plus, and Hopper 3 Plus, respectively) “based on a potential likelihood of confusion with Applicant’s Mark.” DISH contended that it “adopted and used one or more of the HOPPER Marks before Applicant’s filing date and/or priority date for Applicant’s Mark.”
DISH averred that NVIDIA’s mark is “very similar” to its Hopper marks “in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.” DISH added that NVIDIA’s Mark “incorporates Opposer’s HOPPER element in its entirety.” Additionally, the goods and services NVIDIA listed purportedly overlap with those of DISH, and the customers and trade channels allegedly are related or overlap. Thus, according to DISH, “(c)onsumers expect Opposer’s goods and services and Applicant’s goods/services to emanate from the same source.” As a result, DISH proffered that the similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception regarding the source or origin of the goods and services and for consumers to falsely believe there is a connection, association, or other relationship between DISH and NVIDIA.
DISH seeks for its opposition to be sustained and for NVIDIA’s application to be denied. DISH is represented by Adsero IP LLC.