Lenovo PC International Limited and Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. filed a notice of opposition Wednesday before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against applicant Guilin Kushim Trading Co. Ltd., asserting that it would be damaged by the registration of the applicant’s Taosthink mark because of likelihood of consumer confusion.
According to the opposition, Lenovo “offers a wide array of technology-related products and services to consumers, including but not limited to, servers, computer hardware, server storage, networking, and software products and services.” Lenovo asserted that it is “the assignee and/or owner of a family of federally registered trademarks that contain the word THINK as a dominant word element (collectively, Think Marks) and the goodwill associated with those marks.” For example, as noted in the opposition, these registered Think-formative marks include Think Pad, ThinkCentre, ThinkLight, ThinkPad, ThinkPlus, and ThinkServer, among others. Lenovo claimed that the Think marks are used to promote its computer and other technology-related goods in international classes 009 and 042, among others. Lenovo stated that there has been a continuous use of these marks since the first use and use in commerce dates for each of these and contended that it has priority over the applicant because of its use and application/registration of these marks before the applicant’s.
Lenovo proffered that the applicant applied for the registration of the Taosthink mark in International Class 009, covering, “technology and computer-related goods,” including “Headphones; Smartwatches; (and) Cellphones,” with a first use in commerce on July 27, 2020. Lenovo claimed that the applicant’s goods and services with its application are “highly related” to the goods and services that Lenovo offers in connection with its Think marks.
Lenovo averred that Taosthink “is confusingly similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression” to Lenovo’s Think marks, as it “contain(s) the dominant element ‘think’ in connection with a secondary word element.” Additionally, Lenovo noted that its and the applicant’s marks are “in connection with computer, technology and virtual reality related goods.” As a result of these alleged similarities, Lenovo asserted that consumers are likely to falsely believe that there is a connection or affiliation between the opposer and the applicant and be confused as to the source of origin for the offered goods or services. Consequently, Lenovo claimed that it will be damaged by the registration of the applicant’s mark.
Lenovo is seeking for its opposition to be sustained and for the applicant’s application for Taosthink to be refused registration.
Lenovo is represented by Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.