No. 91177186 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2009)

HSN LPv.Young H. Chan

Trademark Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 2009

No. 91177186 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2009)

Mailed: June 15, 2009 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ______ HSN LP v. Young H. Chan _____ Opposition No. 91173579 to application Serial No. 76640434 and application Serial No. 76640436 filed on June 7, 2005 Opposition No. 91177186 to application Serial No. 76640433 filed on June 7, 2005 _____ Erik C. Kane of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP for HSN LP. Young H. Chan pro se. ______ Before Walters, Walsh and Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge: Young H. Chan (“applicant”) filed three use-based applications for the same mark HSK HOME SHOPPING KOREA and design, shown below, for the services listed below all in Class 35: THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 2 Retail store providing preserved fruits, vegetables, poultry, meats, edible oils, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; Providing home shopping services in the field of health foods, oriental foods, electronics, kitchen utensils, kitchen wears (sic), appliances, sporting goods, jewelry, furniture and clothing by means of television; and, Retail store providing household or kitchen utensils, containers, appliances, dishes. Applicant claimed October 1, 2002 as its dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce, and he disclaimed the exclusive right to use the term “Home Shopping Korea.” HSN LP (“opposer”) filed notices of opposition against the registration of applicant’s mark on the ground of priority of use and likelihood of confusion pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), and dilution pursuant to Section 43(c) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(c). Specifically, opposer alleged that, through its predecessors-in-interest and licensees, it has continuously used the marks HSN, HOME SHOPPING NETWORK and variations thereof in connection with “electronic retailing and related services since at least as Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 3 early as 1985,”1 that its marks have become famous prior to the filing dates of the applications being opposed, and that applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with opposer’s marks and dilute their distinctive quality. Applicant in his answers denied the essential allegations in the notices of opposition. Preliminary Issue Opposer’s pleaded registrations have not been properly made of record. Federal registrations owned by opposer may be made of record in three ways: 1. Attaching a copy of the registration prepared and issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office showing both the current status of and current title to the registration; 2. Filing a notice of reliance with a copy of the registration prepared and issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office showing both the current status of and current title to the registration; and, 3. Taking the testimony of a witness having knowledge of the current status and title of the registration that identifies the registration and testifies that it is still subsisting and owned by opposer. 1 Notices of Opposition ¶3. Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 4 Trademark Rule 2.122(d), 37 CFR §2.122(d). See also Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Alcar Metals, Inc., 200 USPQ 742, 744 n.5 (TTAB 1978); TBMP §704.03(b)(1) (2nd ed. rev. 2004). Opposer attached copies of its pleaded registrations printed from the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) to the notices of opposition. However, registration copies “prepared and issued by the Patent and Trademark Office showing both the current status of and title to the registration” as contemplated by Trademark Rule 2.122(d) are printed copies of the registration on which the Office has verified the current status of and title to the registration. “The electronic equivalents thereof, such as printouts of the registration from the electronic records of the Office’s trademark automated search system, are not sufficient. TBMP §704.03(b)(1). For oppositions filed on or after August 31, 2007, the effective date of the most recent amendment to the Trademark Rules of Practice and Procedure, an opposer may attach copies of its registrations from the electronic database records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The oppositions were filed on October 24, 2006 and May 7, 2007 and, therefore, the amended rule does not apply because the proceedings were filed prior to the effective date of the amended rule and we Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 5 cannot accept TESS copies of the registrations to establish the current status and title to the registrations.2 During the testimony deposition of Susan Weis, opposer’s Senior Intellectual Property Paralegal, Ms. Weis identified copies of opposer’s pleaded registrations printed from Office’s TESS and TARR databases. While we can construe her testimony as attesting to opposer’s ownership of the registrations, Ms. Weiss never testified regarding the current status of opposer’s pleaded registrations (e.g., Ms. Weis did not testify that the registrations were subsisting, active, live, etc.). See Cadence Industries Corp. v. Kerr, 225 USPQ 331, 332, n.2 (TTAB 1985) (no probative value where testimony established opposer’s ownership of the registration, but not the current status). In view thereof, we find that opposer failed to establish that its pleaded registrations are currently subsisting. Accordingly, the registrations have been given no consideration in our determination of this case. The Record By rule, the record includes applicant’s application files and the pleadings. Trademark Rule 2.122(b), 37 CFR §2.122(b). In addition, opposer introduced the following testimony and evidence: 2 However, if this case were governed by the amended rules, then the TESS copies of opposer’s pleaded would have made those registrations of record. Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 6 1. A notice of reliance on copies of stories appearing in printed publications filed pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.122(e) to show “exposure of the public to articles describing the formation, operation and/or reputation of Opposer”; 2. Testimony deposition of Susan Weis with attached exhibits; and, 3. Testimony deposition of Michael Attinella, Opposer’s Senior Vice President Controller, with attached exhibits. Applicant did not introduce any testimony or evidence, nor did applicant file a brief. Standing “Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark upon the principal register . . . may, file an opposition . . . stating the grounds therefore.” Section 13 of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1063(a). Thus, a party has standing to oppose if it can demonstrate a real interest in the proceeding. Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982). “The purpose in requiring standing is to prevent litigation where there is no real controversy between the parties, where a plaintiff, petitioner or opposer, is no more than an intermeddler.” Id. To establish a reasonable basis for a belief that one Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 7 is damaged by the mark sought to be registered, an opposer may assert a likelihood of confusion which is not wholly without merit. Id. Opposer sells a wide variety of general consumer products through its television shopping services, retail store services, and online sales services identified by the marks HOME SHOPPING NETWORK, HSN and HSN and design, shown below.3 Accordingly, as the owner of the above-noted HOME SHOPPING NETWORK and HSN marks, opposer has a real interest in preventing the registration of applicant’s mark HSK HOME SHOPPING KOREA and design because applicant’s mark is at least arguably confusingly similar to opposer’s marks. Id.; Marmark Ltd. v. Nutrexpa S.A., 12 USPQ2d 1843, 1844 (TTAB 1989). Priority Applicant filed the applications for his HSK HOME SHOPPING KOREA and design mark on June 7, 2005. For our purposes, we will consider June 7, 2005 to be applicant’s 3 Attinella Dep., pp. 15-16, 22-23, Exhibits 3-6; Weiss Dep., pp. 6-8, 12, 17, 20-23, Exhibits 3-10. Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 8 priority date. Mason Engineering v. Mateson Chemical, 225 USPQ 956, 961 (TTAB 1985) (in the absence of evidence regarding its date of first use, the earliest date on which applicant can rely is the filing date of its application). Because opposer is relying on unregistered marks, opposer must show that it began using its mark(s) prior to the filing date of applicant’s application. Miller Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., 27 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (TTAB 1993). In determining priority of use and likelihood of confusion, we are going to focus our analysis on opposer’s HSN and HSN and design marks because the record has been more fully developed in connection with those marks. Opposer began using HSN in the early 1980’s.4 In addition, there is substantial evidence of opposer’s use of the marks prior to the filing date of applicant’s application.5 Accordingly, we find that opposer has established its use of HSN and HSN and design prior to the filing date of applicant’s application. Likelihood of Confusion Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 4 Weiss Dep., pp. 22-23. 5 Weiss Dep., Exhibits 8-9; Attinella Dep., Exhibits 1-2; Opposer’s Notice of Reliance Exhibits 1, 2, 4-10. Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 9 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). See also, In re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A. The fame of opposer’s marks. This du Pont factor requires us to consider the fame of opposer’s of marks. Fame, if it exists, plays a dominant role in the likelihood of confusion analysis because famous marks enjoy a broad scope of protection or exclusivity of use. A famous mark has extensive public recognition and renown. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Fame may be measured indirectly by the volume of sales and advertising expenditures of the goods and services identified by the marks at issue, “by the length of time those indicia of commercial awareness have been evident,” widespread critical assessments and notice by independent sources of the products identified by the marks, as well as the general reputation of the products and services. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products Inc., 63 USPQ2d at 1305-1306 and 1309. Although raw numbers of product sales and advertising expenses may have sufficed in the past to prove fame of a mark, raw numbers alone may be misleading. Some context in Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 10 which to place raw statistics may be necessary (e.g., the substantiality of the sales or advertising figures for comparable types of products or services). Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products Inc., 63 USPQ2d at 1309. Opposer has continuously used its HSN mark since the early 1980’s. Because opposer designated its sales and advertising figures as confidential, we may only refer to them in general terms. In that regard, opposer’s sales figures are impressive under any standard, and its advertising expenditures are significant.6 In particular, opposer pays close attention to its brand image. One of the line items in connection with its marketing expenditures is “brand strategy.” Brand strategy is the investment that we make in trying to ensure HSN further develops and maintains its brand awareness and brand identity as an entity - - you know, as a business in total.7 * * * Brand strategy is the initiative underway within our marketing and advertising groups to promote the HSN brand. Not the brands that we sell necessarily, but the HSN brand itself; to identify and establish its own identity to try to develop an identity, and an awareness, and understanding of HSN so that when people see the HSN brand it means something to them.8 6 Attinella Dep., pp. 7-12 and 31-34, and Exhibits 1, 2 and 8. 7 Attinella Dep., p. 12. 8 Attinella Dep., pp. 32-33. Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 11 The activities involved in establishing opposer’s brand strategy include mailings to customers, programs aimed at attracting upscale vendors to sell products through opposer’s television and internet media, and upgrading the television production.9 As a result of opposer’s marketing efforts, opposer’s television programs are available in 90 million homes resulting in approximately 30 million orders per year to 4.5 million active customers.10 More significantly, however, is the strong evidence of brand recognition as shown in opposer’s confidential brand awareness survey that it uses in the ordinary course of business.11 Finally, the following excerpts from a sampling of stories in printed publications provides evidence of opposer’s renown: 1. The Denver Business Journal (October 17-23, 1997) “Selling to couch potatoes: Firm teaches TV pitchmen” [T]he Home Shopping Network is putting a new program into place that will give small companies the chance to pitch their products on the popular television channel. 2. Broadcasting & Cable (November 27, 2000) “Shopping Channels: Less of a hard sell” The top-three shopping networks based on sales figures – QVC, HSN and ValueVision 9 Attinella Dep., p. 33. 10 Attinella Dep., pp. 19 and 37; Weis Dep., p. 7 11 Weis Dep., Exhibit 17. Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 12 – combined for more than $4.28 billion in 1999. * * * The network’s [ValueVision] 36 million homes [U.S.] are less than half of QVC’s 75 million [U.S.] and far behind HSN’s worldwide total of 137 million.12 3. NY Daily News (June 25, 2007) “There’s no place like home shopping: These days, TV powerhouse HSN is even used by stars like Madonna” With a customer base that’s grown from 800 to more than 5 million, HSN is now the country’s fourth-largest cable network. * * * Many familiar faces have tested their ad-libbing skills on HSN over the years: Madonna (children’s book “The English roses”) Farrah Fawcett (jewelry) Dick Clark (skin care) 4. Boston Globe (March 17, 1999) “A selling point Home-shopping firms don’t get respect, just revenues” Home Shopping Network alone has more than 20 million customer names and credit card numbers on file – more than three times as many as giant on-line bookseller Amazon.com, according to estimates. 5. Diamond Intelligence Briefs (September 27, 2005) “UptownGold.com Goes Live; Off the Shelf” A new online jewelry store has been launched as www.uptowngold.com. The 12 The article ranked opposer second in sales behind QVC. Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 13 website offers the same items selling at famous retailers around the country, including Macy’s, Zales, QVC, Home Shopping Network, and Sears at prices more affordable than traditional jewelry retailers because it skips the high markup and comes directly from the factory, explains a spokesman for the company. 6. The New York Post (April 7, 2006) “Martha on move – Inks Macy’s deal, eyes home-shopping” According to industry sources, the company [Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia] has been eyeing the home- shopping industry as a way to further extend its brand – a move that could challenge the dominance of the two major home-shopping networks, QVC and media mogul Barry Diller’s Home Shopping Network. Based on these facts, we find that opposer’s HSN mark for retail sales of consumer products through television sales is famous for purposes of analyzing likelihood of confusion. B. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the services described in the application and in connection with opposer’s services. Applicant has filed applications to register his mark for home shopping services through television and retail store services encompassing a wide variety of consumer items, including, inter alia, food, electronics, kitchen utensils, appliances, sporting goods, jewelry, furniture and clothing. Opposer’s primary service is the television sales Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 14 of consumer products, including, inter alia, jewelry, electronics, clothing, furniture and household products.13 In addition, opposer also sells products through retail stores.14 Accordingly, we find that the services of the parties are identical. C. The similarity or dissimilarity of likely-to-continue trade channels and classes of consumers. Because the services of the parties are identical, we must presume that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same. See Genesco Inc. v. Martz, 66 USPQ2d 1260, 1268 (TTAB 2003) (“Given the in-part identical and in-part related nature of the parties’ goods, and the lack of any restrictions in the identifications thereof as to trade channels and purchasers, these clothing items could be offered and sold to the same classes of purchasers through the same channels of trade”); In re Smith and Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531, 1532 (TTAB 1994) (“Because the goods are legally identical, they must be presumed to travel in the same channels of trade, and be sold to the same class of purchasers”). Specifically, with respect to the home shopping services, both parties render those services through the medium of television and those services would be rendered to consumers so inclined to purchaser products through television sales services. 13 Attinella Dep., pp. 15-16; Weis Dep., pp. 8, 10-12. 14 Attinella Dep., pp. 22-23 Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 15 Also, we note that there are no restrictions in applicant’s description of services as to the channels of trade or classes of purchasers, therefore, we must consider applicant’s retail store services and television home shopping services as if they were rendered in all of the normal channels of trade to all of the normal purchasers of such services. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1815 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Toys R Us v. Lamps R Us, 219 USPQ 340, 343 (TTAB 1983). While opposer did not specifically address its channels of trade and classes of consumers, we infer from the testimony of Ms. Weis and Mr. Attinella that opposer promotes its services to all consumers. Thus, even if we were to assume that applicant’s services were directed to the Korean community within the United States, we would still find that the classes of consumers overlap because applicant did not restrict its description of services to the Korean community and because opposer promotes its services to members of the Korean community (i.e., the general public to whom opposer renders its services includes the Korean community). D. The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing. As indicated above, neither applicant's description of services nor opposer’s services have any limitations Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 16 pertaining to the conditions regarding how and to whom the services and sale of the goods are rendered. Therefore, their respective services are broad enough to encompass the sale of relatively inexpensive consumer items that would not be purchased with a great deal of care and do not require purchaser sophistication. See Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“When products are relatively low-priced and subject to impulse buying, the risk of likelihood of confusion is increased because purchasers of such products are held to a lesser standard of purchasing care”) (citations omitted). E. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. We now turn to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ at 567. In a particular case, any one of these means of comparison may be critical in finding the marks to be similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 9 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1042 (TTAB 1988). In comparing the marks, we are mindful that where, as here, the services are identical, the degree of similarity necessary to find likelihood of confusion need not be as great as where there is a Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 17 recognizable disparity between the services. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Real Estate One, Inc. v. Real Estate 100 Enterprises Corporation, 212 USPQ 957, 959 (TTAB 1981); ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Incorporated, 207 USPQ 443, 449 (TTAB 1980). Moreover, when, as here, an opposer’s mark is famous, the degree of similarity between the marks need not be as great as when the opposer’s mark is obscure or weak. Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Arts Industries, Inc., 22 USPQ2d at 1456. See also Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors, Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 223 USPQ 1281, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“less care may be taken in purchasing a product under a famous name”). In other words, there is “no excuse for even approaching the well-known trademark of a competitor . . . and that all doubt as to whether confusion, mistake, or deception is likely is to be resolved against the newcomer, especially where the established mark is one which is famous. . . .” Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises, 889 F.2d 1070, 12 USPQ2d 1901, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1989), quoting Planter’s Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., Inc., 305 F.2d 916, 134 USPQ 504, 511 (CCPA 1962). Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 18 With these principles in mind, we find that applicant’s mark HSK HOME SHOPPING KOREA and design, shown below, is similar in terms of appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression with opposer’s mark HSN and design, shown below. Applicant’s Mark Opposer’s Mark Both marks consist of three letters (HSK and HSN) within a circle. The first two letters of each mark are identical (HS). While each party may have derived their three-letter marks from the initial letters of their trade names (Home Shopping Korea and Home Shopping Network), neither letter combination has been shown to have any special meaning to consumers aside from the trademark significance ascribed to opposer’s mark. The letters are unpronounceable letter combinations and, therefore, they may be inherently difficult to remember and thus more susceptible to confusion or mistake, particularly where, as here, the marks consist of three letters and only the last letters are different. See Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (confusion likely between TMM and TMS both for Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 19 computer software); Alberto-Culver Co. v. F.D.C. Wholesale Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1597, 1602 (TTAB 1990) (confusion likely between FDC for toiletry and bathroom personal care products and FDS for feminine hygiene products); Chemtron Corp. v. N.R.G. Fuels Corp., 157 USPQ 111, 112 (TTAB 1968) (confusion likely between NCG for compressed gases and NRG for liquefied petroleum gas). Because both marks appear within a circle design, the similarity of the marks is enhanced. In comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression so that confusion as to the source of the services offered under the respective marks is likely to result. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons Restaurants Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d unpublished, No. 92-1086 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 1992). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average customer, who retains a general rather than specific impression of the marks. Winnebago Industries, Inc. v. Oliver & Winston, Inc., 207 USPQ 335, 344 (TTAB 1980); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975). For these reasons, the display of the similar letter combinations in circle designs may trigger a recollection of Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 20 one mark upon encountering the other mark in identical marketing situations such as we have here. Edison Brothers Stores v. Brutting E.B. Sport-International, 230 USPQ 530, 533(TTAB 1986). While the marks must be compared in their entireties, in analyzing the similarity or dissimilarity of two marks, there is nothing improper in stating that for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark. In re National Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The term “Home Shopping Korea” in applicant’s mark has less significance than the HSK letter combination because it is descriptive and has been disclaimed and because it appears in a much smaller size than the letters.15 In re Code Consultants Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (TTAB 2001) (descriptive matter that is disclaimed is often “less significant in creating the mark’s commercial impression”). See also Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2000), quoting, In re National 15 Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right to use the term “Home Shopping Korea” pursuant to the Examining Attorney’s requirement in each application to disclaim the term because it was merely descriptive. We construe applicant’s disclaimer as an admission that the term “Home Shopping Korea” is merely descriptive. TBMP §704.04 (2nd ed. Rev. 2004), citing American Rice, Inc. v. H.I.T. Corp., 231 USPQ 793, 798 (TTAB 1986) (fact that opposer took position in its application regarding descriptiveness of term inconsistent with its position in inter partes proceeding may be considered as evidence); Sunbeam Corp. v. Battle Creek Equipment Co., 216 USPQ 1101, 1102 n.3 (TTAB 1982) (applicant’s claim of Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 21 Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 752 (“Regarding descriptive terms, this court has noted that the ‘descriptive component of a mark may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on the likelihood of confusion’”). F. Balancing the factors. Where, as here, the opposer’s trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be of “little consequence”. Specialty Brands v. Coffee Bean Distributors, 223 USPQ at 1284 (“The fame of a trademark may affect the likelihood purchasers will be confused inasmuch as less care may be taken in purchasing a product under a famous name”). Therefore, a famous trademark is entitled to a broad scope of protection or exclusivity of use. In view of the similarity of the marks, and the identity of the services, channels of trade and classes of consumers, we find that applicant’s mark HSK HOME SHOPPING KOREA and design when used in connection with retail store services and television home shopping services is likely to cause confusion with opposer’s HSN and HSN and design marks used in connection with television home shopping service and retail store services. In reaching this decision, we note that there is “no excuse for even approaching the well-known trademark of a competitor . . . and that all doubt as to whether distinctiveness in its application is an admission by applicant that term is descriptive). Opposition No. 91173579 Opposition No. 91177186 22 confusion, mistake, or deception is likely is to be resolved against the newcomer, especially where the established mark is one which is famous.” Nina Ricci S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises Inc., 12 USPQ2d at 1904, quoting Planter’s Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., Inc., 305 F.2d 916, 134 USPQ 504, 511 (CCPA 1962). Because we have found that there is a likelihood of confusion, we do not have to decide the issue of dilution. Decision: The opposition is sustained and registration to applicant is refused.