{"id":260203,"date":"2022-01-17T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-01-17T06:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=260203"},"modified":"2022-01-18T09:43:16","modified_gmt":"2022-01-18T04:13:16","slug":"spotify-v-potify","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/","title":{"rendered":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash"},"content":{"rendered":"

United States Patent and Trademark Office: <\/strong>Cataldo, Adlin and Lebow, Administrative Trademark Judges, decided whether SPOTIFY is entitled against dilution by blurring under 15 U.S.C Section 1125(c).<\/p>\n

Applicant U.S Software Inc. sought registration of POTIFY, in standard character and stylized with a design for:<\/p>\n

downloadable software for use in searching, creating and making compilations, rankings, ratings, reviews, referrals and recommendations relating to medical marijuana dispensaries and doctor\u2019s offices and displaying and sharing a user\u2019s location and finding, locating, and interacting with other users and place, in International Class 9.<\/em><\/p>\n

Further, the applicant also sought the registration of the standard character version of the mark for:<\/p>\n

clothing, namely, shirts, tops, t-shirts, hoodies, headwear, shorts, in International Class 25;<\/em><\/p>\n

providing consumer information in the field of medical marijuana dispensary inventories and locations; providing links to web sites of others featuring consumer information on medical marijuana inventories and locations; providing a web site featuring the ratings, reviews and recommendations on products and services for commercial purposes posted by users; providing consumer information regarding medical marijuana dispensaries, inventories and locations, in International Class 35; and<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

computer services, namely, creating an on-line community for registered users to participate in discussions, get feedback from their peers, form virtual communities, and engage in social networking in the field of medical marijuana; providing a web site featuring temporary use of non-downloadable software for providing medical and healthcare services, scheduling of medical and healthcare services, in International Class 42.<\/em><\/p>\n

Opposer Spotify AB alleged prior common law rights in and registration of SPOTIFY, in standard characters.<\/p>\n

Further, the opposer alleged that the use of the applicant\u2019s marks would be likely to cause confusion with and dilute the opposer\u2019s mark under Sections 2(d) and 43(c) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C \u00a7 1052(d) and 1125(c).<\/p>\n

Analysis and Discussion<\/span><\/h3>\n

There is no dispute that Opposer\u2019s SPOTIFY mark is distinctive, both inherently, and by acquisition as a result of widespread use and consumer recognition. Conceptually, it is a coined, fanciful term. It is registered on Principal Register without a claim of acquired distinctiveness and is therefore presumed distinctive.<\/p>\n

As for whether the mark is sufficiently \u201cfamous\u201d to be entitled to protection against dilution, Trademark Office must determine whether it \u201cis widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark\u2019s owner.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Advertising and Publicity<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n

Opposer \u201cpromotes its products and services under the SPOTIFY mark to a wide variety of consumers, including across age groups and across all geographic regions in the U.S. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>It advertises in well known national publications and has exclusive podcast partnership deals with famous celebrities.<\/p>\n

Less conventionally, Opposer has engaged consumers\u2019 imaginations with marketing efforts such as the \u201cPresident of Playlists\u201d job posting after President Obama expressed a desire to work for Opposer (itself a form of free advertising and publicity). This marketing effort was so successful and engaging that it became \u201cthe number one trending moment on Twitter\u201d. Id. at 11 (Sauvaget Dec. \u00b6 34). The attention this episode received on Twitter strongly suggests that many Americans who listen to music in analog format or not at all were exposed to the SPOTIFY mark.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Sales of Goods and Services offered under the SPOTIFY mark<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n

It was noted that in 2015, before the applicants\u2019 first use of its POTIFY mark, opposer had more monthly SPOTIFY users than most U.S. States had residents.<\/p>\n

\n

Evidence was significant, persuasive and corroborative of the advertising and publicity evidence. Not only have many Americans been exposed to the SPOTIFY mark, but a large percentage of Americans are users of or subscribers to opposer\u2019s SPOTIFY goods and services.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Actual recognition of the mark<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n

Significantly, it was recorded that SPOTIFY had more web \u201chits\u201d than a number of other trademarks, including ROLEX, MCDONALD\u2019s, AMERICAN EXPRESS, CHANEL and BARBIE.<\/p>\n

Opposer\u2019s \u201cPresident of Playlists\u201d marketing effort was so widely recognized that it was \u201cthe number one trending moment on Twitter and claimed the number one spot of Reddit.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hence, SPOTIFY is among the most widely recognized brands in the United States.<\/p>\n

\n

SPOTIFY is registered on the principal register<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n

Adding to the above, it was stated that the SPOTIFY mark has been registered on the principal register in its broadest (standard character) form for almost 13 years.<\/p>\n

\n

SPOTIFY is famous<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n

SPOTIFY is exceedingly famous and entitled to protection against dilution under 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1125(c).<\/p>\n

\n

What does Dilution by blurring means?<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n

Dilution by blurring is \u201can association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

It \u201coccurs when a substantial percentage of consumers, on seeing the junior party\u2019s mark on its goods, are immediately reminded of the famous mark and associate the junior party\u2019s mark with the owner of the famous mark, even if they do not believe that the goods emanate from the famous marks\u2019 owner.\u201d N.Y. Yankees P\u2019ship, <\/em>114 USPQ2d at 1509.<\/em><\/p>\n

To consider whether the applicant\u2019s use of its mark will likely cause dilution by blurring, this office considered:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Degree of similarity between applicant\u2019s mark and opposer\u2019s famous mark<\/li>\n
  • Degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of Opposer\u2019s mark<\/li>\n
  • Extent to which opposer is engaging in the substantially exclusive use of its mark<\/li>\n
  • Degree of recognition of opposer\u2019s mark<\/li>\n
  • Whether the applicant intended to create an association with opposer\u2019s SPOTIFY mark<\/li>\n
  • Any actual association between applicant\u2019s mark and opposer\u2019s mark<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    In the present case, the marks were strikingly similar and in fact, they share the letters P-O-T-I-F-Y with that being the entirety of the applicant\u2019s standard character mark and the literal element of its other mark.<\/p>\n

    Even if the office presumes that Opposer\u2019s mark will be perceived as a reference to the word \u201cspot\u201d, and that applicants will be perceived as a reference to the word \u201cpot\u201d, because the marks are so similar in appearance and sound, the marks will engender similar commercial impressions.<\/p>\n

    Findings<\/span><\/h3>\n
      \n
    • It was found that the marks were highly similar in their entireties, and that applicant\u2019s mark will \u201ctrigger consumers to conjure up\u201d opposer\u2019s famous mark, and this weighs in favour of finding dilution by blurring.<\/li>\n
    • Opposer\u2019s mark is highly distinctive<\/li>\n
    • Opposer\u2019s use of SPOTIFY is substantially exclusive<\/li>\n
    • SPOTIFY mark is widely recognised in the United States<\/li>\n
    • Applicant apparently intended to create an association with Opposer\u2019s SPOTIFY mark<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Since the marks are so similar in how they look and sound and in their structure, cadence and essential nature, the applicant\u2019s mark will cause consumers to \u201cconjure up\u201d the opposer\u2019s famous mark and associate the two.<\/p>\n

      although we need only find likely dilution, we find it inevitable that POTIFY will diminish [SPOTIFY\u2019s] distinctiveness <\/em><\/p>\n

      Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Registration of applicant\u2019s mark in both \u2018717 and \u2018185 Application was refused in view of the above. [Spotify AB v. U.S. Software Inc., Opposition Nos. 91243297 and 91248487, mailed on 10-1-2022]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      United States Patent and Trademark Office: Cataldo, Adlin and Lebow, Administrative Trademark Judges, decided whether SPOTIFY is entitled against dilution by blurring <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":260208,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[48374,29785,42834,48372,34401,48337],"class_list":["post-260203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-dilution-by-blurring","tag-law","tag-legal-news","tag-potify","tag-spotify","tag-trademark-dispute"],"yoast_head":"\nSPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-01-17T06:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-01-18T04:13:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Spotify.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-01-17T06:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-01-18T04:13:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1187,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/Spotify.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Dilution by Blurring\",\"law\",\"Legal News\",\"POTIFY\",\"Spotify\",\"Trademark Dispute\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Foreign Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/\",\"name\":\"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/Spotify.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-01-17T06:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-01-18T04:13:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/Spotify.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/Spotify.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/17\\\/spotify-v-potify\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/84c1b51748d0297cf12e5a898eccb7bd3eb5f0ab4ae8e275e2e65c4c83f84740?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/84c1b51748d0297cf12e5a898eccb7bd3eb5f0ab4ae8e275e2e65c4c83f84740?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/84c1b51748d0297cf12e5a898eccb7bd3eb5f0ab4ae8e275e2e65c4c83f84740?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash | SCC Times","description":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash","og_description":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-01-17T06:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-01-18T04:13:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Spotify.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash","datePublished":"2022-01-17T06:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-01-18T04:13:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/"},"wordCount":1187,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Spotify.jpg","keywords":["Dilution by Blurring","law","Legal News","POTIFY","Spotify","Trademark Dispute"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Foreign Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/","name":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Spotify.jpg","datePublished":"2022-01-17T06:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-01-18T04:13:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Spotify.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Spotify.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/17\/spotify-v-potify\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SPOTIFY v. POTIFY | Can the mark POTIFY conjure up mark SPOTIFY? Here\u2019s detailed analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office decision in trademark clash"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/84c1b51748d0297cf12e5a898eccb7bd3eb5f0ab4ae8e275e2e65c4c83f84740?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/84c1b51748d0297cf12e5a898eccb7bd3eb5f0ab4ae8e275e2e65c4c83f84740?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/84c1b51748d0297cf12e5a898eccb7bd3eb5f0ab4ae8e275e2e65c4c83f84740?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Spotify.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260203\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/260208"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}