The Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss does proceed on the basis we predicted. Specifically, Intel Corporation has highlighted the improbable and almost borderline claim that our customers, actual or prospective, may overlap with their customers because Intel Corporation publishes newsletters:
• The parties each utilize INTEL-formative marks (e.g. INTEL v. LATIN INTEL) and Intel uses a large family of INTEL-formative marks;
• To offer related (if not competitive) products and services (e.g., newsletters that address business and economic developments in Latin America, among other regions);
• To a specifically identified and significantly overlapping customer base (e.g., executives of the majority of U.S. Fortune 500 companies); and
• Such conduct is likely to cause confusion amongst Defendant’s actual and prospective customers.
(The Plaintiff's "likelihood of confusion" argument is, in fact, so weak that they are now focusing on a dilution argument. Read on.)
Intel has pled that:
• An astounding 86% of consumers who associate the term 'intel' with any word, definition or mark (not just a trademark) associate the term with Intel Corporation; and
• Intel will make the requisite showing of the likelihood of the loss of such distinctiveness “through the submission of survey evidence,” which is the standard method to establish an actionable likelihood of dilution.