Page 18 - IAV Digital Magazine #490

iAV - Antelope Valley Digital Magazine
Dr. Dre Loses Trademark Fight Against Real Doctor
By Alberto Luperon
Breaking: Dr. Dre is not a real doctor.
The rapper recently lost his trademark fight against a real gynecologist. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in a filing dated Thursday.
Dre (real
name Andre R. Young) opposed Dr. Draion M.
Burch, who want- ed to trademark the name “Dr. Drai.” The rapper claimed that Drai’s potential trademark would cause confusion amongst con- sumers, and sug- gest a connection between him and the gynecologist.
Burch’s response? Here’s what the real doctor said when he testified about his response to the cease and
desist letter he received from Dre. “I was just appalled how someone would think that I want- ed to be them and I actually went to medical school.”
Burch’s “Dr. Drai” is derived from his real first name. He said “Drai” is what friends and family called him, and the name stuck when he became a physician.
On one
hand, the
board noted some similarities between the names.
“Both marks ref- erence a particu- lar person after the abbreviation of the term ‘Dr.’ and consumers would likely view these marks in a similar manner, i.e., as a refer- ence to a particu- lar person with expertise,” they wrote. “The minor
difference in the spelling of DRE and DRAI is not sufficient to dis- tinguish the marks. Although there are some visual differences, whether spelled as DRE or DRAI, the word has the same pronuncia- tion and connota- tion of a name.” The marks as a whole were more similar than not, and there was some weight toward a finding of confusion.
So there was some points on Dre’s behalf. But not enough. The board determined there’s no evi- dence that the rapper’s reputa- tion would be somehow con- fused with Dr. Drai’s trademark since the gyne- cologist focuses on medical and health care prod- ucts and services including educa- tion and motiva- tional speaking.
The board also said that Burch didn’t intend to take advantage of the rapper’s trademark. The gynecologist tes- tified that being associated with the musician would be “a bad reflection on me as a doctor,” and he insisted that he filed for the “Dr. Drai” trade- mark because “That’s my name.”
Really, this ruling isn’t shocking in the world, accord- ing to Law&Crime Network host Aar on Keller.
“Generally, trade- mark courts allow people a so- called ‘sacred right’ to use their own names in commerce,” he said. “The doc- tor’s use of his own name — though truncated —isnotinany way a shock (from a general legal perspec- tive). Here, the
court also looked to the primary reason for trade- mark law: source identification and confusion. Customers pur- chase (or refuse to purchase) products or serv- ices from certain sources for their quality (or lack thereof). A dis- tinctive trademark allows customers to identify the source of a prod- uct: a Ford is not a Chevrolet; Campbell’s taste different from Progresso, etc. Here, the trade- mark court cor- rectly concluded that a medical services provider would not be con- fused with a hip- hop artist by con- sumers.”
Keller suggested that hypothetical- ly, the outcome would probably have been differ- ent had another musician tried to use a name simi- lar to Dre’s in order to sell albums.
iAV - Antelope Valley Digital Magazine