T.M.E.P. § 1207.01
Likelihood of Confusion
This document contains one section of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (the "TMEP"), Fourth Edition (April 2005). This page was last updated in June 2007. You may return to one either the section index, or to the key word index. If you wish to search the TMEP, simply use the search box that appears on the bottom of every page of BitLaw--be sure to restrict your search to the TMEP in the pop-up list.
For more information on trademark law, please see the Trademark Section of BitLaw.
1207.01 Likelihood of Confusion
In the ex parte examination of a trademark application, a refusal under §2(d) is normally based on the examining attorney's conclusion that the applicant's mark, as used on or in connection with the specified goods or services, so resembles a registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion. (See TMEP §1207.02 concerning §2(d) refusals to register marks that so resemble another mark as to be likely to deceive, and TMEP§1207.03 concerning §2(d) refusals based on unregistered marks. Note: Refusals based on unregistered marks are not issued in ex parte examination.)
The examining attorney must conduct a search of Office records to determine whether the applicant's mark so resembles any registered mark(s) as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake, when used on or in connection with the goods or services identified in the application. The examining attorney also searches pending applications for conflicting marks with earlier effective filing dates. See TMEP §§1208 et seq. regarding conflicting marks. The examining attorney must place a copy of the search strategy in the file.
If the examining attorney determines that there is a likelihood of confusion between applicant's mark and a previously registered mark, the examining attorney refuses registration under §2(d). Before citing a registration, the examining attorney must check the automated records of the Office to confirm that any registration that is the basis for a §2(d) refusal is an active registration. See TMEP §716.02(e) regarding suspension pending cancellation of a cited registration under §8 of the Act or expiration of a cited registration for failure to renew under §9 of the Act.
Also, if Office records indicate that an assignment of the conflicting registration has been recorded, the examining attorney should check the automated records of the Assignment Services Division of the Office to determine whether the conflicting mark has been assigned to applicant.
In In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals discussed the factors relevant to a determination of likelihood of confusion. In ex parte examination, the issue of likelihood of confusion typically revolves around the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods or services. The other factors listed in du Pont may be considered only if relevant evidence is contained in the record. See In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Not all of the DuPont factors may be relevant or of equal weight in a given case, and 'any one of the factors may control a particular case,'" quoting In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638, 640 (TTAB 1984). In an ex parte case, the following factors are usually the most relevant:
- The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
- The relatedness of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.
- The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.
- The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. "impulse" vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.
- The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
- A valid consent agreement between the applicant and the owner of the previously registered mark.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has provided the following guidance with regard to determining and articulating likelihood of confusion:
The basic principle in determining confusion between marks is that marks must be compared in their entireties and must be considered in connection with the particular goods or services for which they are used (citations omitted). It follows from that principle that likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark, that is, on only part of a mark (footnote omitted). On the other hand, in articulating reasons for reaching a conclusion on the issue of confusion, there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties (footnote omitted). Indeed, this type of analysis appears to be unavoidable.
In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 750-51 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
There is no mechanical test for determining likelihood of confusion. The issue is not whether the actual goods are likely to be confused but, rather, whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and cases cited therein. Each case must be decided on its own facts.
The determination of likelihood of confusion under §2(d) in an intent-to-use application does not differ from the determination in any other type of application.
1207.01(a) Relatedness of the Goods or Services
If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as would be required in a case where there are differences between the marks. Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70, 78 (TTAB 1981).
In some instances, because of established marketing practices, the use of identical marks on seemingly unrelated goods and services could result in a likelihood of confusion. See In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, 228 USPQ 949, 951 (TTAB 1986) ("The licensing of commercial trademarks for use on 'collateral' products (such as clothing, glassware, linens, etc.), that are unrelated in nature to those goods or services on which the marks are normally used, has become a common practice in recent years.")
1207.01(a)(i) Goods or Services Need Not Be Identical
The goods or services do not have to be identical or even competitive in order to determine that there is a likelihood of confusion. The inquiry is whether the goods are related, not identical. The issue is not whether the goods will be confused with each other, but rather whether the public will be confused about their source. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975). It is sufficient that the goods or services of the applicant and the registrant are so related that the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they are likely to be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that they originate from the same source. See, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (ON-LINE TODAY for Internet connection services held likely to be confused with ONLINE TODAY for Internet content); In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MARTIN'S for wheat bran and honey bread held likely to be confused with MARTIN'S for cheese); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM for a buffered solution equilibrated to yield predetermined dissolved gas values in a blood gas analyzer held likely to be confused with CONFIRMCELLS for diagnostic blood reagents for laboratory use); In re Jeep Corp., 222 USPQ 333 (TTAB 1984) (LAREDO for land vehicles and structural parts therefor held likely to be confused with LAREDO for pneumatic tires).
Conversely, if the goods or services in question are not related or marketed in such a way that they would be encountered by the same persons in situations that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source, then, even if the marks are identical, confusion is not likely. See, e.g., Shen Manufacturing Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (cooking classes and kitchen textiles not related); Local Trademarks, Inc. v. Handy Boys Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1156 (TTAB 1990) (LITTLE PLUMBER for liquid drain opener held not confusingly similar to LITTLE PLUMBER and design for advertising services, namely the formulation and preparation of advertising copy and literature in the plumbing field); Quartz Radiation Corp. v. Comm/Scope Co., 1 USPQ2d 1668 (TTAB 1986) (QR for coaxial cable held not confusingly similar to QR for various products (e.g., lamps, tubes) related to the photocopying field).
1207.01(a)(ii) Goods May Be Related to Services
It is well recognized that confusion is likely to occur from the use of the same or similar marks for goods, on the one hand, and for services involving those goods, on the other. See, e.g., In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio) Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (BIGG'S (stylized) for retail grocery and general merchandise store services held likely to be confused with BIGGS and design for furniture); In re H.J. Seiler Co., 289 F.2d 674, 129 USPQ 347 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (SEILER for catering services held likely to be confused with SEILER'S for smoked and cured meats); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women's clothing store services and clothing held likely to be confused with CREST CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); In re United Service Distributors, Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids held likely to be confused with design for skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB for various items of men's, boys', girls' and women's clothing held likely to be confused with THE "21" CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery held likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories); Corinthian Broadcasting Corporation v. Nippon Electric Co., Ltd., 219 USPQ 733 (TTAB 1983) (TVS for transmitters andreceivers of still television pictures held likely to be confused with TVS for television broadcasting services); In re Industrial Expositions, Inc., 194 USPQ 456 (TTAB 1977) (POLLUTION ENGINEERING EXPOSITION for programming andconducting of industrial trade shows held likely to be confused with POLLUTION ENGINEERING for a periodical magazine).1207.01(a)(ii)(A) Food and Beverage Products Versus Restaurant Services
While likelihood of confusion has often been found in situations where similar marks are used in connection with both food or beverage products and restaurant services, there is no per se rule to this effect. To establish likelihood of confusion, a party must show "something more than that similar or even identical marks are used for food products and for restaurant services." In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1345, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (no likelihood of confusion between applicant's BLUE MOON and design for beer and the registered mark BLUE MOON and design for restaurant services); Jacobs v. International Multifoods Corp., 668 F.2d 1234, 1236, 212 USPQ 641, 642 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (no likelihood of confusion between BOSTON SEA PARTY for restaurant services and BOSTON TEA PARTY for tea).
The determination of the relatedness of the goods and services is based on the evidence provided by the applicant and the examining attorney. In Coors, the examining attorney introduced evidence from several sources discussing the practice of some restaurants to offer private label or house brands of beer; evidence that brewpubs who brew their own beer often feature restaurant services; and copies of third-party registrations showing that a single mark had been registered for beer and restaurants services. However, applicant countered with evidence that while there are about 1,450 brewpubs andmicrobreweries in the United States, there are over 800,000 restaurants, which means that brewpubs and microbreweries account for only about 18 one-hundredths of one percent of all restaurants. Noting that "[t]here was no contrary evidence introduced on those points," the court found that:
While there was evidence that some restaurants sell private label beer, that evidence did not suggest that such restaurants are numerous. And although the Board had before it a few registrations for both restaurant services and beer, the very small number of such dual use registrations does nothing to counter Coors' showing that only a very small percentage of restaurants actually brew their own beer or sell house brands of beer; instead, the small number of such registrations suggests that it is quite uncommon for restaurants and beer to share the same trademark. Thus, the evidence before the Board indicates not that there is a substantial overlap between restaurant services and beer with respect to source, but rather that the degree of overlap between the sources of restaurant services and the sources of beer is de minimis. We therefore disagree with the Board's legal conclusion that Coors' beer and the registrant's restaurant services are sufficiently related to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion.343 F.3d at 1340, 68 USPQ2d at 1063-1064.
See also Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc., 987 F.2d 766, 25 USPQ2d 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Board erred in failing to consider evidence of third party use of service marks in telephone directories); In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001) (likelihood of confusion between OPUS ONE used on both wine and restaurant services, where the evidence showed that it is common in the industry for restaurants to offer and sell private label wines named after the restaurant, and that registrant's wines were actually served at applicant's restaurant); In re Comexa Ltda., 60 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 ( TTAB 2001) (likelihood of confusion between AMAZON for restaurant services and AMAZON and design for chili sauce and pepper sauce, where 50 third-party registrations (48 based on use) showing registration of the same mark for sauces and restaurant services were probative to the extent that they served to suggest that the goods andservices were of a kind that may emanate from a single source); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (TTAB 1999) (likelihood of confusion between AZTECA MEXICAN RESTAURANT for restaurant services held likely to be confused with AZTECA for tortillas, taco shells and salsa, where the evidence indicated that the goods at issue were "Mexican food items" of a type that were "often principal items of entrees served by . Mexican restaurants"); In re Golden Griddle Pancake House Ltd., 17 USPQ2d 1074 (TTAB 1990) (likelihood of confusion between GOLDEN GRIDDLE for table syrup andGOLDEN GRIDDLE PANCAKE HOUSE for restaurant that serves pancakes and syrup); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1469 (TTAB 1988), aff'd, 864 F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (likelihood of confusion between MUCKY DUCK and duck design for mustard and THE MUCKY DUCK and duck design for restaurant services, the Board finding that "[a]lthough these goods and services obviously differ, mustard is . a condiment which is commonly utilized in restaurants by their patrons, especially in such restaurants as delicatessens, fast food houses, steak houses, taverns, inns, and the like, and we think it is common knowledge that restaurants sometimes market their house specialties, including items such as salad dressings, through retail outlets"); Steve's Ice Cream v. Steve's Famous Hot Dogs, 3 USPQ2d 1477, 1478 (TTAB 1987) (no likelihood of confusion between STEVE'S for ice cream and STEVE'S for restaurant featuring hot dogs, where the marks differed and "there [was] no evidence in the record before us that applicant makes or sells ice cream, or that any one business makes and sells ice cream under the same mark in connection with which it renders restaurant services").
1207.01(a)(iii) Reliance on Identification of Goods/Services in Registration and Application
The nature and scope of a party's goods or services must be determined on the basis of the goods or services recited in the application or registration. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, N.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
If the cited registration describes goods or services broadly, and there is no limitation as to the nature, type, channels of trade or class of purchasers, it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all classes of purchasers. Therefore, if the cited registration has a broad identification of goods or services, an applicant does not avoid likelihood of confusion merely by more narrowly identifying its related goods. See, e.g., In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716 (TTAB 1992) (where a registrant's goods are broadly identified as "computer programs recorded on magnetic disks," without any limitation as to the kind of programs or the field of use, it is necessary to assume that the registrant's goods encompass all such computer programs, and that they travel in the same channels of trade and are available to all classes of prospective purchasers of those goods); In re Diet Center Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1975 (TTAB 1987) (VEGETABLE SVELTES for wheat crackers sold through franchised outlets offering weight reduction services held likely to be confused with SVELTE for low calorie frozen dessert); In re Uncle Sam Chemical Co., Inc., 229 USPQ 233 (TTAB 1986) (SPRAYZON for cleaning preparations and degreasers for industrial and institutional use held likely to be confused with SPRA-ON anddesign for preparation for cleaning woodwork and furniture). Similarly, there is a likelihood of confusion if an applicant identifies its goods or services so broadly that the identification encompasses the goods or services identified in the registration of a similar mark. See, e.g., In re Americor Health Services, 1 USPQ2d 1670 (TTAB 1986) (RESOLVE for corporate employee assistance services, namely, providing confidential mental health counseling services, held likely to be confused with RESOLVE for counseling services in the field of infertility); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986) (RESPONSE for banking services held likely to be confused with RESPONSE CARD for banking services rendered through 24-hour teller machines).
An applicant may not restrict the scope of its goods and/or the scope of the goods covered in the registration by extrinsic argument or evidence, for example, as to the quality or price of the goods. See, e.g., In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986).
Where the terminology in the identification is unclear, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has permitted an applicant to provide extrinsic evidence to show that the registrant's identification has a specific meaning to members of the trade. The Board noted that in light of such evidence it is improper to consider the identification in a vacuum and attach all possible interpretations to it. In re Trackmobile Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1152, 1154 (TTAB 1990).
1207.01(a)(iv) No "Per Se" Rule
The facts in each case vary and the weight to be given each factor may be different in light of the varying circumstances; therefore, there can be no rule that certain goods or services are per se related, such that there must be a likelihood of confusion from the use of similar marks in relation thereto. See, e.g., Information Resources Inc. v. X*Press Information Services, 6 USPQ2d 1034, 1038 (TTAB 1988) (regarding computer hardware and software); Hi-Country Foods Corp. v. Hi Country Beef Jerky, 4 USPQ2d 1169, 1171 (TTAB 1987) (regarding food products); In re Quadram Corp., 228 USPQ 863, 865 (TTAB 1985) (regarding computer hardware andsoftware); In re British Bulldog, Ltd., 224 USPQ 854, 855-56 (TTAB 1984) and cases cited therein (regarding clothing).
1207.01(a)(v) Expansion of Trade Doctrine
The examining attorney must consider any goods or services in the registrant's normal fields of expansion to determine whether the registrant's goods or services are related to the applicant's identified goods or services under §2(d). In re General Motors Corp., 196 USPQ 574 (TTAB 1977). A trademark owner is entitled to protection against the registration of a similar mark on products that might reasonably be expected to be produced by him in the normal expansion of his business. The test is whether purchasers would believe the product or service is within the registrant's logical zone of expansion. CPG Products Corp. v. Perceptual Play, Inc., 221 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1983).
1207.01(a)(vi) Evidence Showing Relatedness of Goods or Services
The examining attorney must provide evidence showing that the goods and services are related to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. Evidence of relatedness might include news articles and/or evidence from computer databases showing that the relevant goods or services are used together or used by the same purchasers; advertisements showing that the relevant goods or services are advertised together or sold by the same manufacturer or dealer; or copies of prior use-based registrations of the same mark for both applicant's goods and services and the goods and services listed in the cited registration. See TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii) and cases cited therein regarding the probative value of third-party registrations.
The identification of goods/services in the subject application and the cited registration(s) may in itself constitute evidence of the relatedness of the goods or services. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Board erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence of relatedness, "because the Board did not consider the important evidence already before it, namely the ITU application and [opposer's multiple] registrations").
1207.01(b) Similarity of the Marks
If it appears that confusion may be likely as a result of the contemporaneous use of similar marks by the registrant and the applicant with the identified goods or services, the next step is to evaluate the marks themselves, in relation to the goods and services. Under In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the first factor requires examination of "the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression." The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison, but whether the marks are sufficiently similar that there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods or services. When considering the similarity of the marks, "[a]ll relevant facts pertaining to the appearance and connotation must be considered." Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In evaluating the similarities between marks, the emphasis must be on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general, rather than specific, impression of trademarks. Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975).
Where the goods are identical, "the degree of similarity [between the marks] necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion declines." Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980).
1207.01(b)(i) Word Marks
The points of comparison for a word mark are appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression. Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005), citing In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Similarity of the marks in one respect -- sight, sound or meaning -- will not automatically result in a finding of likelihood of confusion even if the goods are identical or closely related. Rather, the rule is that taking into account all of the relevant facts of a particular case, similarity as to one factor alone may be sufficient to support a holding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987).
1207.01(b)(ii) Similarity In Appearance
Similarity in appearance is one factor in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between marks. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance despite the addition, deletion or substitution of letters or words. See, e.g., Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (TMM held confusingly similar to TMS, both for systems software); Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, N.A., v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH held likely to be confused with COMMUNICASH, both for banking services); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041 (TTAB 1987) (TRUCOOL for synthetic coolant held likely to be confused with TURCOOL for cutting oil); In re Curtice-Burns, Inc., 231 USPQ 990 (TTAB 1986) (MCKENZIE'S (stylized) for processed frozen fruits and vegetables held likely to be confused with McKenzie for canned fruits and vegetables); In re Pix of America, Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985) (NEWPORTS for women's shoes held likely to be confused with NEWPORT for outer shirts); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON for microprocessor used in commercial laundry machines held likely to be confused with MILLTRONICS (stylized) for electronic control devices for machinery); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL for resinous chemicals used in dyeing textiles held likely to be confused with LUTEX for non-resinous chemicals used in the textile industry).
1207.01(b)(iii) Comparing Marks That Contain Additional Matter
It is a general rule that likelihood of confusion is not avoided between otherwise confusingly similar marks merely by adding or deleting a house mark or matter that is descriptive or suggestive of the named goods or services. Sometimes the rule is expressed in terms of the dominance of the common term. Therefore, if the dominant portion of both marks is the same, then confusion may be likely notwithstanding peripheral differences. See, e.g., In re Chatam International Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1343, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Viewed in their entireties with non-dominant features appropriately discounted, the marks [GASPAR'S ALE for beer and ale and JOSE GASPAR GOLD for tequila] become nearly identical"); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (even though applicant's mark PACKARD TECHNOLOGIES (with "TECHNOLOGIES" disclaimed) does not incorporate every feature of opposer's HEWLETT PACKARD marks, similar overall commercial impression is created); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (MACHO COMBOS (with "COMBOS" disclaimed) held likely to be confused with MACHO (stylized), both for food items as a part of restaurant services); In re Computer Systems Center Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1378 (TTAB 1987) (CSC ADVANCED BUSINESS SYSTEMS for retail computer stores held likely to be confused with CSC for computer time sharing and computer programming services); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986) (RESPONSE held likely to be confused with RESPONSE CARD (with "CARD" disclaimed), both for banking services); In re The U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for clothing held likely to be confused with CREST CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); In re Apparel Ventures, Inc., 229 USPQ 225 (TTAB 1986) (SPARKS BY SASSAFRAS (stylized) for clothing held likely to be confused with SPARKS (stylized) for footwear); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM for a buffered solution equilibrated to yield predetermined dissolved gas values in a blood gas analyzer held likely to be confused with CONFIRMCELLS for diagnostic blood reagents for laboratory use); In re Energy Images, Inc., 227 USPQ 572 (TTAB 1985) (SMART-SCAN (stylized) for optical line recognition and digitizing processors held likely to be confused with SMART for remote data gathering andcontrol systems); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (RICHARD PETTY'S ACCU TUNE and design for automotive service stations held likely to be confused with ACCUTUNE for automotive testing equipment); In re Denisi, 225 USPQ 624 (TTAB 1985) (PERRY'S PIZZA held likely to be confused with PERRY'S, both for restaurant services); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and design (with "CALIFORNIA" disclaimed) held likely to be confused with COLLEGIENNE, both for items of clothing); In re Pierre Fabre S.A., 188 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1975) (PEDI-RELAX for foot cream held likely to be confused with RELAX for antiperspirant).
Exceptions to the above stated general rule regarding additions or deletions to marks may arise if: (1) the marks in their entireties convey significantly different commercial impressions, or (2) the matter common to the marks is not likely to be perceived by purchasers as distinguishing source because it is merely descriptive or diluted. See, e.g., Shen Manufacturing Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (RITZ and THE RITZ KIDS create different commercial impressions); In re Farm Fresh Catfish Co., 231 USPQ 495 (TTAB 1986) (CATFISH BOBBERS (with "CATFISH" disclaimed) for fish held not likely to be confused with BOBBER for restaurant services); In re Shawnee Milling Co., 225 USPQ 747 (TTAB 1985) (GOLDEN CRUST for flour held not likely to be confused with ADOLPH'S GOLD'N CRUST and design (with "GOLD'N CRUST" disclaimed) for coating and seasoning for food items); In re S.D. Fabrics, Inc., 223 USPQ 54 (TTAB 1984) (DESIGNERS/FABRIC (stylized) for retail fabric store services held not likely to be confused with DAN RIVER DESIGNER FABRICS and design for textile fabrics).
1207.01(b)(iv) Similarity in Sound - Phonetic Equivalents
Similarity in sound is one factor in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between marks. There is no "correct" pronunciation of a trademark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark. Therefore, "correct" pronunciation cannot be relied on to avoid a likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten v. Scuotto, 228 USPQ 461 (TTAB 1985) (SEYCOS and design for watches held likely to be confused with SEIKO for watches and clocks); In re Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 227 USPQ 483 (TTAB 1985) (CAYNA (stylized) for soft drinks held likely to be confused with CANA for, inter alia, canned and frozen fruit and vegetable juices); In re Energy Telecommunications & Electrical Association, 222 USPQ 350 (TTAB 1983) (ENTELEC and design for association services in the telecommunication andenergy industries held likely to be confused with INTELECT for conducting expositions for the electrical industry); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963) (CRESCO and design for leather jackets held likely to be confused with KRESSCO for hosiery).
1207.01(b)(v) Similarity in Meaning
Similarity in meaning or connotation is another factor in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between marks. The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general, rather than specific, impression of trademarks. See, e.g., In re M. Serman & Company, Inc., 223 USPQ 52 (TTAB 1984) (CITY WOMAN held likely to be confused with CITY GIRL, both for clothing); Gastown Inc., of Delaware v. Gas City, Ltd., 187 USPQ 760 (TTAB 1975) (GAS CITY (with "GAS" disclaimed) held likely to be confused with GASTOWN, both for gasoline); Watercare Corp. v. Midwesco-Enterprise, Inc., 171 USPQ 696 (TTAB 1971) (AQUA-CARE (stylized) held likely to be confused with WATERCARE (stylized), both for water conditioning products).
The meaning or connotation of a mark must be determined in relation to the named goods or services. Even marks that are identical in sound and/or appearance may create sufficiently different commercial impressions when applied to the respective parties' goods or services so that there is no likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., In re Sears, Roebuck andCo., 2 USPQ2d 1312 (TTAB 1987) (CROSS-OVER for bras held not likely to be confused with CROSSOVER for ladies' sportswear, the Board finding that the term was suggestive of the construction of applicant's bras, but was likely to be perceived by purchasers either as an entirely arbitrary designation or as being suggestive of sportswear that "crosses over" the line between informal and more formal wear when applied to ladies' sportswear); In re British Bulldog, Ltd., 224 USPQ 854 (TTAB 1984) (PLAYERS for men's underwear held not likely to be confused with PLAYERS for shoes, the Board finding that the term PLAYERS implies a fit, style, color and durability adapted to outdoor activities when applied to shoes, but "implies something else, primarily indoors in nature" when applied to men's underwear); In re Sydel Lingerie Co., Inc., 197 USPQ 629 (TTAB 1977) (BOTTOMS UP for ladies' and children's underwear held not likely to be confused with BOTTOMS UP for men's clothing, the Board finding that the term connotes the drinking phrase "Drink Up" when applied to men's suits, coats and trousers, but does not have this connotation when applied to ladies' and children's underwear).
1207.01(b)(vi) Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents
Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a foreign word (from a language familiar to an appreciable segment of American consumers) and the English equivalent may be held to be confusingly similar. See, e.g., Continental Nut Co. v. Cordon Bleu, Ltee, 494 F.2d 1397, 181 USPQ 647 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re American Safety Razor Co., 2 USPQ2d 1459 (TTAB 1987) (BUENOS DIAS for soap held likely to be confused with GOOD MORNING anddesign for latherless shaving cream); In re Ithaca Industries, Inc., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986) (LUPO for men's and boys' underwear held likely to be confused with WOLF and design for various items of clothing); In re Hub Distributing, Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983) (EL SOL for clothing andfootwear held likely to be confused with SUN and design for footwear).
Although words from modern languages are generally translated into English, the doctrine of foreign equivalents is not an absolute rule, but merely a guideline. The doctrine should be applied only when it is likely that the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the foreign word into its English equivalent. Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Compare the following decisions involving marks found not confusingly similar, based on consideration of factors such as the overall appearance and pronunciation of the marks, the extent to which the terms are "equivalent," and the relatedness of the named goods and/or services: In re Sarkli Ltd., 721 F.2d 353, 220 USPQ 111 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (REPECHAGE for various skin care products held not likely to be confused with SECOND CHANCE for face creams and other toiletries); In re Buckner Enterprises Corp., 6 USPQ2d 1316 (TTAB 1987) (DOVE and design for solid fuel burning stoves andfurnaces held not likely to be confused with PALOMA for various forms of gas heating apparatus); In re L'Oreal S.A., 222 USPQ 925 (TTAB 1984) (HAUTE MODE for hair coloring cream shampoo held not likely to be confused with HI-FASHION SAMPLER (with "SAMPLER" disclaimed) for finger nail enamel); In re Tia Maria, Inc., 188 USPQ 524 (TTAB 1975) (TIA MARIA for restaurant services held not likely to be confused with AUNT MARY'S for canned fruits andvegetables).
The doctrine of foreign equivalents is not normally invoked if the marks alleged to be confusingly similar are both foreign words. See Safeway Stores Inc. v. Bel Canto Fancy Foods Ltd., 5 USPQ2d 1980, 1982 (TTAB 1987) ("[T]his Board does not think it proper to take the French expression 'bel air' and the Italian expression 'bel aria' and then convert both into English andcompare the English translations...."). However, application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents is not barred in every case where the respective marks consist of terms from different foreign languages. Miguel Torres S.A. v. Casa Vinicola Gerardo Cesari S.R.L., 49 USPQ2d 2018 (TTAB 1998) (likelihood of confusion between the Italian DUE TORRI and design for wines, and the Spanish TORRES and design for wines and brandy and TRES TORRES for brandy).
While foreign words are generally translated into English for trademark comparison purposes, works from dead or obscure languages may be so unfamiliar to the American buying public that they should not be translated into English. See Enrique Bernat F. S.A. v. Guadalajara Inc., 210 F.3d 439, 54 USPQ2d 1497 (5th Cir. 2000), reh'g denied 218 F.3d 745 (2000). The test is whether, to those American buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would denote its English equivalent. See In re Zazzara, 156 USPQ 348 (TTAB 1967). The determination of whether a language is "dead" must be made on a case-by-case basis, based upon the meaning that the term would have to the relevant purchasing public.
Example: Latin is generally considered a dead language. However, if there is evidence that a Latin term is still in use by the relevant purchasing public (e.g., if the term appears in current dictionaries or news articles), then a Latin term is not considered dead. The same analysis should be applied to other uncommon languages.
1207.01(b)(vii) Transposition of Terms
Where the primary difference between marks is the transposition of the elements that compose the marks and where this transposition does not change the overall commercial impression, there may be a likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., In re Wine Society of America Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 1989) (THE WINE SOCIETY OF AMERICA and design, for "wine club membership services including the supplying of printed materials, sale of wines to members, conducting wine tasting sessions and recommending specific restaurants offering wines sold by applicant," held likely to be confused with AMERICAN WINE SOCIETY 1967 and design, for a newsletter, bulletin and journal of interest to members of the registrant); In re Nationwide Industries Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1882 (TTAB 1988) (RUST BUSTER (with "RUST" disclaimed) for rust-penetrating spray lubricant held likely to be confused with BUST RUST for penetrating oil); In re General Tire & Rubber Co., 213 USPQ 870 (TTAB 1982) (SPRINT STEEL RADIAL (with "STEEL" and "RADIAL" disclaimed) for tires held likely to be confused with RADIAL SPRINT (with "RADIAL" disclaimed) for tires).
However, if the transposed mark creates a distinctly different commercial impression, then confusion is not likely. See, e.g., In re Best Products Co., Inc., 231 USPQ 988 (TTAB 1986) (BEST JEWELRY and design (with "JEWELRY" disclaimed) for retail jewelry store services held not likely to be confused with JEWELERS' BEST for jewelry).
1207.01(b)(viii) Marks Consisting of Multiple Words
When assessing the likelihood of confusion between compound word marks, one must determine whether there is a portion of the word mark that is dominant in terms of creating a commercial impression. Although there is no mechanical test to select a "dominant" element of a compound word mark, consumers would be more likely to perceive a fanciful or arbitrary term rather than a descriptive or generic term as the source-indicating feature of the mark. Accordingly, if two marks for related goods or services share the same dominant feature and the marks, when viewed in their entireties, create similar overall commercial impressions, then confusion is likely. See In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987) (JM ORIGINALS (with "ORIGINALS" disclaimed) for various items of apparel held likely to be confused with JM COLLECTABLES for "knitwear -- namely, sport shirts").
If the common element of two marks is "weak" in that it is generic, descriptive or highly suggestive of the named goods or services, consumers typically will be able to avoid confusion unless the overall combinations have other commonality. See, e.g., In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (BED & BREAKFAST REGISTRY for making lodging reservations for others in private homes held not likely to be confused with BED & BREAKFAST INTERNATIONAL for room booking agency services); The U.S. Shoe Corp. v. Chapman, 229 USPQ 74 (TTAB 1985) (COBBLER'S OUTLET for shoes held not likely to be confused with CALIFORNIA COBBLERS (stylized) for shoes); In re Istituto Sieroterapico E Vaccinogeno, Toscano "SCLAVO" S.p.A., 226 USPQ 1035 (TTAB 1985) (ASO QUANTUM (with "ASO" disclaimed) for diagnostic laboratory reagents held not likely to be confused with QUANTUM I for laboratory instrument for analyzing body fluids). See also TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix).
In a sense the public can be said to rely more on the nondescriptive portions of each mark. On the other hand, this does not mean that the public looks only at the differences, or that the descriptive words play no role in creating confusion. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (THE CASH MANAGEMENT EXCHANGE (with "CASH MANAGEMENT" disclaimed) for computerized cash management services held likely to be confused with CASH MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT for various financial services).
1207.01(b)(ix) Weak or Descriptive Marks
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and the courts have recognized that merely descriptive and weak designations may be entitled to a narrower scope of protection than an entirely arbitrary or coined word. In re Central Soya Company, Inc., 220 USPQ 914 (TTAB 1984). However, even a weak mark is entitled to protection against the registration of a similar mark for closely related goods or services. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108 (C.C.P.A. 1974).
In In re Hunke & Jochheim, 185 USPQ 188, 189 (TTAB 1975), the Board stated:[R]egistration on the Supplemental Register may be considered to establish prima facie that, at least at the time of registration, the registered mark possessed a merely descriptive significance. (citation omitted.) This is significant because it is well established that the scope of protection afforded a merely descriptive or even a highly suggestive term is less than that accorded an arbitrary or coined mark. That is, terms falling within the former category have been generally categorized as "weak" marks, andthe scope of protection extended to these marks has been limited to the substantially identical notation and/or to the subsequent use and registration thereof for substantially similar goods.
However, even marks that are registered on the Supplemental Register may be cited under §2(d). In re Clorox Company, 578 F.2d 305, 198 USPQ 337 (C.C.P.A. 1978).
1207.01(b)(x) Parody Marks
Parody is not a defense to a likelihood of confusion refusal. There are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies. See J. McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §31.153 (4th ed. 2004). A true parody actually decreases the likelihood of confusion because the effect of the parody is to create a distinction in the viewer's mind between the actual product and the joke. While a parody must call to mind the actual product to be successful, the same success also necessarily distinguishes the parody from the actual product. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Novak, 648 F. Supp. 905, 231 USPQ 963 (D. Neb. 1986).
Another example of parody can be found in Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., v. Miller, 211 USPQ 816 (TTAB 1981) (CLOTHES ENCOUNTERS held likely to be confused with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, for men's and women's clothing); Cf., Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Inc., 828 F.2d 1482, 4 USPQ2d 1216 (10th Cir. 1987) (LARDASHE for pants was not an infringement of the JORDACHE mark).
1207.01(c) Design Marks
When the marks at issue are both design marks, the issue of the similarity of the marks must be decided primarily on the basis of visual similarity. In this situation, consideration must be given to the fact that a purchaser's recollection of design marks is often of a general and hazy nature. See, e.g., Red Carpet Corp. v. Johnstown American Enterprises Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1404 (TTAB 1988) (stylized house design for service of management of real estate properties for others held not likely to be confused with stylized house design for real estate brokerage services); In re United Service Distributors, Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (silhouette of two profiles facing right within a teardrop background for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids held likely to be confused with silhouette of two profiles facing left within an oval background for skin cream); Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Ocean Garden Products, Inc., 223 USPQ 1027 (TTAB 1984) (abstract circular design mark for seafood held not likely to be confused with oval breaking wave design for various food items including juices andfruits); In re Steury Corp., 189 USPQ 353 (TTAB 1975) (design comprised of three generally horizontal bars for boats and camper trailers held likely to be confused with design comprised of two generally horizontal bars for boats and campers); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Sanders Associates, Inc., 177 USPQ 720 (TTAB 1973) (triangular arrow design within a square border for various items of electrical and electronic equipment held likely to be confused with triangular arrow design for various items of electrical and electronic components and equipment).
1207.01(c)(i) Legal Equivalents - Comparison of Words and Their Equivalent Designs
Under the doctrine of legal equivalents, a pictorial representation and its literal equivalent may be found to be confusingly similar. This doctrine is based on a recognition that a pictorial depiction and equivalent wording are likely to impress the same mental image on purchasers. See, e.g., In re Rolf Nilsson AB, 230 USPQ 141 (TTAB 1986) (design comprising the silhouette of the head of a lion and the letter "L" for shoes held likely to be confused with LION for shoes); Puma-Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler KG v. Garan, Inc., 224 USPQ 1064 (TTAB 1984) (designs of mountain lion, for shirts and tops, held confusingly similar to PUMA, for items of clothing; the design of a puma, for items of sporting goods and clothing; and PUMA and design, for T-shirts); In re Duofold Inc., 184 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1974) (design of eagle lined for the color gold, for various items of sports apparel, held likely to be confused with GOLDEN EAGLE and design of an eagle, for various items of clothing).
1207.01(c)(ii) Composite Marks Consisting of Both Words and Designs
Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite marks that consist of a design element as well as words and/or letters. Frequently the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties. See Massey Junior College, Inc. v. Fashion Institute of Technology, 492 F.2d 1399, 181 USPQ 272 (C.C.P.A. 1974).
If a mark comprises both a word and a design, greater weight is often given to the word, because it is the word that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987) (APPETITO and design of two broad stripes lined for the colors red and green, for Italian sausage, held likely to be confused with A APPETITO'S and design and A APPETITO'S INC. and design of a sandwich (with "INC." and sandwich design disclaimed), both for restaurant services). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]here is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue." In re Electrolyte Laboratories Inc., 929 F.2d 645, 647, 16 USPQ2d 1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (K+ and design for dietary potassium supplement held not likely to be confused with K+EFF (stylized) for dietary potassium supplement).
The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis without reliance on mechanical rules of construction. See, e.g., Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors, Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 223 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding a likelihood of confusion between SPICE VALLEY and SPICE ISLANDS, both for tea); Spice Islands, Inc. v. The Frank Tea & Spice Co., 505 F.2d 1293, 184 USPQ 35 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (SPICE TREE and tree design held not confusingly similar to SPICE ISLANDS and tree design, both for spices); In re Sun Supermarkets, Inc., 228 USPQ 693 (TTAB 1986) (SUN SUPERMARKETS and design of sun held likely to be confused with SUNSHINE and design of sun and SUNRISE and design of sun, all for retail grocery store services).
1207.01(c)(iii) Comparison of Standard Character Marks and Special Form Marks
If a mark (in either an application or a registration) is presented in standard characters, the owner of the mark is not limited to any particular depiction. The rights associated with a mark in standard characters reside in the wording (or other literal element, e.g., letters, numerals, punctuation) and not in any particular display. Therefore, an applicant cannot, by presenting its mark in special form, avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark that is registered in standard characters because the registered marks presumably could be used in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Products Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); Sunnen Products Co. v. Sunex International Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1751 (TTAB 1987); In re Hester Industries, Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 883, n.6 (TTAB 1986).
1207.01(d) Miscellaneous Considerations
1207.01(d)(i) Doubt Resolved in Favor of Registrant
If there is any doubt as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the prior registrant. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc. 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
1207.01(d)(ii) Absence of Actual Confusion
It is well settled that the relevant test is likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. It is unnecessary to show actual confusion to establish likelihood of confusion. Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 1549, 14 USPQ2d 1840, 1842-43 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and cases cited therein.
1207.01(d)(iii) Third-Party Registrations and Evidence of Third-Party Use
Generally, the existence of third-party registrations cannot justify the registration of another mark that is so similar to a previously registered mark as to create a likelihood of confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. Third-party registrations may be relevant to show that the mark or a portion of the mark is descriptive, suggestive, or so commonly used that the public will look to other elements to distinguish the source of the goods or services. See, e.g., AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269-70 (C.C.P.A. 1973); Plus Products v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., 220 USPQ 541, 544 (TTAB 1983). Properly used in this limited manner, third-party registrations are similar to dictionaries showing how language is generally used. See, e.g., Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors, Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 675, 223 USPQ 1281, 1285-86 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 917, 189 USPQ 693, 694-95 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Dayco Products-Eaglemotive Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1910, 1911 (TTAB 1988); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); United Foods Inc. v. J.R. Simplot Co., 4 USPQ2d 1172, 1174 (TTAB 1987).
Third-party registrations that cover a number of different goods or services have some probative value to the extent that they may serve to suggest that goods or services are of a type that may emanate from a single source, if the registrations are based on use in commerce. However, registrations issued under 15 U.S.C. 1126(e), based on a foreign registration, have very little, if any, persuasive value. In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 1988), aff'd, 864 F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The submission of a list of registrations or a copy of a search report is not proper evidence of third-party registrations. To make registrations of record, soft copies of the registrations or the electronic equivalent thereof (i.e., printouts or electronic copies of the registrations taken from the electronic search records of the USPTO) must be submitted. Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1368 (TTAB 1998); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531, 1532 n. 3 (TTAB 1994); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); In re Hub Distributing, Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983). See TMEP §710.03.
Evidence of third-party use falls under the sixth du Pont factor - the "number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods." In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). If the evidence establishes that the consuming public is exposed to third-party use of similar marks on similar goods, this evidence "is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection." Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
1207.01(d)(iv) Collateral Attack on Registration Improper in Ex Parte Proceeding
Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1057(b), provides that a certificate of registration on the Principal Register shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, of the registrant's ownership of the mark and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate. During ex parte prosecution, an applicant will not be heard on matters that constitute a collateral attack on the cited registration (e.g., a registrant's nonuse of the mark). See In re Dixie Restaurants, 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Cosmetically Yours, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 424 F.2d 1385, 1387, 165 USPQ 515, 517 (C.C.P.A. 1970); In re Peebles Inc. 23 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 n. 5 (TTAB 1992); In re Pollio Dairy Products Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2014-15 (TTAB 1988).
It is also inappropriate for the applicant to place the burden of showing a likelihood of confusion on the owner of the cited registration. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1318, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("[I]t is the duty of the PTO and this court to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion between two marks.... [I]t is no answer for the applicant to ask that the application be passed to publication to see whether the owner of the cited mark will oppose the registration.," quoting Dixie Restaurants, supra, 105 F.3d at 1408, 41 USPQ2d at 1535.)
1207.01(d)(v) Classification of Goods/Services
The classification of goods and services has no bearing on the question of likelihood of confusion. Rather, it is the manner in which the applicant and/or registrant have identified their goods or services that is controlling. Jean Patou Inc. v. Theon Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 29 USPQ2d 1771 (Fed. Cir. 1993); National Football League v. Jasper Alliance Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212, 1216 n.5 (TTAB 1990).
1207.01(d)(vi) Prior Decisions of Examining Attorneys
Each case must be decided on its own merits. Previous decisions by examining attorneys in approving other marks are without evidentiary value and are not binding on the agency or the Board. In re Sunmarks Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1470 (TTAB 1994); In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638, 641 (TTAB 1984).
1207.01(d)(vii) Sophisticated Purchasers
The fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are immune from source confusion. See In re Decombe, 9 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 1988); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983). However, circumstances suggesting care in purchasing may tend to minimize likelihood of confusion.
1207.01(d)(viii) Consent Agreements
The term "consent agreement" generally refers to an agreement in which a party (e.g., a prior registrant) consents to the use and/or registration of a mark by another party (e.g., an applicant for registration of the same mark or a similar mark), or in which each party consents to the use and/or registration of the same mark or a similar mark by the other party.
A consent agreement may be submitted by the applicant to overcome a refusal of registration under §2(d) of the Act, or in anticipation of a refusal to register. When a consent agreement is submitted, the examining attorney will consider the agreement, and all other evidence in the record, to determine likelihood of confusion. The examining attorney should not solicit a consent agreement.
Consents come in different forms and under circumstances in infinite variety. They are, however, but one factor to be taken into account with all of the other relevant circumstances bearing on the likelihood of confusion referred to in §2(d). In re N.A.D. Inc., 754 F.2d 996, 224 USPQ 969 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1363, 177 USPQ 563, 568 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated as follows:[W]hen those most familiar with use in the marketplace and most interested in precluding confusion enter agreements designed to avoid it, the scales of evidence are clearly tilted. It is at least difficult to maintain a subjective view that confusion will occur when those directly concerned say it won't. A mere assumption that confusion is likely will rarely prevail against uncontroverted evidence from those on the firing line that it is not.
A consent agreement that is not merely a "naked" consent typically details reasons why no likelihood of confusion exists and/or arrangements undertaken by the parties to avoid confusing the public. In re Permagrain Products, Inc., 223 USPQ 147 (TTAB 1984) (consent agreement found to be "naked" because the agreement did not restrict the markets in such a way as to avoid confusion).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has made it clear that consent agreements should be given great weight, and that the Office should not substitute its judgment concerning likelihood of confusion for the judgment of the real parties in interest without good reason, that is, unless the other factors clearly dictate a finding of likelihood of confusion. Amalgamated Bank of New York v. Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank, 842 F.2d 1270, 6 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Bongrain International (American) Corp. v. Delice de France Inc., 811 F.2d 1479, 1 USPQ2d 1775 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re N.A.D. Inc., 754 F.2d 996, 224 USPQ 969 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Compare In re Mastic Inc., 829 F.2d 1114, 4 USPQ2d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (refusal to register affirmed even with a consent to register where applicant had not used the mark in commerce and consent agreement contained contradictory statements).
The examining attorney should give great weight to a proper consent agreement. The examining attorney should not interpose his or her own judgment concerning likelihood of confusion when an applicant and registrant have entered into a credible consent agreement and, on balance, the other factors do not dictate a finding of likelihood of confusion.
A consent agreement is not the same as a "concurrent use" agreement. The term "concurrent use" is a term of art that refers to a geographical restriction on the registration. See TMEP §§1207.04 etseq. regarding concurrent use.
1207.01(d)(ix) Fame of Mark
The fame of a registered mark is a factor to be considered in determining likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Famous marks enjoy a wide latitude of legal protection because they are more likely to be remembered and associated in the public mind than a weaker mark. Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1374, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board erred in discounting the fame of opposer's marks ACOUSTIC WAVE and WAVE); Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1327, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Board erred in limiting the weight accorded to the fame of opposer's FRITO-LAY mark); Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 352, 22 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 862 (1992) (Board erred in discounting the fame of opposer's mark PLAY-DOH). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated:[A] mark with extensive public recognition and renown deserves and receives more legal protection than an obscure or weak mark.
Achieving fame for a mark in a marketplace where countless symbols clamor for public attention often requires a very distinct mark, enormous advertising investments, and a product of lasting value. After earning fame, a mark benefits not only its owner, but the consumers who rely on the symbols to identify the source of a desired product. Both the mark's fame and the consumer's trust in that symbol, however, are subject to exploitation by free riders.
Kenner Parker Toys, 963 F.2d at 353, 22 USPQ2d at 1456.
Fame for likelihood of confusion purposes and fame for dilution purposes, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), are distinct concepts. Fame for dilution purposes is an either/or proposition, whereas the "fame" factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis varies along a spectrum. Palm Bay Imports, 396 F.3d at 1374-75, 73 USPQ2d at 1694.
When present, the fame of the mark is "a dominant factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis for a famous mark, independent of the consideration of the relatedness of the goods." Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1328, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898. However, like the other du Pont factors, the fame of a mark may be considered only if there is relevant evidence of record. See TMEP §1207.01 and cases cited therein.
It is not necessary to show recognition by every segment of the population. When determining likelihood of confusion, fame is measured with regard to "the class of customers and potential customers of a product or service, and not the general public." Palm Bay Imports, at 396 F.3d 1375, 73 USPQ2d 1695. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that VEUVE CLICQUOT had achieved fame among purchasers of champagne andsparkling wine, where the record showed that sales volume and advertising expenditures over a 15-year period were "substantial;" that VEUVE CLICQUOT was the second leading brand sold in the United States, sold in 8,000 restaurants nationwide, and in liquor stores, wine shops and other establishments; that the product was advertised in general interest and wine specialty magazines, on the radio, on the Internet, and through point-of-sale displays, wine tastings and sponsorship of events; and that the product had been featured in articles and reviews in both specialized andgeneral interest magazines. Id.
Direct evidence of consumer recognition of a mark is not necessary. The "fame of a mark may be measured indirectly, among other things, by the volume of sales and advertising expenditures of the goods traveling under the mark, and by the length of time those indicia of commercial awareness have been evident." See Bose, 293 F.3d at 1371, 63 USPQ2d at 1305, andcases cited therein. It is important to consider the context of how the proposed mark is presented in sales and advertising materials. In Bose, the Court found that evidence of extensive sales and advertising expenses established the fame of opposer's WAVE and ACOUSTIC WAVE marks, noting that opposer's sales literature, advertisements, and promotional materials included frequent and prominent references to the marked product separate and apart from the house mark BOSE. In Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court found that the mark GIANT FOOD was famous based on 45 years of use, sales in excess of $1 billion per year, extensive media exposure andprominent display on the facade of supermarkets. However, in Shen Manufacturing Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court found that evidence of more than $5 million annual sales of products bearing the mark, over 100 years of use, and advertising expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year was insufficient to establish that RITZ had acheived the extensive public recognition of a famous mark.
In Tiffany & Broadway v. Commissioner, 167 F. Supp.2d 949 (S.D. Tex. 2001), the fame of four registered marks cited against the applicant was a significant factor in finding a likelihood of confusion between applicant's TIFFANY for ladies' dress shoes and registrant's TIFFANY andTIFFANY & CO. for a variety of goods, including jewelry, china, silverware, glassware, leather goods, belt buckles, ties, scarves, clocks, watches, brushes and lamps, and for retail store services specializing in the sale of jewelry, watches, clocks, and gift items. The ex parte record included excerpts from 18 news articles where the registrant Tiffany & Company was identified as a famous business; citations to three published decisions in which the fame of the TIFFANY mark had been judicially recognized; and evidence that the registrant's goods were sold at over 60 Tiffany locations worldwide--including 34 in the United States--and through independently-owned retail stores and mail order outlets.
1207.01(d)(x) Conflicting Marks Owned by Different Parties
During the examination of an application, the examining attorney should consider separately each registration found in a search of the marks registered in the Office that may bar registration of the applicant's mark under §2(d). If the examining attorney finds registrations that appear to be owned by more than one registrant, he or she should consider the extent to which dilution may indicate that there is no likelihood of confusion. However, the examining attorney must cite all the marks that are considered to be a bar to registration of the mark presented in the application, even if they are owned by different parties. The examining attorney should always explain the reason that the mark in each cited registration is grounds for refusal under §2(d).