Blunt Wrap U.S.A., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2004

No. 76384885 (T.T.A.B. May. 18, 2004)

TJQ
Mailed:5/18/04
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Blunt Wrap U.S.A., Inc.
________
Serial No. 76384885
_______
Brett A. North of Garvey, Smith, Nehrbass & Doody for
applicant.
Marc Leipzig, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115
(Tomas V. Vlcek, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Quinn, Walters and Bottorff, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application was filed by Blunt Wrap U.S.A., Inc. to
register the mark BLUNT MASTER for “clothing, namely, hats,
shirts and jackets.”1
The trademark examining attorney refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that
applicant’s mark, if applied to applicant’s goods, would so
1 Application Serial No. 76384885, filed March 20, 2002, alleging
a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DECISION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser No. 76384885
2
resemble the previously registered mark BLUNT for
“clothing, namely, coats, dresses, footwear, shirts,
sweaters, shorts, pants, jackets, underwear, and headwear”2
as to be likely to cause confusion.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the examining attorney filed briefs. An oral
hearing was not requested.
Applicant argues that the marks have different overall
commercial impressions. More specifically, applicant
contends that the marks are different in sound, that the
MASTER portion of its mark is prominent, and that the
examining attorney must not dissect applicant’s mark in
analyzing the likelihood of confusion with the cited mark.
The examining attorney maintains that the marks are
similar in sound, appearance and commercial impression, and
that the goods are identical in part, and are otherwise
closely related.
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an
analysis of all of the facts in evidence that are relevant
to the factors bearing on the likelihood of confusion
issue. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d
1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In any likelihood of
2 Registration No. 1,816,941, issued January 18, 1994; renewal
pending.
Ser No. 76384885
3
confusion analysis, two key considerations are the
similarities between the marks and the similarities between
the goods. Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,
544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
We first turn to consider the goods. During the
prosecution of its application, including the appeal brief,
applicant was completely silent as to this duPont factor.
We acknowledge that there is no per se rule governing
likelihood of confusion in cases involving clothing items.
In re British Bulldog, Ltd., 224 USPQ 854 (TTAB 1984).
Nevertheless, in the present case, applicant’s goods are
identical to registrant’s goods, at least in part inasmuch
as all of applicant’s goods are also listed in the cited
registration; the involved application and registration
both list shirts, jackets and headwear (hats). Further,
the goods in the application are closely related to the
additional clothing items listed in the cited registration.
The goods are presumed to move through the same channels of
trade and are bought by the same classes of purchasers.
Insofar as the marks are concerned, we initially note
that when marks are applied to identical goods, as is the
case here (at least in part), “the degree of similarity
[between the marks] necessary to support a conclusion of
likely confusion declines.” Century 21 Real Estate Corp.
Ser No. 76384885
4
v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698,
1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Applicant’s mark BLUNT MASTER is
similar in sound and appearance to registrant’s mark BLUNT.
The first term in applicant’s mark is identical to the
entirety of registrant’s mark; it is often the first part
of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the
mind of a consumer and remembered when making a purchasing
decision. Presto Products v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., 9
USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 1988).
As to meaning, applicant states that the marks convey
entirely different meanings. What is interesting to note,
however, is that applicant fails to indicate what those
different meanings are. The term “blunt” would appear to
be arbitrary as applied to clothing items, and it is likely
that the marks convey similar connotations to consumers.
Further, the record is devoid of evidence of any third-
party uses or registrations of the same or similar marks in
the clothing field.
We thus conclude that the marks BLUNT and BLUNT
MASTER, as applied to identical or closely related clothing
items, are similar in overall commercial impression. See:
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.,
526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (CCPA 1975) [the mere addition
of a term to a registered mark is generally not sufficient
Ser No. 76384885
5
to overcome a likelihood of confusion; BENGAL and BENGAL
LANCER are confusingly similar]. In finding that the marks
are similar, we have kept in mind the normal fallibility of
human memory over time and the fact that consumers retain a
general rather than a specific impression of trademarks
encountered in the marketplace.
We conclude that consumers familiar with registrant’s
clothing items, namely, coats, dresses, footwear, shirts,
sweaters, shorts, pants, jackets, underwear and headwear
sold under the mark BLUNT, would be likely to believe, if
they were to encounter applicant’s mark BLUNT MASTER for
clothing, namely, hats, shirts and jackets, that the goods
originated with or are somehow associated with or sponsored
by the same entity.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.