Greencrown Water Systems LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2020

87897483 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2020)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: June 15, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Greencrown Water Systems LLC
_____

Serial No. 87897483
_____

Colin P. Abrahams of the Law Office of Colin P. Abrahams,
for Greencrown Water Systems LLC.
Dezmona Mizelle-Howard, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,
Chris A. F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Lykos, Lynch and Lebow,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Lykos, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On April 27, 2018, Greencrown Water Systems LLC (“Applicant”) filed an
application to register on the Principal Register the standard character mark NEW
YORK WATERMAKER (NEW YORK disclaimed) for the following goods and
services:1
Water treatment apparatus; water treatment and
processing apparatus, including water analysis, and

1 Application Serial No. 87897483, filed under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. During prosecution,
Applicant complied with the Examining Attorney’s requirement to disclaim NEW YORK
apart from the mark as shown. See February 20, 2019 Response to Office Action.

Serial No. 87897483
- 2 -
addition or removal of components in water to create water
having a selected composition; water treatment apparatus
utilizing chromatography, frequency resonators, filtering,
ionizers, ozonators, resin tanks; water treatment
apparatus for creating water to replicate a selected water
composition in International Class 11; and
Water treatment services; treatment of water to have a
composition of selected parameters; treatment of water to
replicate a specific water composition; water treatment and
processing in International Class 40.
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that
Applicant’s mark so resembles the typed mark2 WATERMAKER on the Principal
Register for “water purification units” in International Class 11,3 that, when used on
or in connection with Applicant’s identified services, it is likely to cause confusion or
mistake or to deceive.
In an effort to obviate the refusal, during prosecution Applicant amended the
identification of goods and services to the following, narrowing their function:
Water treatment apparatus for creating water to replicate
a selected water composition; water treatment apparatus
for creating water to replicate a selected water composition
utilizing chromatography, frequency resonators, filtering,
ionizers, ozonators, resin tanks; water treatment
apparatus for creating water to replicate a selected water
composition, including water analysis, and addition or
removal of components in water to create water having the
selected composition in International Class 11; and

2 “Prior to November 2, 2003, ‘standard character’ drawings were known as ‘typed’ drawings.
… A typed mark is the legal equivalent of a standard character mark.” In re Mighty Leaf Tea,
601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1258 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also TRADEMARK MANUAL
OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) § 807.03(i) (Oct. 2018).
3 Registration No. 2172488, registered July 14, 1998; renewed.
Serial No. 87897483
- 3 -
Treatment of water to replicate a specific water
composition; treatment of water to replicate a selected
water composition utilizing chromatography, frequency
resonators, filtering, ionizers, ozonators, resin tanks;
services in providing addition or removal of components in
water to create water having the selected composition in
International Class 40.
See February 20, 2019 Response to Office Action. The Trademark Examining
Attorney accepted and entered Applicant’s amendment to the identification of goods
and services, but made final the refusal to register. Applicant filed a notice of appeal
and request for reconsideration which was denied. Applicant’s appeal of the final
refusal is now briefed.
For the reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal to register as to both
classes.
Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative evidence of record bearing on a likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. DuPont
de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”). See
also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir.
2003). In making our determination, the Board has considered each DuPont factor for
which there is evidence and argument. See In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 129
USPQ2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019). When analyzing these factors, the overriding
concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and
services, but also to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use
of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d
1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Serial No. 87897483
- 4 -
Varying weights may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending on the
evidence presented. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344,
98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Shell Oil Co., 26 USPQ2d at 1688
(“[T]he various evidentiary factors may play more or less weighty roles in any
particular determination.”). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, however, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between
the goods and services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976). These factors and others are discussed below.
Similarity of the Marks
The first DuPont factor involves an analysis of the similarity or dissimilarity of
the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En
1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Similarity in any one of these
elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St.
John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018), aff’d mem., 777 F. App’x (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Accord Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390
F.2d 728, 156 USPQ 523, 526 (CCPA 1968) (“It is sufficient if the similarity in either
form, spelling or sound alone is likely to cause confusion.”) (citation omitted).
“The proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead
‘whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression’
such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection
between the parties.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356,
Serial No. 87897483
- 5 -
101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Because the similarity or dissimilarity of
the marks is determined based on the marks in their entireties, the analysis cannot
be predicated on dissecting the marks into their various components; that is, the
decision must be based on the entire marks, not just part of the marks. Stone Lion
Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161
(Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir.
1985). See also Franklin Mint Corp. V. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 212 USPQ
233, 234 (CCPA 1981) (“It is axiomatic that a mark should not be dissected and
considered piecemeal; rather, it must be considered as a whole in determining
likelihood of confusion”). “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. Indeed, this type of analysis appears to be unavoidable.” In re Nat’l Data
Corp., 224 USPQ at 751.
Applicant acknowledges that both marks share the term WATERMAKER but
contends that NEW YORK, as the dominant portion of its mark, imparts “a
connotation and meaning which is clearly absent from the cited registration” of “a
good quality water source.” Applicant’s Brief, p. 5; 10 TTABVUE 6. Elaborating on its
position, Applicant explains that “[o]ne aspect of applicant’s goods and services is to
create a water type and taste which may replicate or mimic the taste of such water
in areas acknowledged to have excellence in this regard. Such water may be
Serial No. 87897483
- 6 -
important in enhancing the taste, texture and the like of foods containing such water.
… The ability to replicate water from a selected area, and use it in other areas to
emulate tastes and textures, can therefore be commercially important.” Id. For this
reason, Applicant maintains that the Examining Attorney has underestimated the
importance of NEW YORK in its mark, and that similarity should not be found on
the basis of overlap of the single term WATERMAKER.
Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing. Both marks share the coined, suggestive
term WATERMAKER. The only distinction is the addition of the geographically
descriptive and disclaimed designation NEW YORK to Applicant’s mark. Disclaimed
matter generally is not source-indicating and does not constitute the dominant part
of a mark. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 752); In re Dixie Rests.
Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Code
Consultants, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (TTAB 2001) (disclaimed matter is often
“less significant in creating the mark’s commercial impression”). In general, simply
adding a term does not obviate the similarity when comparing two marks. See Coca-
Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105, 106
(CCPA 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly
similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding
TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9
USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS
confusingly similar). This principle holds true here, especially in light of the fact that
Serial No. 87897483
- 7 -
the geographically descriptive term NEW YORK in Applicant’s mark merely modifies
WATERMAKER. As noted above, the Board has the discretion to place more weight
on a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a
consideration of the marks in their entireties. In re Nat’l Data, 224 USPQ at 751. See,
e.g., In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examining Attorney’s finding that WATERMAKER is the dominant portion of
Applicant’s mark. Consumers are likely to perceive Applicant’s NEW YORK
WATERMAKER mark as a variation of the cited WATERMAKER mark, relating to
products and services originating from or designed for the state of New York or New
York City metropolitan area. In making this finding, we note the obvious differences
in sight and sound. Consumers, however, do not focus on minutia but rather overall
impressions.
In sum, when comparing the marks overall, they are similar in sight, sound,
connotation and commercial impression. This DuPont factor weighs in favor of finding
a likelihood of confusion.
The Goods and Services
Under the second DuPont factor, we compare the goods and services as they are
identified in the involved application and cited registration. See In re Detroit Athletic
Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d
at 1161; Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16
USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc.,
281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The goods and services need not be
Serial No. 87897483
- 8 -
identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. On-line Careline Inc. v.
Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc.
v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000). They need only be
“related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are
such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same
source.” Coach Servs., 101 USPQ2d at 1722 (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83
USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)). Evidence of relatedness may include news articles
and/or evidence from computer databases showing that the relevant goods are used
together or used by the same purchasers; advertisements showing that the relevant
goods are advertised together or sold by the same manufacturer or dealer; and/or
copies of prior use-based registrations of the same mark for both applicant’s goods
and the goods listed in the cited registration. See, e.g., In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810,
1817 (TTAB 2014) (finding pepper sauce and agave related where evidence showed
both were used for the same purpose in the same recipes and thus consumers were
likely to purchase the products at the same time and in the same stores).
According to this excerpt from Brittanica,4 water purification and water treatment
are closely related processes:
Water purification, process by which undesired chemical
compounds, organic and inorganic materials, and biological
contaminants are removed from water. That process also
includes distillation (the conversion of a liquid into vapour
to condense it back to liquid form) and deionization (ion

4 Excerpt from https://www.britannica.com/topic/water-purification submitted with Denial of
Request for Reconsideration, pp. 17-19. Citations to the prosecution history in the USPTO’s
TSDR database are to the downloadable .pdf version. See, e.g., In re Peace Love World Live,
LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1402 n.4 (TTAB 2018).
Serial No. 87897483
- 9 -
removal through the extraction of dissolved salts). One
major purpose of water purification is to provide clean
drinking water. Water purification also meets the needs of
medical, pharmacological, chemical, and industrial
applications for clean and potable water. The purification
procedure reduces the concentration of contaminants such
as suspended particles, parasites, bacteria, algae, viruses,
and fungi. Water purification takes place on scales from the
large (e.g., for an entire city) to the small (e.g., for
individual households).
…
Most water used in industrialized countries is treated at
water treatment plants. Although the methods those
plants use in pretreatment depend on their size and
severity of the contamination, those practices have been
standardized to ensure general compliance with national
and international regulations.
From this excerpt we can glean that Applicant’s water treatment goods and services
are complimentary, if not “functionally related,” to Registrant’s water purification
goods. In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d at 1815.
With regard to Applicant’s and Registrant’s International Class 11 goods, the
Examining Attorney’s evidence includes use-based third-party registrations which
suggest that Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are of a kind that may emanate from
a single source. We note the following:
Registration No. 5576360 for the mark ECOWATER SAFE
FOUNTAIN SYSTEM for “water treatment equipment,
namely, water purifiers, water filtration units, water
filters, structural parts and accessories for water
treatment equipment, water purification equipment and
water filtration equipment for residential and commercial
use” in International Class 11;
Registration No. 5649918 for the mark JUNYU (stylized)
for “…Water purification installations; Water purification
and filtration apparatus; Water purifiers; Water purifiers
Serial No. 87897483
- 10 -
for household purposes; Water softening apparatus and
installations; Water treatment equipment, namely,
cartridge filtration units” in International Class 11;
Registration No. 5390122 for the mark displayed below

for “…Water purification installations; … Water treatment
equipment, namely, ultraviolet sterilization units” in
International Class 11;
Registration No. 5485195 for the mark AFFINITY for
“…Water purification tanks; Water purification units;
Water purifiers; Water purifying apparatus and machines;
Water treatment equipment, namely, water filtration
units; … Water treatment equipment, namely, water
filtration units and reverse osmosis units” in International
Class 11;
Registration No. 5585302 for the mark OLYMPIA for
“Water filtration and purification units and replacement
cartridges and filters therefor; Water purification and
filtration apparatus; Water treatment equipment, namely,
water filtration units; Water treatment equipment,
namely, water filtration units and reverse osmosis units”
in International Class 11;
Registration No. 5647319 for the mark IGAINTIN for
“…Water purification installations; Water purification and
filtration apparatus; Water purifying apparatus; Water
purifying apparatus and machines; Water purifying
apparatus for household purposes; Water treatment
equipment, namely, reverse osmosis filtration units…” in
International Class 11;
Registration No. 5655122 for the mark HOPEJOY for
“…Water purification installations…Water treatment
equipment, namely, chemical sterilization units” in
International Class 11; and
Registration No. 5680364 for the mark WONBLIFS for
“…Water purifying apparatus; Water purifying units, for
potable water for domestic; Water treatment equipment,
Serial No. 87897483
- 11 -
namely, cartridge filtration units; Water treatment
equipment, namely, reverse osmosis filtration units; Water
treatment equipment, namely, reverse osmosis units” in
International Class 11.
See March 14, 2019 Final Office Action. As a general proposition, third-party
registrations that cover goods from both the cited registration and an Applicant’s
application are relevant to show that the goods and services are of a type that may
emanate from a single source under one mark. See, e.g., Detroit Athletic, 128 USPQ2d
at 1051; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 62 USPQ2d at 1004; In re Infinity
Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons
Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); and In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc.,
6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988). Unlike Applicant’s identification of goods,
many of the water treatment products listed in the third-party registrations do not
specify their precise function. Nonetheless, they remain probative. “Just as we must
consider the full scope of the goods and services as set forth in the application and
registration under consideration, we must consider the full scope of the goods and
services described in a third-party registration. Because the benefits of registration
are commensurate with the scope of the goods specified in the certificate of
registration, a registration that describes goods broadly is presumed to encompass all
goods or services of the type described.” In re Country Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d
443903, 2019 BL 443903 (TTAB 2019) (internal citation omitted)). Thus, the
Examining Attorney has submitted substantial evidence demonstrating that it is not
uncommon for some of Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods to emanate from the same
source under the same mark. We can also assume based on their intrinsic nature that
Serial No. 87897483
- 12 -
some consumers may use some of these items together. As such, these items are
complementary in nature. Accordingly, these items are both commercially and
intrinsically related.
As to the comparison between Applicant’s International Class 40 services and
Registrant’s International Class 11 goods, we recognize that there is no per se rule
regarding the relatedness of goods and services. But in this case the relationship
between the goods and services is self-evident and generally known. Cf. Detroit
Athletic, 128 USPQ2d at 1052 (“we have held that confusion is likely where one party
engages in retail services that sell goods of the type produced by the other party . . .
.”); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (finding that the difference between goods and retail store services featuring
those and other goods “to be of little or no legal significance. The respective marks
will have their only impact on the purchasing public in the same marketplace.”); H.J.
Seiler, 129 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1961) (holding SEILER’s for catering services and
SEILER’S for smoked and cured meats likely to cause confusion); In re United Serv.
Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (holding mark consisting of a design
featuring silhouettes of a man and woman used in connection with distributorship
services in the field of health and beauty aids and mark consisting of a design
featuring silhouettes of a man and woman used in connection with skin cream likely
to cause confusion). As such, we also find Applicant’s services to be related to
Registrant’s goods.
Serial No. 87897483
- 13 -
Applicant argues that its amendment to the identification of goods and services
obviates any likelihood of confusion because it “now specifically focus[es] on
particular water treatment apparatus and services directed towards replicating a
specific type of water, including the use of different methodologies and devices to
achieve this.” Applicant’s Brief, p. 6; 7 TTABVUE 10. As Applicant contends,
…“water purification units” may be installed at water
collection areas or depositories, which receive water from a
source of dirty water, and which requires purification by
removal of debris, particulate matter, bacteria and the like.
The purpose of such purification units is to cleanse dirty
water, and not to give it the water a specific character or
taste to emulate or replicate a specific water source. Thus,
Applicant’s water treatment apparatus and related
services are used not to purify water, but to treat it so as to
emulate or replicate water from a specific source, and this
is clearly distinguishable and very different from that in
the cited registration.
Id. The fact that Applicant restricted its identification of goods and services by
deleting some of the originally identified items altogether and narrowing the scope is
of no matter. “It is well established that the Board may not read limitations into an
unrestricted registration or application.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 123
USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We therefore consider the complimentary
function of Registrant’s “water purification unit” as encompassing the same purpose
of use as the water treatment goods of the type identified in the application of making
water safe for consumers. Cf. In re Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1134,
1137 (TTAB 2015) (“Applicant’s broadly worded identification of ‘furniture’
necessarily encompasses Registrant’s narrowly identified ‘residential and commercial
furniture.’); see Hyper Shoppes 6 USPQ2d at 1025 (finding that “applicant’s ‘general
Serial No. 87897483
- 14 -
merchandise store services’ would include the sale of furniture,” the goods in the cited
registration). Thus, Applicant’s amended goods and services, when compared to the
goods identified in the cited registration continue to be related in nature. See On-line
Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed.
Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 54 USPQ2d at 1898. See also Coach Servs., 101
USPQ2d at 1722 (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d at 1724)). We find
this evidence sufficient to show a commercial relationship between Applicant’s goods
and Registrant’s services.
Accordingly, the second DuPont factor also favors a likelihood of confusion.
Established, Likely-to-Continue Channels of Trade
Next we consider the established, likely-to-continue channels of trade, the third
DuPont factor. Applicant maintains that its goods and services are directed to
different consumers. As Applicant explains, the consumers of Registrant’s “water
purification units” are cities and local governments. By contrast, Applicant’s intended
consumers are restaurants, food producers or similar establishments. In Applicant’s
view, its goods and services fall in a separate trade channel.
Neither Applicant’s nor Registrant’s identifications contain limitations regarding
intended users of their respective goods and services. In the absence of such
restrictions, we cannot narrow the intended purchasers. See, e.g., Detroit Athletic Co.,
128 USPQ2d at 1052 (“the registration does not set forth any restrictions on use and
therefore cannot be narrowed by testimony that the applicant’s use is, in fact,
restricted to a particular class of purchasers”) (citation omitted). In addition, insofar
Serial No. 87897483
- 15 -
as there are no restrictions on trade channels, we must presume that the goods and
services travel in all channels of trade appropriate for such goods, which may include
the trade channels for state and local municipalities, individual consumers,
restaurants, food producers and the like. See In re Viterra, Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101
USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press,
Inc., 62 USPQ2d at 1005).
Accordingly, we find this DuPont factor also favors a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
Purchasing Conditions
Lastly, we consider the conditions under which the goods and services are likely
to be purchased, e.g., whether on impulse or after careful consideration, as well as
the degree, if any, of sophistication of the consumers, the fourth DuPont factor.
Purchaser sophistication or degree of care may tend to minimize likelihood of
confusion. Conversely, impulse purchases of inexpensive items may tend to have the
opposite effect. Palm Bay, 73 USPQ2d at 1695. Applicant argues that the purchasers
of its goods and services are part of a professional buyer class possessing a high degree
of sophistication and knowledge, and that the goods and services are relatively
expensive. As it explains, its products and methods are “unique and inventive” and
are the subject of multiple patent applications. Applicant anticipates that its products
and services will be purchased by entities such as food producers and restaurants
looking to enhance the taste of their products. According to Applicant, city and local
Serial No. 87897483
- 16 -
governments and industry players are the likely consumers of Registrant’s water
purification units.
Because Registrant’s goods are unrestricted as to classes of purchasers, we can
assume that they are offered not only to a professional class of buyers with specialized
expertise but also the general public. Nonetheless, based on the intrinsic nature of
the goods and services, we can presume that the prospective purchasers are likely to
make careful and deliberate purchasing decisions. The factor therefore weighs
against finding a likelihood of confusion.
Balancing the DuPont Factors
We have carefully considered all evidence of record and Applicant’s arguments.
The fourth DuPont factor does not favor a likelihood of confusion because the relevant
consumers will make careful purchasing decisions. Nonetheless, the first, second and
third factors each weigh in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion. While there are
instances where a single DuPont factor is dispositive, we do not think the fourth
DuPont factor plays such a role here, given the strong similarity in the marks when
compared as a whole as applied to highly related and complementary goods and
services in overlapping trade channels. See HRL Associates, Inc. v. Weiss Associates,
Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1819, 1823 (TTAB 1989), aff’d, 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (similarities of goods and marks outweigh sophisticated purchasers,
careful purchasing decision, and expensive goods). See also Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d
at 1162-63. Balancing these factors, we find these factors outweigh any care in
purchasing decisions. Id. Accordingly, we find that confusion is likely between
Applicant’s applied-for mark and the mark in the cited registration.
Serial No. 87897483
- 17 -
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed as to
both classes of goods and services.