Greencrown Water Systems LLCDownload PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 202087897483 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2020) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation