Adeeshwar Singhal

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2015

No. 85945641 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2015)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: July 10, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Adeeshwar Singhal
_____

Serial No. 85945641
_____

Adeeshwar Singhal, pro se.

Patrick Shanahan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 116,
Michael W. Baird, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Kuhlke, Kuczma and Adlin,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Adeeshwar Singhal (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the mark SAHAJAYOG (in standard characters) for
Spread Teachings and Divinity of Her Holiness Shree Ma
Nirmala Devi by giving Self-Realizations as taught by
HER and through HER various talks in International
Class 45.1

1 Application Serial No. 85945641 was filed on May 29, 2013, based upon Applicant’s claim
of first use anywhere on April 4, 2013 and use in commerce since at least as early as May 5,
2013. The application includes this translation statement: “The English translation of
SAHAJAYOG in the mark is natural union with the Divine.”
Serial No. 85945641
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), citing the
following registrations owned by the same individual:
Registration No. 2380804
Mark: SAHAJA YOGA (typed characters)
For: educational services, namely, conducting classes, workshops
and seminars in the field of techniques of meditation, relaxation
and self-improvement in International Class 412

and
Registration No. 3804715
Mark: SAHAJA MEDITATION (standard characters)
For: Education services, namely, providing training, classes,
workshops and seminars in the field of techniques of meditation,
relaxation and self-improvement in International Class 41.3

After the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and filed a request for
reconsideration, including a proposed amendment to the identification of services.
The amendment was refused, and the refusal under § 2(d) together with the
specimen refusal were maintained and continued. A second request for
reconsideration was filed and after the denial of the second request for

2 Issued on August 29, 2000; renewed. The word “Yoga” is disclaimed. The English
translation of the word “SAHAJA” in the mark is “spontaneous” or “inborn.” In 2003,
Trademark Rule 2.52(a) was amended to refer to “typed” drawings as “standard character”
drawings. See Trademark Rule 2.52(a); 37 C.F.R. § 2.52(a); TMEP § 807.03(i). A mark in
typed format is the legal equivalent of a standard character mark
3 Issued on June 15, 2010. The word “Meditation” is disclaimed. The English translation of
“SAHAJA” in the mark is “spontaneous or inborn.”
Serial No. 85945641
- 3 -
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed.4 For the reasons set forth below, the
refusals to register are affirmed.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
The determination under § 2(d) is based on an analysis of all probative facts in
evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of
confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567
(CCPA 1973); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d
1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between
the services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098,
192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976). To the extent that any other du Pont factors for
which no evidence or argument were presented may nonetheless be applicable, we
treat them as neutral.
A. Similarity of the Marks
Although the issue of likelihood of confusion must be judged on the basis of the
facts and context of each case presented to the Board, likelihood of confusion has
frequently been found where the entirety of one mark is incorporated within
another. See In re El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988)
(MACHO COMBO likely to cause confusion with registered MACHO mark); In re
Christian Dior, S.A., 225 USPQ 533, 535 (TTAB 1985) (addition of house mark in

4 Although never formally accepted, the Examining Attorney has indicated in his Appeal
Brief that the substitute specimen of use was acceptable for the previously-accepted
identification of services, and is not the subject of this appeal.
Serial No. 85945641
- 4 -
LE CACHET De DIOR does not avoid likelihood of confusion with registered
CACHET mark); In re Champion International Corp., 196 USPQ 48, 49 (TTAB
1977) (resemblance between applicant’s CHECK MATE and registrant’s
HAMMERMILL MICR CHECK-MATE marks for closely related products likely to
cause confusion); In re C.F. Hathaway Co., 190 USPQ 343, 345 (TTAB 1976)
(HATHAWAY GOLF CLASSIC for knitted sport shirts likely to cause confusion
with registered GOLF CLASSIC mark for men’s hats).
Here, Applicant’s SAHAJAYOG mark is completely contained in the cited mark
SAHAJA YOGA shown in Registration No. 2380804.5 The only differences between
the two marks are the last letter “A” contained in the mark in the cited registration,
as well as a space between “Sahaja” and “Yoga.” The fact that Applicant displays its
mark as a single word does not change the pronunciation of its mark, or
meaningfully change its appearance. That is, SAHAJAYOG is pronounced the same
as SAHAJA YOG. Thus, SAHAJAYOG and SAHAJA YOGA are similar in sound.
Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of
confusion. In re Energy Telecommunications & Electrical Association, 222 USPQ
350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see also In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905,
1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

5 We confine our analysis to the issue of likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark
and the mark in the cited registration for SAHAJA YOGA. That is, if confusion is likely
between those two marks, there is no need for us to consider the likelihood of confusion
with the cited registration for SAHAJA MEDITATION, while if there is no likelihood of
confusion between Applicant’s mark and SAHAHA YOGA, then there would not be
likelihood of confusion with the mark SAHAJA MEDITATION. See In re Max Capital
Group Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010).
Serial No. 85945641
- 5 -
The fact that the cited mark is set forth as two words while Applicant’s mark is
presented as a single word is also of little significance.6 When there is no evidence
that the two words convey different meanings when joined as a compound, this
difference has no trademark significance. See Time Warner Entertainment Co. v.
Jones, 65 USPQ2d 1650, 1660 (TTAB 2002) (opposer uses two-word formulation
ROAD RUNNER, while applicant uses the single word ROADRUNNER; the two
formulations sound the same, mean the same thing and look essentially the same);
American Hygienic Laboratories Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 12 USPQ2d 1979 (TTAB
1989) (while there are obvious differences between opposer’s mark TIFFAN “E” and
applicant’s mark TIFFANY, the similarities in appearance, sound and commercial
impression outweigh those differences); In re Narwood Productions, Inc., 223 USPQ
1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (fact that the presentation in the mark of the cited
registration is as a single word rather than two words is obviously insignificant in
determining the likelihood of confusion).
In addition, that registrant has disclaimed the word “yoga” in its mark does not
result in dissimilarity because even disclaimed words must be considered when
comparing marks for likelihood of confusion. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204,

6 Applicant argues that its SAHAJAYOG mark is a unique word which does not exist in any
dictionary, in contrast to registrant’s mark which is composed of dictionary words in
common usage. 7 TTABVUE 2. Given the strong similarity between SAHAJAYOG and
SAHAJA YOGA and the absence of evidence showing that they convey separate meanings,
we conclude that they are similar marks. Moreover, the third-party applications cited in
Applicant’s Brief at 7 TTABVUE 2-3 and 5 in support of its arguments, are of no probative
value. See, e.g., Interpayment Servs., Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463, 1468 n.6
(TTAB 2003); In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear, Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1694, 1699 (TTAB 1992).
The scant information provided for each application is not sufficient to make them of
record.

Serial No. 85945641
- 6 -
26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d
1056, 224 USPQ 749, 750-51 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The technicality of a disclaimer …
has no legal effect on the issue of likelihood of confusion.”). Thus, the registered
mark SAHAJA YOGA in its entirety is similar to Applicant’s mark SAHAJAYOG.
In short, Applicant’s mark is nearly identical to registrant’s mark despite the
additional letter “A” at the end of registrant’s mark. Any of the differences between
the marks are more than overcome by their similarities in sound and appearance.
B. Similarity of the Services
The accepted identification of Applicant’s services presented in the October 17,
2013 Response to Office Action are “Providing spiritual retreats in the field of
developing and enhancing the spiritual lives of individuals and the collective;
Religious and spiritual services, namely, providing gatherings and retreats to
develop and enhance the spiritual lives of individuals”7 in International Class 45.
Such services are on the face of the identification related to registrant’s “educational
services, namely, conducting classes, workshops and seminars in the field of
techniques of meditation, relaxation and self-improvement” in International Class
41. Specifically, registrant’s services cover “conducting classes, workshops and
seminars in the field of techniques of meditation ....” The definition of “meditation,”
includes “devout religious contemplation or spiritual introspection.”8 Therefore,

7 See November 12, 2013 Final Office Action.
8 Definition of “meditation”:
noun
1. the act of meditating.
Serial No. 85945641
- 7 -
registrant’s meditation classes certainly include Applicant’s services of “providing
retreats” for “developing and enhancing the spiritual lives of individuals” (emphasis
added).
The fact that the USPTO classifies Applicant’s and registrant’s services in
different classes is not relevant. The determination concerning the proper
classification of services is a purely administrative determination unrelated to the
determination of likelihood of confusion. Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971,
29 USPQ2d 1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993); National Football League v. Jasper Alliance
Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212, 1216 n.5 (TTAB 1990). Moreover, that the services are
provided by similar methods − Applicant provides its services through spiritual
“retreats” while registrant provides “classes, workshops and seminars” – renders
them more similar than not.
The respective services are also related because both Applicant and registrant
provide prospective consumers with personal/spiritual enhancement techniques.
That Applicant provides its services through retreats, while registrant provides its
similar services through the more formal teaching structure of classes, workshops
and seminars is of little relevance. The Examining Attorney submitted evidence
from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks
registered for use in connection with the same or similar services as those of both

. . .
4. devout religious contemplation or spiritual introspection.
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.
reference.com/browse/meditation (accessed: July 07, 2015).

Serial No. 85945641
- 8 -
Applicant and registrant.9 This evidence shows that the services listed therein,
namely retreats, in Class 45, and classes, seminars and workshops, in Class 41, are
of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re
Anderson, 101 USPQ2d 1912, 1919 (TTAB 2012); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29
USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d
1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
It is not necessary that the respective services be identical or even competitive in
order to find that they are related for purposes of our likelihood of confusion
analysis. That is, the issue is not whether consumers would confuse the goods or
services themselves, but rather whether they would be confused as to the source of
them. In re Davey Products Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); In re
Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830, 831 (TTAB 1984). The goods or services need only be
sufficiently related that consumers would be likely to assume, upon encountering
the goods or services under similar marks, that the goods or services originate from,
are sponsored or authorized by, or are otherwise connected to the same source. See
In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); and In re
International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910, 911 (TTAB 1978).
In view of the foregoing, Applicant’s and registrant’s services are sufficiently
related such that upon encountering the services under the respective marks
consumers would likely be confused as to their source.

9 See attachments to November 12, 2013 Final Office Action.
Serial No. 85945641
- 9 -
II. Proposed Identification of Services
A written application must specify the particular services on or in connection
with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in
commerce. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(a)(2) and 1051(b)(2); Trademark Rule 2.32(a)(6); 37
C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(6). To “specify” means to name in an explicit manner. The
identification should set forth common names, using terminology that is generally
understood. For services that do not have common names, the applicant should use
clear and succinct language to describe or explain the item. Technical or esoteric
language and lengthy descriptions of characteristics or uses are not appropriate.
TMEP § 1402.01.
The language used to describe the services should be understandable to the
average person and should not require an in-depth knowledge of the relevant field.
An identification may include terms of art in a particular field or industry, but, if
these terms are not widely understood by the general population, the identification
should include an explanation of the specialized terminology. Id.
Applicant’s originally filed application identified:
Providing spiritual retreats in the field of developing and enhancing the
spiritual lives of individuals and the collective through the teachings
and divinity of Her Holiness Shri Ma Nirmala Devi by various means
such as events, classes, seminars, gatherings and retreats; Religious
and spiritual services, namely, providing gatherings and retreats to
develop and enhance the spiritual lives of individuals.

In the October 17, 2013 Response to Office Action, Applicant submitted an
acceptable amendment to the identification of the services:
Serial No. 85945641
- 10 -
Providing spiritual retreats in the field of developing and enhancing the
spiritual lives of individuals and the collective; Religious and spiritual
services, namely, providing gatherings and retreats to develop and
enhance the spiritual lives of individuals.10

However, in the April 17, 2014 first Request for Reconsideration After Final
Action, Applicant proposed again amending the identification of services to the
following:
Spread Teachings and Divinity of Her Holiness Shri Ma Nirmala Devi
by giving Self-Realizations as taught by HER and through HER
various talks,

on the ground that “the identification of services does not have any similarity or
confusion with other services any longer.”11 While Applicant proposed the amended
identification in an attempt to avoid the likelihood of confusion refusal, the
proposed amendment to the identification is not considered to identify the services
by common commercial name(s) and is therefore unacceptable.
The term “retreats,” which is the method or mode for providing the services, has
been deleted from the identification proposed in the April 17, 2014 Request for
Reconsideration. Additionally, the generic purpose of the services, “developing and
enhancing the spiritual lives of individuals and the collective,” has been deleted.
Additionally, the language in the proposed amendment for the services includes the
phrase “Spread Teachings and Divinity” which does not identify a specific method
or mode of education, nor does the wording “of Her Holiness Shree Ma Nirmala Devi

10 See November 12, 2013 Final Office Action.
11 See April 17, 2014 Request for Reconsideration After Final Action.
Serial No. 85945641
- 11 -
by giving Self-Realizations as taught by HER and through HER various talks”
identify the subject matter by its common commercial name(s). Such proposed
modifications to the proposed identification are esoteric and not generally
understood. Accordingly, the proposed identification is not acceptable.
After the filing of this appeal, Applicant filed a second Request for
Reconsideration in order to submit a new specimen; even at that point, Applicant
could have offered the proposed amendment to the identification of services. Not
until the Reply brief, did Applicant indicate that it would be “acceptable for us to
add ‘developing and enhancing the spiritual lives of individuals and the collective’
as submitted in the original application to satisfy the requirement for more generic
terms; Though we had only replaced it by another generic term – ‘Self-
Realization.’”12 Applicant provided no reason for waiting until the Reply brief to
offer another amendment to the identification of services.
If Applicant wished to amend the identification in this manner, the proper
procedure was to file a request for remand.13 In re Major League Umpires, 60
USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (TTAB 2001). We do not deem the remark made in the Reply
Brief as a request for remand. However, even if it were received as a request for
remand, it would not result in the registration of Applicant’s mark as it is clear that
the amendment suggested by Applicant would not overcome the § 2(d) refusal.
The amendment proposed in Applicant’s Reply brief, i.e., “developing and
enhancing the spiritual lives of individuals and the collective,” is similar to

12 Reply brief (10 TTABVUE 6).
13 TBMP § 1209.04 (June 2015).
Serial No. 85945641
- 12 -
registrant’s related services of “conducting classes, workshops and seminars in the
field of techniques of meditation ....” The definition of “meditation,” includes “devout
religious contemplation or spiritual introspection.”14 Therefore, registrant’s
meditation classes could include Applicant’s services of “developing and enhancing
the spiritual lives of individuals.” Thus, even if Applicant were to amend the
services identified in its application, the amendment would still not be sufficient to
overcome the § 2(d) refusal based on the cited registration.
III. Conclusion
Applicant’s mark, SAHAJAYOG is confusingly similar to registrant’s mark
SAHAJA YOGA. The marks contain the same 9 letters in the same order, with
registrant’s mark having one extra letter at the end. The addition of the letter “A”
in registrant’s mark does not serve to sufficiently distinguish the appearance,
sound, or connotation of the marks. Moreover, the marks are used in connection
with highly related services. Accordingly, use of Applicant’s mark is likely to cause
confusion. Even if Applicant were allowed to amend the identification of its services,
the proposed identifications would not avoid a finding of likelihood of confusion.

Decision: The refusals to register Applicant’s mark SAHAJAYOG are affirmed.

14 Definition of “meditation”: noun
1. the act of meditating.
. . .
4. devout religious contemplation or spiritual introspection.
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.
reference.com/browse/meditation (accessed: July 07, 2015).