Aimco of Florida, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2001

No. 75579895 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2001)

04/05/01
Paper No. 8
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Aimco of Florida, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/579,895
_______
Alexander Rhodes of Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards &
Roehn, P.A. for Aimco of Florida, Inc.
Gina M. Fink, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103
(Michael Szoke, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Hairston and Bucher, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Aimco of Florida, Inc. has filed an application to
register the mark GRAND FLAMINGO for “real estate
development of apartments, condominiums, and resort
communities.”1
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the
1 Application Serial No. 75/579,895 filed October 30, 1998, based
upon applicant’s bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Applicant has disclaimed the word “GRAND” apart from the mark as
shown.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/579,895
2
ground that applicant’s mark, if used in connection with
the identified services, would so resemble each of the
following marks, which are registered to the same entity,
as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception:
FLAMINGO HILTON for “hotel services”;2
FLAMINGO PLAYERS CLUB for “casino services”
and “hotel services”;3 and
for “hotel services”.4
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs5, but an oral hearing
was not requested.
2 Registration No. 1,123,064 issued July 24, 1979; combined
Section 8 & 15 affidavit filed.
3 Registration No. 2,015,176 issued November 12, 1996. The words
“PLAYERS CLUB” has been disclaimed apart from the mark as shown.
4 Registration No. 2,047,448 issued March 25, 1997.
5 We note that Examining Attorney Fink prepared the brief in this
case, but that the case was handled by another Examining Attorney
during the examination stage.
Ser No. 75/579,895
3
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, contends that when the marks are viewed in their
entireties, its mark is different from each of the cited
marks and that real estate development services are not
related to hotel or casino services.
The Trademark Examining Attorney maintains that the
dominant portion of applicant’s mark and each of the cited
marks is the word FLAMINGO and therefore the marks are very
similar. Further, the Examining Attorney contends that
applicant’s real estate development services and
registrant’s hotel and casino services are related.
Our determination under Section 2(d) of the Trademark
Act is based on an analysis of all of the probative facts
in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the
likelihood of confusion issue. In re E. I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In
any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and
the similarities between the goods and/or services.
Turning first to the marks, although there are
similarities between them due to the shared presence of the
word FLAMINGO, we find that when considered in their
entireties, applicant’s mark and each of the cited marks
create very different commercial impressions. Applicant’s
Ser No. 75/579,895
4
mark GRAND FLAMINGO suggests that applicant’s real estate
development projects are imposing or impressive in nature.
The cited marks FLAMINGO HILTON and FLAMINGO HILTON
(stylized), on the other hand, suggest the Hilton hotel
chain. The HILTON portion of these marks is admitted to be
well known in connection with hotel services, and is likely
to be perceived as the dominant portion of these marks.
Moreover, the cited mark FLAMINGO PLAYERS CLUB creates a
different commercial impression than GRAND FLAMINGO.
FLAMINGO PLAYERS CLUB suggests an establishment where games
are played, or in other words, a casino.
Moreover, as to the respective services, we are not
persuaded, on this record, that real estate development of
apartments, condominiums, and resort communities, on the
one hand, and hotel and casino services, on the other hand,
are related. In support of the contention that such
services are related, the Examining Attorney submitted a
number of NEXIS excerpts. Not surprisingly, these excerpts
show that real estate development companies build all kinds
of properties, including hotels, condominiums, and
apartments, and that a development project may well include
a hotel and a condominium and/or apartment complex. Such
excerpts, however, are not probative of whether the
specific services involved herein are of a kind which may
Ser No. 75/579,895
5
emanate from a single source. That is, the excerpts are
not probative of whether real estate firms which develop
apartments, condominiums, and resort communities also offer
hotel and casino services under the same marks. Neither
are the third-party registrations submitted by the
Examining Attorney probative of this point. Such
registrations cover real estate development of hotels and
casinos, on the one hand, and the actual hotel and casino
services, on the other hand. The problem, however, is that
such registrations do not include the services in the cited
registration, namely, real estate development of
apartments, condominiums, and resort communities. While
the third-party registrations may well serve to suggest
that real estate firms which develop hotels and casinos
also offer hotel and casino services, it cannot be said
from such registrations that real estate firms which
develop apartments, condominiums, and resort communities
also offer hotel and casino services under the same marks.
In sum, when we consider the specific differences in
applicant’s mark and the cited marks with the fact that the
record fails to establish that the involved services are
related, it is our view that applicant’s use of GRAND
FLAMINGO for real estate development of apartments,
condominiums, and resort communities is not likely to cause
Ser No. 75/579,895
6
confusion with the marks FLAMINGO HILTON, FLAMINGO HILTON
(stylized), and FLAMINGO PLAYERS CLUB.
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed as to
each of the cited registrations.
Ser No. 75/579,895
7