Am-Gold Products, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2004

No. 76256771 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2004)

Mailed: March 18, 2004
Paper No. 21
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Am-Gold Products, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76256771
_______
Jane Linowitz, Esq. of Levisohn, Berger & Langsam, LLP for
Am-Gold Products, Inc.
Allison Hall, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103
(Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Seeherman, Hairston and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An intent-to-use application has been filed by Am-Gold
Products, Inc. to register the mark ROMANCE CUT (“CUT” is
disclaimed) for “jewelry.”1
Registration has been refused by the Trademark
Examining Attorney pursuant to Section 2(d) of the
1 Serial No. 76256771, filed May 15, 2001.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 76256771
2
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the ground that the
use of applicant’s mark for the identified goods would be
likely to cause confusion with the registered mark THE
ROMANCE COLLECTION (“COLLECTION” is disclaimed) for
“jewelry including rings, bracelets and pendants.”2
Applicant has appealed. The case has been fully
briefed, but no oral hearing was requested. We reverse the
refusal to register.
Our determination is based on an analysis of all the
probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the
factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In any likelihood
of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the
similarities/dissimilarities between the marks and the
similarities/dissimilarities between the goods. Federated
Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192
USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
Turning first to the respective goods, they are
identical. Thus, we focus our attention on the marks.
With respect to the similarity between the marks, we
2 Registration No. 2,228,851 issued March 2, 1999. The Examining
Attorney initially issued a second Section 2(d) refusal based on
Registration No. 2,381,733 which is of the mark ROMANCE RINGS for
“jewelry, including rings, bracelets and pendants.” The
Examining Attorney withdrew this second refusal after applicant
obtained a consent from the registrant. The present Examining
Attorney is not the original Examining Attorney in this case.
Ser No. 76256771
3
find that registrant’s mark THE ROMANCE COLLECTION and
applicant’s mark ROMANCE CUT, when considered in their
entireties, engender sufficiently different commercial
impressions to make confusion unlikely.
Applicant’s mark ROMANCE CUT conveys the idea of
jewelry crafted in a unique style or cut, i.e., the
“romance cut.” Registrant’s mark THE ROMANCE COLLECTION,
on the other hand, connotes a group of jewelry items that
are especially suitable for giving as a symbol or token of
one’s love.
Furthermore, the word ROMANCE is highly suggestive as
used in connection with the involved goods because jewelry
is often given as a token of one’s love or affection. We
judicially notice that The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language (1976) at 1126 defines “romance,”
among other things, as “love, romantic involvement.”3 In
this regard, applicant has pointed to three third-party
registrations, all for jewelry, that contain the word
ROMANCE: Registration No. 2,381,733 for the mark ROMANCE
RINGS, initially cited by the Examining Attorney;
Registration No. 2,609,834 for the mark ELEGANCE, ROMANCE
3 The Board may properly take judicial notice of dictionary
definitions. See University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C.
Gourmet Food Imports Co., Inc., 213 USPQ 594, 596 (TTAB 1982),
aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Ser No. 76256771
4
AND LOVE IS CERTAIN; and Registration No. 2,609,834 for the
mark SWEET ROMANCE.
While such registrations are not evidence that the
marks listed therein are in use or that purchasers are
familiar with them, they, along with the dictionary
definition, are evidence of the highly suggestive nature of
the word ROMANCE as used in connection with jewelry. Thus,
registrant’s mark is not entitled to a broad scope of
protection.
In view of the highly suggestive nature of the word
ROMANCE as applied to jewelry, we conclude that applicant’s
mark ROMANCE CUT projects a significantly different
commercial impression from that created by registrant’s
mark THE ROMANCE COLLECTION. Confusion as to the origin or
affiliation of applicant’s and registrant’s goods is
therefore unlikely.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
is reversed.