Crazy Pet, LLCv.Pet Crazy, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2007

No. 91164687re (T.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2007)

Mailed: December 14, 2007
PTH

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______

Crazy Pet, LLC
v.
Pet Crazy, Inc.
_____

Opposition No. 91164687
_____

Motion for Reconsideration
______

Crystal A. Russell of Law Offices of Crystal A. Russell,
P.C. for Crazy Pet, LLC.

William E. Noonan, Law Office of William E. Noonan for Pet
Crazy, Inc.
______

Before Quinn, Hairston and Walters, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:

This panel of the Board, in a decision issued August
17, 2007, sustained the opposition of opposer to applicant’s
application to register the mark PET CRAZY and design for
pet sitting services. The Board found that applicant’s mark
PET CRAZY and design for the identified services was likely
to cause confusion with opposer’s previously registered mark
CRAZY PET for pet shampoos and conditioners.
THIS OPINION IS
NOT A PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Opposition No. 91164687
2
Applicant timely filed a request for reconsideration of
the Board’s decision and opposer timely filed a brief in
response thereto. Applicant argues that the Board erred in
finding that the respective marks are similar because they
have different connotations and create different commercial
impressions. Applicant’s motion is essentially a rehash of
the arguments previously raised in its brief on the case.
As indicated in our decision, we recognize that the
marks PET CRAZY and design and CRAZY PET have somewhat
different connotations. However, for the reasons discussed
in our decision, we continue to be of the view that the
marks are similar in sound and appearance and create similar
commercial impressions. In other words, the marks are not
so different in connotation that this element outweighs the
similarities in sound, appearance and commercial impression.
In sum, we remain of the view that when the marks PET CRAZY
and design and CRAZY PET are considered in their entireties,
they are sufficiently similar that confusion is likely to
result when used in connection with the parties’ respective
goods and services.
In view of the foregoing, the motion for
reconsideration is denied.