CRC Logistic Services, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2020

86686346 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: September 30, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re CRC Logistic Services, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 86686346
_____

Kate D. Strain of Strain Law Firm,
for CRC Logistic Services, Inc.
Jeane Yoo, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 120,
David Miller, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Taylor, Lykos and Coggins,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Taylor, Administrative Trademark Judge:
CRC Logistic Services, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark CRC (in standard characters) for “Building construction
services” in International Class 37.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark is

1 Application Serial No. 86686346 was filed on July 8, 2015, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based upon Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere and
in commerce since at least as early as November 1, 2010.
Serial No. 86686346
- 2 -
likely to be confused with the three registered marks, all registered on the Principal
Register and owned by the same entity, set forth below:
Registration No. 2697659 for the mark CRC (in typed
form)2 for “Maintenance, repair, demolition, raising and
leveling of fixed concrete slabs and foundations” in
International Class 373; and
Registration No. 2697661 for the mark CRC CONCRETE
RAISING CORPORATION (in typed form and with
CONCRETE RAISING CORPORATION) for
“Maintenance, repair, demolition, raising and leveling of
fixed concrete slabs and foundations” in International
Class 374; and
Registration No. 3011732 for the mark CRC CONCRETE
RAISING & GRINDING (in typed form and with
CONCRETE RAISING & GRINDING disclaimed) for
“Maintenance, repair, demolition, raising and leveling of
fixed concrete slabs and foundations; and grinding surfaces
of concrete roadways and walkways to reduce hazards” in
International Class 37.5
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We affirm.
I. Discussion - Applicable Law
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that so
resembles a registered mark as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the

2 Prior to November 2, 2003, “standard character” drawings were known as “typed” drawings;
the preferred nomenclature was changed to conform to the Madrid Protocol. See In re Viterra
Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also TRADEMARK
MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) § 807.03(i) (Oct. 2018).
3 Registration No. 2697659 issued May 7, 2002; renewed.
4 Registration No. 2697661 issued March 18, 2003; renewed.
5 Registration No. 3011732 issued November 1, 2005; renewed.
Serial No. 86686346
- 3 -
goods or services of the applicant, to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d). Our determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is based on
an analysis of all probative facts in the record that are relevant to the likelihood of
confusion factors set forth in In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177
USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). We must consider each DuPont factor for which there
is evidence and argument. See, e.g., In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 129
USPQ2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 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 (CCPA 1976). We discuss below these and other relevant factors.
See In re Guild Mortg. Co., 129 USPQ2d at 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Board considers
each DuPont factor for which there is evidence and argument).
For the sake of judicial economy, we focus our analysis on cited Registration No.
2697659 (’659 Reg.) for the mark CRC. If confusion is likely between Applicant’s mark
and the mark in the ’659 Reg., there is no need for us to consider the likelihood of
confusion with the other cited mark. See, e.g., In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d
1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010). If we find a likelihood of confusion as to that mark and those
goods, we need not find it as to the other cited marks; conversely, if we do not find a
likelihood of confusion as to the mark in the ’659 Reg., for the identified goods, we
would not find it as to the other cited marks for the goods identified therein.
Serial No. 86686346
- 4 -
A. The Marks
We commence with the first DuPont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks, and compare the marks, as we must, in their
entireties in terms of appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression. See
Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin En 1722, 396 F.3d 1369, 73
USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To state the obvious, Applicant’s mark CRC is
identical to Registrant’s cited mark CRC in sound and appearance.
Furthermore, we have no evidence in the record that CRC has any particular
meaning in the construction, concrete slab or foundation industries. As such, the
meaning or connotation of the mark CRC is the same. This stands in contrast to In
re British Bulldog, Ltd., 224 USPQ 854, 856 (TTAB 1984), where it was found that
PLAYERS for men’s underwear and PLAYERS for shoes was not likely to cause
confusion because the wording PLAYERS conveyed a different connotation and
commercial impression when applied to shoes (implies the qualities of the shoes
suitable for outdoor activities) compared to men’s underwear (“implies something
else, primarily indoors in nature”). Id. at 856. This factor weighs heavily in favor of a
likelihood of confusion.
B. Relatedness of the Services
We now turn to a comparison of the services under the second DuPont factor,
keeping in mind that where identical marks are involved, as is the case here, the
degree of similarity between the services that is required to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion declines. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d
Serial No. 86686346
- 5 -
1687, 1688-69 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“even when the goods or services are not competitive
or intrinsically related, the use of identical marks can lead to the assumption that
there is a common source”); Time Warner Entm’t Co. v. Jones, 65 USPQ2d 1650
(TTAB 2002); and In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001). It is only
necessary that there be a “viable relationship between the goods [or services]” to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634,
1636 (TTAB 2009).
In making our determination regarding the relatedness of the services, we must
look to the services as identified in Applicant’s application and the cited registration.
See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir.
2002). “This factor considers whether ‘the consuming public may perceive [the
respective goods or services of the parties] as related enough to cause confusion about
the source or origin of the goods and services.’” In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747,
113 USPQ2d 1082, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Evidence of relatedness may include news articles and/or evidence from computer
databases showing that the relevant services are used together or used by the same
purchasers; advertisements showing that the relevant services 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 services and the services listed in
the cited registration. See, e.g., In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1817 (TTAB 2014)
Serial No. 86686346
- 6 -
(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). The issue is not whether
purchasers would confuse the services, but rather whether there is a likelihood of
confusion as to the source of these services. L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d
1434, 1439 (TTAB 2012); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830, 832 (TTAB 1984).
Applicant’s services are identified as “building construction services” and the
Registrant’s services are identified as “maintenance, repair, demolition, raising and
leveling of fixed concrete slabs and foundations.”
The Examining Attorney maintains that the services of Applicant and Registrant
are highly related because provision of building construction services and concrete
slab and foundation maintenance, repair, demolition, raising and leveling services
commonly stem from the same source, under the same mark. As support, the
Examining Attorney made of record numerous third-party website excerpts
demonstrating that the same entity commonly provides the same, or similar, services
as those identified in both Applicant’s application and the cited registration. We
highlight below the representative sample from the record referenced in the
Examining Attorney’s brief:6
 ECO Home Builders, https://ecogeneralcontractors.com/,
providing house foundation repair and new home and building
construction;

6 16 TTABVUE 9; December 26, 2019 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR at 22-
22, 26-27, 44-60, and 73-79.
Serial No. 86686346
- 7 -
 Korrect General Contracting, https://www.korrect.net/, providing
foundation repair and full-service residential construction
services;
 LC General Construction, Inc., www.quakesafehome.com,
providing new foundation, concrete slab repair, floor leveling,
foundation replacement and new building construction services;
 Don Childree, http://www.dcgcinc.com/index.html, providing
foundation repair and new home construction services;
 E Corporation, http://www.earlycc.com/, providing foundation
repair, foundation construction, design and build, and general
construction services; and
 Al Sanchez Construction, https://alsanchezconstruction.com/,
providing foundation repair services and new residential
construction.
The Examining Attorney also made of record third-party webpage page excerpts
showing that foundation demolition and repair services are provided together with
building construction services. Examples highlighted in the Examining Attorney’s
brief include:7
 OSO Construction, https://osoconstructionsatx.com/, providing concrete
demolition, concrete services, including repairs, metal building construction;

 Allied Contractors Group, https://www.alliedcontractorsgroup.com/, providing
concrete and foundation services, including demolition and repairs and
building construction services, including new construction, custom home
building, home improvements and remodeling;

 Bruce’s General Construction, Inc., https://www.brucesgeneralconstruction
.com/, providing concrete demolition and extraction and building construction,
including commercial, green, architecture building construction, renovations,
buildouts;

 Ahtna Engineering Services, LLC, http://ahtnaes.com/, providing demolition,
paving and concrete work, building and facility construction, and building
renovations; and

7 May 28, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 68-95 and 98-101.
Serial No. 86686346
- 8 -

 Asphalt Plus, Inc., https://asphaltplusinc.com/, providing foundation and
concrete work and construction, including custom homes, spec homes,
commercial and residential construction, remodels, additions, renovations.

This evidence shows that the services are complementary in nature. Cf. In re Martin’s
Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination
and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant
consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”); Polo Fashions, Inc. v. La
Loren, Inc., 224 USPQ 509, 511 (TTAB 1984) (holding bath sponges and personal
products, such as bath oil, soap, and body lotion, to be related because they are
complementary goods that are likely to be purchased and used together by the same
purchasers).
The Examining Attorney also made of record numerous use-based, third party
registrations showing the same mark registered by a single entity and offering both
“building construction services” and “foundation contractor services.” A
representative sample is shown below:8
 Reg. No. 3553768 for the mark GWELLA (in
standard characters), identifying, in relevant part,
“Building construction services … Foundation
contractor services…”in Class 37
 Reg. No. 5902032 for the mark WE SAY NO TO
CRACKS (in standard characters), identifying
“Building construction and repair; installation

8 May 28, 2019 Final Office Action; TSDR at 9-67. We have not considered cancelled
registrations. A cancelled registration is not evidence of any existing rights in the mark. See
Action Temp. Servs. v. Labor Force, 870 F.2d 1563, 10 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
An expired or cancelled registration is evidence of nothing but the fact that it once issued.
Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987).
Serial No. 86686346
- 9 -
services of building foundation repair and
waterproofing” in Class 37
 Reg. No. 4483683 for the mark S STRICKLAND
SUPPLIES INC. 1987 SAFETY FIRST (with
design), identifying, in relevant part, “Building
construction services; Concrete pouring and forming
for buildings and other commercial or public
concrete structures; Foundation contractor
services…” in Class 37
 Reg. No. 4643620 for the mark TAIT WAS HERE (in
standard characters) identifying, in relevant part,
“Building construction, remodeling and repair …
Foundation contractor services…” in Class 37
 Reg. No. 5058056 for the mark A”(with design)
identifying, in relevant part, “Building construction
… Foundation contractor services” in Class 37
 Reg. No. 5112510 for the mark GIORDANO
CONSTRUCTION INC. (in standard characters)
identifying, in relevant part, “…Building
construction, remodeling and repair … Foundation
contractor services … Construction services,
namely, concrete paving, site clearing, excavation,
pad preparation, grading, and asphalt paving
services” in Class 37
 Reg. No. 5558308 for the mark SUPERIOR (in
standard characters) identifying, in relevant part,
“Building construction; Foundation contractor
services” in Class 37
 Reg. No. 5346150 for the mark DRY. SOUND.
USABLE! (in standard characters) identifying, in
relevant part, “Building construction, remodeling
and repair; Foundation contractor services…” in
Class 37
 Reg. No. 5629416 for the mark GS PILES (with
design) identifying, in relevant part, “… Foundation
contractor services; Residential and commercial
building construction; Building construction
services” in Class 37
Serial No. 86686346
- 10 -
 Reg. No. 5193671 for the mark BASEMENT
REPAIR SPECIALISTS LLC (with design)
identifying, in relevant part, “Building construction
and repair; Foundation contractor services…” in
Class 37
Applicant argues that the third-party registrations covering “foundation
contractor services” have no probative value in our analysis because this wording
“does not accurately or specifically [sic] the specialized services provided by the owner
of the Cited Registrations.” Applicant’s Br. p. 10.9 We disagree. As the record makes
clear, “foundation contractor services” may include maintenance, repair, demolition,
raising and leveling of fixed concrete slabs and foundations. By way of example, the
evidence from Matvey Foundation Repair Inc. indicates that foundation contractor
services include foundation repair, commercial foundation services, and concrete
leveling, and the evidence from Foundation Repair of CA shows that foundation
contractor services include, inter alia, foundation repair, concrete leveling, and
concrete repair.10
Applicant similarly questions the value of the third-party registrations as they
pertain to the identified “building construction services,” arguing that some “narrow
or qualify those services so that they do not describe Applicant’s services.” Applicant’s
Br. p. 10.11 The problem with this argument is that Applicant’s services are broadly
identified and include no limiting language. Where services are broadly identified in

9 14 TTABVUE 12.
10 December 26, 2019, Request for Reconsideration After Final Action Denied, TSDR at 22-
25.
11 14 TTABVUE 12.
Serial No. 86686346
- 11 -
an application or registration, “we must presume that [those] services encompass all
services of the type identified.” Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007,
1025 (TTAB 2015); see also In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15
(TTAB 2018) (where the goods in an application or registration are broadly described,
they are deemed to encompass all the goods of the nature and type described therein).
An applicant may not restrict the scope of its goods or the scope of the goods covered
in the cited registration by extrinsic argument or evidence. See, e.g., In re Midwest
Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1165 (TTAB 2013); In re La Peregrina
Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1647 (TTAB 2008); In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ
763, 764-65 (TTAB 1986). We therefore find the third-party registration and use
evidence of record probative of the issue of the similarity of the services.
After a careful review, the third-party registration and use evidence convinces us
that consumers may expect to find building construction services, and one or more of
the services of maintenance, repair, demolition, raising and leveling of fixed concrete
slabs and foundations, to be offered together under the same mark. We thus find the
services to be commercially related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
We are also unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument that the services are not
related because the services fulfill different needs. The respective services need only
be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing
[be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [they] emanate from the
same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101
Serial No. 86686346
- 12 -
USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d
1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)).
We find unavailing Applicant’s argument that Registrant’s building construction
and Applicant’s concrete and foundation services fall under separate and distinct
categories within the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Applicant’s Br. p. 7.12 As the
Examining Attorney aptly notes:
Such classification systems are not probative as to whether
the services provided by a business or entity are related to
another, nor whether consumers would be confused as to
the source of these services; it is simply a classification
system for, generally, government application and
administrative and statistical use.13
Cf. Nat’l Football League v. Jasper Alliance Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212, 1216 n.5 (TTAB
1990) (The classification system is for the convenience of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, and does not serve as evidence for or against
the relatedness of goods or services).
Hence, we also find this DuPont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of
confusion.
C. Channels of Trade and Classes of Consumers
We now consider the established, likely-to-continue channels of trade and classes
of consumers, the third DuPont factor. We base our determination regarding the

12 14 TTABVUE 9.
13 16 TTABVUE 15-16.
Serial No. 86686346
- 13 -
channels of trade and classes of purchasers on the services as they are identified in
the application and the cited registration. Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous. Comput. Servs.
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Applicant’s application
and the cited registration contain no limitation as to channels of trade or classes of
purchasers, and we decline to read a limitation into them. Squirtco v. Tomy Corp.,
697 F.2d 1030, 216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Because there are no restrictions
in either the application or cited registration, we must assume that the classes of
consumers would include the typical consumers for such services, for example,
businesses and homeowners seeking construction and foundation maintenance and
repair services.
In addition, the record evidence detailed earlier shows that both building
construction services and foundation maintenance and repair services are offered by
the same establishment, in tandem, to the same consumer via building and
construction firms. As such, the respective services, as identified, would be provided
in the same or at least overlapping channels of trade to the same or overlapping
classes of purchasers. This third DuPont factor also weighs in favor of finding a
likelihood of confusion.
D. Conclusion
We conclude that confusion is likely between Applicant’s CRC mark for the
identified building construction services and the CRC mark for the identified concrete
slab and foundation services. We conclude so principally due to the identical marks,
the related goods, and the overlap in trade channels and purchasers.
Serial No. 86686346
- 14 -
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark CRC is affirmed.