International Lutheran Laymen’s League

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2000

No. 75364564 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2000)

Paper No. 10
GFR
9/20/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re International Lutheran Laymen's League
________
Serial No. 75/364,564
_______
Rose N. Perotti of Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi for
International Lutheran Laymen's League.
Laura Gorman Kovalsky, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 110 (Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Quinn, Hohein and Rogers, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Rogers, Administrative Trademark Judge:
International Lutheran Laymen's League has filed an
application to register the mark THE PUZZLE CLUB in
International Class 9 for goods identified as "computer
mouse pads; animated television films, prerecorded video
tapes, CD-ROMs, and computer game programs, featuring a
religious message for families."1

1 Serial No. 75/364,564, filed September 29, 1997, and alleging a
date of first use and first use in commerce of August 19, 1997.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/364,564
2
The Examining Attorney has refused registration of
applicant's mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), because of the prior registration of
the marks THE PUZZLE PLACE2 and THE PUZZLE PLACE and
design3, shown below, both for "entertainment services,
namely, producing a children's television series" in class
41.
When the Examining Attorney made the refusals of
registration final, applicant appealed. Both applicant and
the Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral
argument was not requested. We reverse both refusals.
We recently decided an appeal in a related case, which
involved the same applicant, the same mark for applicant,

2 Registration No. 1,962,893, issued March 19, 1996, based on
claimed dates of first use of January 16, 1995.
3 Registration No. 1,958,130, issued February 20, 1996, based on
a claimed date of first use of January 16, 1995. The drawing of
the mark is lined for the colors yellow, blue, pink and green.
Ser. No. 75/364,564
3
and the same registrations cited against applicant under
Section 2(d). Much of our analysis in that case is equally
applicable to this case. We attach a copy of the decision
we issued in that case.
In the earlier case, applicant sought to register its
mark for "educational and entertainment services, namely,
production of animated television films, videos and CD-ROMs
featuring a religious message for families."4 The only
differences between the earlier case and the case at hand
stem from the slight differences in the identifications of
goods and services. The earlier case involved applicant's
services for production of films, videos and CD-ROMs. The
instant case involves the produced goods themselves, as
well as computer mouse pads and computer game programs.
For the same reasons articulated in our earlier
decision, we find the differences in the parties' marks
sufficient to outweigh the relatedness of applicant's
films, videos and CD-ROMs and registrant's services. We
find applicant's computer mouse pads and computer game
programs less related than applicant's other goods to
registrant's services. This, too, contributes to our
conclusion that there is no likelihood of confusion.

4 Serial No. 75/364,562, filed September 29, 1997, and alleging a
date of first use and first use in commerce of August 20, 1997.
Ser. No. 75/364,564
4
We acknowledge one significant difference between the
earlier case and the one now at hand. In the earlier case,
our finding of no likelihood of confusion was based, in
part, on the presumptive sophistication of the consumers of
the applicant's and the registrant's respective services.
In the case at hand, applicant's goods are more likely than
its services to be marketed to general consumers.
Therefore, consumers of applicant's goods may be less
sophisticated than the consumers of applicant's and
registrant's services. We do not, however, find that this
factor dictates a different result.
Decision: The refusals under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act are reversed.
T. J. Quinn
G. D. Hohein
G. F. Rogers
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board