Judith M. Minegar

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

No. 86178993 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: June 20, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Minegar
_____

Serial No. 86178993
_____

Nancy S. Freeman of Winderweedle, Haines, Ward & Woodman, P.A.,
for Judith M. Minegar.
Shaunia Carlyle, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,
Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Taylor, Ritchie, and Wolfson,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Judith M. Minegar (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the mark IDEAS VINTAGE MARKET, in standard character format, for services
identified as “retail store services featuring furniture, furniture paint and finishes,
clothing, fashion accessories such as scarves, hats, shoes, rings, necklaces, and
earrings, and vintage items,” in International Class 35.1 The Trademark Examining

1 Application Serial No. 86178993 was filed on January 29, 2014, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, alleging dates of first use and first use in commerce on September 1, 2013,
and disclaiming the exclusive right to use the term “VINTAGE MARKET” apart from the
mark as shown.
Serial No. 86178993
- 2 -
Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark, when
applied to the identified services, so resembles the previously registered mark,
IDEAS and design,2 as shown below, for the services listed below, as to be likely to
cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive:

The description of the mark states: The mark consists of the word “IDEAS” with a
geometric design in the dot of the “I.” The listed services in International Class 35
are:

The bringing together, for the benefit of others, of a variety of goods
excluding the transport thereof, enabling customer [sic] to conveniently
view and purchase those goods, namely, textiles and textile goods, bed
and table covers, men, ladies and children clothing and footwear, textile
piece goods, bed sheets, Towels, Bathrobes, headgears, scarves, Shawls,
readymade garments, pajamas in the nature of Shalwar Kamiz, blouses
in the nature of Kurta, Belts, Curtains, Furniture, Crockery, Perfumes,
Pens, Watches, Birthday cards, Get well cards, Artificial flowers, plants,
Rugs, Carpets, infants clothing and beddings, Kitchen Accessories,
Cushions, Jewelry, Hand bags and Shoes; retail store services,
wholesale store services, mail order catalogue services and home
shopping services by means of television, all featuring textiles and
textile goods, bed and table covers, men, ladies and children clothing

2 Registration No. 4239597 issued November 13, 2012, and is based on United Arab Emirates
Registration 151010. The registration also contains goods in International Class 24 which
are not relevant to the refusal.
Serial No. 86178993
- 3 -
and footwear, textile piece goods, bed sheets, towels, bathrobes,
headgears, scarves, shawls, readymade garments, pajamas in the
nature of Shalwar Kamiz, blouse in the name of Kurta, belts, curtains,
furniture, crockery, perfumes, pens, watches, birthday cards, get well
cards, artificial flowers, plants, rugs, carpets, infants clothing and
bedding, kitchen Accessories, Cushions, Jewelry, Hand bags and Shoes.

When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm
the refusal to register.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination of the issue of likelihood of confusion 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). See also
In re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the
similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods and/or
services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192
USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41
USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider the du Pont factors for which there were
arguments and evidence. The others, we consider to be neutral.
Services/Channels of Trade/Classes of Purchasers
We consider first the relatedness of the services. Applicant identifies retail store
services, featuring, among other things, furniture, scarves, and shoes. These exact
services are included in the recitation of services of the cited registration.
Serial No. 86178993
- 4 -
As such, the services overlap and are identical-in-part. We need not discuss the
similarity of all of Applicant’s services because it is sufficient for a refusal based on
likelihood of confusion that relatedness is established for any item encompassed by
the recitation of services in the application. See, e.g., Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General
Mills Fun Group, Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981) (It is sufficient
for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any item
encompassed by the identification of [services] within a particular class in the
application).
Because the services described in the application and in the cited registration are
in part identical, we must presume, at least with respect to the overlapping services,
that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same. See In re Viterra
Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (even though there was
no evidence regarding channels of trade and classes of consumers, the Board was
entitled to rely on this legal presumption in determining likelihood of confusion).
These du Pont factors favor a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Strength of the Mark
Applicant argues that the shared term “IDEA” is weak and that consumers will
recognize subtle differences between the marks due to the number and nature of
similar marks in use on similar goods and services. See Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung
Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363,
116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC,
794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Promark v. GFA Brands,
Serial No. 86178993
- 5 -
Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232, 1244 (TTAB 2015) (“Such third-party registrations and uses
are competent to show that the common term has an accepted meaning in a given
field and that marks containing the term have been registered and used for related
goods because the remaining portions of the marks may be sufficient to distinguish
the marks as a whole from one another.”).
In particular, Applicant argues that there are a significant number of third-party
registrations for clothing or furniture-related goods and services that include the
term “IDEA” or “IDEAS” (in standard charter or stylized format and alone or in
combination with other matter) and, that therefore, “the word ‘’ideas’ is extremely
weak in connection with the goods furniture and clothing….”3 These registrations
which are owned by different registrants include, by way of example, the following4:
IDEA; Registration No. 3358535
IDEA and design; Registration No. 2993728
IDEA SHOWHOUSE; Registration No. 4484244
INFINITE IDEAS; Registration No. 4478088
GLOBE UNION IDEAS IN MOTION, and design; Registration No. 4353340
IDEA BABY and design; Registration No. 4322032
BATH & KITCHEN IDEA CENTER; Registration No. 4048418
IDEAITALIA; Registration No. 3167813
DESIGN IDEAS; Registration No. 3144261
SHAPING IDEAS INTO PLASTICS; Registration No. 3074525
THE HOMEMAKER’S IDEA COMPANY; Registration No 2802436
LOWE’S CREATIVE IDEAS; Registration No. 3941343
ANOTHER BIRD BRAINED IDEA; Registration No. 4080425
CASAIDEAS; Registration No. 3911585
WE PUT YOUR IDEAS INTO MOTION and design; Registration No. 3743219

3 4 TTABVUE 7.
4 In addition to these four dozen use-based registrations, Applicant submitted a number of
non-registered applications, non-use-based registrations, and unnecessary duplicates of
these registrations. We give none of these any consideration in our analysis because, as
Applicant herself acknowledges in her brief, only use-based registrations are availing in our
analysis.
Serial No. 86178993
- 6 -
NEW IDEAS ALWAYS AT WORK; Registration No. 3586871
IDEABOOK; Registration No. 3597138
IDEAJAB; Registration No. 4478331
CASA BY IDEA NUOVA; Registration No. 4094014
IDEA NUOVA; Registration No. 4067450
IDEA HOUSE and design; Registration No. 3825675
IDEA AT WORK; Registration No. 3870746
IDEA@WORK; Registration No. 2806279
DESIGN IDEAS and design; Registration No. 2902718
DESIGN IDEAS; Registration No. 2212237
NORWALK THE FURNITURE IDEA; Registration No. 1974563
TAIWAN TRADE IDEA! EZ and design; Registration No. 4471613
IDEA EXPRESS; Registration No. 3893694
IDEAS FROM A LIFETIME AT SEA; Registration No. 3584679
DESIGN IDEAS; Registration No. 3144261
IT STARTED WITH A SIMPLE IDEA . . . ; Registration No. 3601372
ASIANIDEAS.COM and design; Registration No. 3511385
ASIANIDEAS; Registration No. 3511384
IDEAWEAR; Registration No. 2451929
DESIGN IDEAS; Registration No. 2212237
NITA IDEAS; Registration No. 1712565
MARY MAXIM . . . THE IDEA PLACE; Registration No. 1516837
CURATED IDEA MERCHANTS UNLIMITED; Registration No.
SOMETIMES THE GREATEST IDEAS START WITH A JACKASS;
Registration No.4445275
GLOBAL UNION IDEAS IN MOTION and design; Registration No. 453340
IDEAS THAT FIT; Registration No. 3383012
IDEAS TO IMPRESS and design; Registration No.3256061
INNER IDEA; Registration No. 4223603
COMMON SENSE IDEAS FOR THRIVING AFTER 50; Registration No. 3772101
IDEAWEAR; Registration No. 2640139 (see also p.135; same rant)
CITY OF IDEAS; Registration No. 2496620
BIG IDEA; Registration No. 2495242
BIG IDEA and design; Registration No. 2497418

Applicant also submitted evidence from five websites that include the term “IDEA”
or “IDEAS” for retail or online retail services featuring furniture or clothing:
www.ideafurniture.com
www.brightideasfurniture.com5

5 In addition to a printout of the company’s website, there is a Yelp review in the record:
www.yelp.com/biz/bright-ideas-furniture-royal-oak.
Serial No. 86178993
- 7 -
www.fine-ideas.com
www.facebook.com/nobadideas6
https://foursquare.com/v/fresh-ideas-clothing-co

Based on this evidence, we agree that the term “IDEA” and its plural “IDEAS” are
used and registered by third parties in the relevant industry of retail furniture and
clothing to such an extent that the strength of the cited mark has been somewhat
attenuated. However, even weak marks are subject to protection from a likelihood of
confusion. See American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities Inc. v. Child Health
Research Institute, 101 USPQ2d 1022, 1028 (TTAB 2011); In re Max Capital Group
Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1246 (TTAB 2010); In re Chica Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1850
(TTAB 2007).
We thus find this sixth du Pont factor to weigh slightly against a finding of
likelihood of confusion.
The Similarity/Dissimilarity of the Marks
We consider and compare the appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression of the marks in their entireties. Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir.
2005). In comparing the marks, we are mindful that the test is not whether the marks
can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether
the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression so
that confusion as to the source of the services offered under the respective marks is

6 Referencing http://www.nobadideas.com.
Serial No. 86178993
- 8 -
likely to result. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.,
565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons Restaurants Inc. v. Morrison Inc.,
23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff'd mem., No. 92-1086 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 1992).
The proper focus is on the recollection of the average customer, who retains a general
rather than specific impression of the marks. Winnebago Industries, Inc. v. Oliver &
Winston, Inc., 207 USPQ 335, 344 (TTAB 1980); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co.,
190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975).
When, as here, the services at issue are identical in part, the degree of similarity
between the marks which is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is
less than if the services were not identical. In re Viterra Inc., 101 USPQ2d at 1912.
The dominant term in the mark in the cited registration is its sole literal element,
“IDEAS,” which is the word that consumers will use to call for or refer to the goods.
Id., at 1911 (citations omitted). This is also the dominant term in Applicant’s mark,
since the other terms are descriptive and disclaimed. See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753
F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[I]n articulating reasons for reaching
a conclusion on the issue of confusion, there is nothing improper in stating that, for
rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark,
provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their
entireties. Indeed, this type of analysis appears to be unavoidable.”). Thus, in
examining the rights at issue, although Applicant’s mark contains the additional
terms “VINTAGE MARKET” and the mark in the cited registration contains a
geometrical design, the marks are similar overall. Moreover, there is nothing to stop
Serial No. 86178993
- 9 -
Registrant from offering its identified (and in-part-identical) goods at a “vintage
market,” nor Applicant from displaying its standard character mark in a manner
similar to that of the mark in the cited registration. See Citigroup v. Capital City
Bank Group, Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If the
registrant complies with Section 2.52 of the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases
and obtains a standard character mark without claim to ‘any particular font style,
size or color,’ the registrant is entitled to depictions of the standard character mark
regardless of style, size, or color, not merely ‘reasonable manners’ of depicting its
standard character mark.”).
We therefore find that, although the marks have differences in sight and sound,
when the marks are considered as a whole, the differences are outweighed by likely
similarities in connotation and commercial impression. We accordingly find that this
du Pont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
II. Conclusion on Likelihood of Confusion
On balance, after considering all of the arguments and evidence of record as they
pertain to the relevant du Pont factors, we find that the services are in-part identical
and would therefore travel through some of the same channels of trade to some of the
same consumers, and that although the shared term “IDEAS” is weak, when
considering the marks as a whole, Applicant’s standard character mark conveys a
very similar commercial impression to that of the mark in the cited registration. We
therefore conclude that Applicant’s registration of the standard character mark
IDEAS VINTAGE MARKET is likely to cause confusion with the cited mark
Serial No. 86178993
- 10 -

under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2(d).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed.