Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2000

No. 75298383 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2000)

Paper No. 8
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB JUNE 8, 00
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/298,383
_______
Edgar A. Zarins for Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc.
Cheryl S. Goodman, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
102 (Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Walters and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc. has appealed from the final
refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to register the
mark KRAFTLINE for “kitchen and bathroom cabinets.”1
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that
applicant’s mark, when applied to kitchen and bathroom

1 Serial No. 75/298,383, filed May 27, 1997, alleging a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 75/298,383
2
cabinets, so resembles each of the following marks, which
are registered to the same entity, as to be likely to cause
confusion, mistake or deception:
CRAFTLINE for “wood and aluminum building
materials, namely, windows and doors;”2
for “windows and doors made primarily of
metal;”3
CRAFTLINE ULTRA E for “doors and windows
glazed with insulated glass;”4 and
CRAFTLINE E for “doors and windows glazed
with insulated glass.”5
Briefs have been filed, but an oral hearing was not
requested. We affirm the refusal to register.
In analyzing likelihood of confusion, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and
the similarities between the goods. Turning first to a
consideration of the goods, the Examining Attorney
maintains that kitchen and bathroom cabinets and doors and

2 Registration No. 744,617 issued February 5, 1963; renewed.
3 Registration No. 1,400,903 issued July 15, 1986; Sections 8 &
15 affidavit filed.
4 Registration No. 1,548,313 issued July 18, 1989; Sections 8 &
15 affidavit filed.
5 Registration No. 1,549,167 issued July 25, 1989; Sections 8 &
15 affidavit filed.
Ser No. 75/298,383
3
windows are related products. In order to show a
sufficient relationship between the respective goods, the
Examining Attorney has made of record four registrations,
three of which indicate that entities have registered a
single mark for kitchen cabinets and windows and doors; and
one registration which indicates that an entity has
registered a single mark for bathroom cabinets and windows
and doors. In addition, the Examining Attorney made of
record Internet print-outs which show that doors are part
of kitchen and bathroom cabinets and that building/home
centers offer kitchen and bathroom cabinets, on the one
hand, and windows and doors, on the other hand. The
Examining Attorney submits that a homeowner remodeling a
kitchen and/or bathroom may well replace a window or
interior door in one or both of those rooms.
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, contends that the respective goods are not
related because in remodeling a kitchen or bathroom, a
homeowner focuses on the interior components of that room,
whereas in the installation of windows and/or doors, a
homeowner is concerned with the exterior of the home.
Further, applicant maintains that the goods are often
offered in outlets which specialize in either kitchen and
bathroom cabinets or doors and windows, or in different
Ser No. 75/298,383
4
sections of home centers. Finally, applicant argues that
consumers exercise care in selecting kitchen and bathroom
cabinets as well as windows and doors.
With respect to the goods, as has often been stated,
the goods need not be identical or even competitive in
nature in order to support a finding of likelihood of
confusion. It is sufficient that the goods are related in
some manner and/or that the circumstances surrounding their
marketing are such that they would be likely to be
encountered by the same persons under circumstances that
would give rise, because of the marks used in connection
therewith, to the mistaken belief that the goods originated
from or are in some way associated with the same source.
In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ
910 (TTAB 1978).
In this case, the third-party registrations are
probative to the extent that they suggest that the involved
goods are of a type which may emanate from a single source
under the same mark. Moreover, in the absence of any
limitations in applicant’s application, we must presume
that applicant’s kitchen and bathroom cabinets travel in
the same channels of trade as registrant’s windows and
doors, e.g., building/home centers, to the same classes of
purchasers, namely builders, remodeling contractors, and
Ser No. 75/298,383
5
individual “do-it-yourselfers.” Contrary to applicant’s
argument, a do-it-yourselfer remodeling a kitchen and/or a
bathroom may well be concerned with windows and doors,
particularly if the space is being reconfigured or
expanded. We note applicant’s argument that purchasers of
the involved goods would exercise care in their selection.
Although the goods herein are somewhat expensive, we would
not characterize do-it-yourselfers as discriminating
purchasers who would carefully analyze the specifications
of the goods. Under the circumstances, we find that the
involved goods are sufficiently related that if sold under
identical or substantially similar marks, confusion is
likely to occur in the marketplace.
Turning then to a consideration of the marks, we note
that applicant, in its brief, makes no mention of the
marks. We agree with the Examining Attorney that
applicant’s mark KRAFTLINE and the cited marks CRAFTLINE,
CRAFTLINE and design, CRAFTLINE ULTRA E and CRAFTLINE E are
substantially similar in appearance and engender the same
commercial impression.
In determining likelihood of confusion, it is the
similarity of the overall commercial impression engendered
by the marks which must be considered. This test requires
us to consider that the average purchaser normally retains
Ser No. 75/298,383
6
a general rather than a specific impression of trademarks.
As noted by the Examining Attorney, purchasers may not
recollect the design element, “ULTRA E,” or “E” in the
cited marks, or that applicant’s mark begins with the
letter “K”
Accordingly, we conclude that purchasers and
prospective customers, familiar with any of registrant’s
CRAFTLINE marks for windows and doors, would be likely to
believe, upon encountering applicant’s KRAFTLINE mark for
kitchen and bathroom cabinets, that such goods emanate from
or are otherwise sponsored by the same source.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act is affirmed.
P. T. Hairston
C. E. Walters
G. F. Rogers
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/298,383
7
Ser No. 75/298,383
8