Land Sky Sea, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2015

No. 85908525 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2015)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: September 28, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Land Sky Sea, LLC
_____

Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
_____

Joseph E. Sutton of Law Offices, Ezra Sutton, P.A.,
for Land Sky Sea, LLC
Marilyn D. Izzi, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112,
Angela Bishop Wilson, Managing Attorney.1
_____

Before Quinn, Adlin and Hightower,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hightower, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Land Sky Sea, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
CORONA2 and CHURCHILL3 for goods identified as follows:

1 Ms. Izzi performed the majority of the examination of all five applications. The Trademark
Examining Attorney’s appeal brief for application Serial No. 85908330 was written by
Danythe Johnson, and the appeal brief for application Serial No. 85908525 was written by
Jeffrey Chery, both of Law Office 120, Michael W. Baird, Managing Attorney.
2 Application Serial No. 85908330. The application includes the following translation
statement: “The English translation of ‘CORONA’ in the mark is ‘CROWN.’”
3 Application Serial No. 85908525. The application includes the following statements: “The
wording ‘CHURCHILL’ has no meaning in a foreign language. The name(s), portrait(s),
and/or signature(s) shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.”
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 2 -
Electronic cigars, namely, electronic device to heat liquids
to create a vapor for a human to inhale by mouth, being a
battery, an LED light source, a mouthpiece, and a
cartomizer, in the nature of a compartment for the fluid to
be heated, a heating coil, and a vaporizing chamber, in
International Class 34 (as amended).
Applicant also seeks registration on the Principal Register of PANATELA4 and
ROBUSTO5 for the following very similarly identified goods:
Electronic cigars, namely, electronic devices that utilize
technology to heat liquids to create a vapor for inhaling,
in the nature of a battery, an LED light source, a
mouthpiece, and a cartomizer, being a compartment for
the fluid to be heated, a heating coil, and a vaporizing
chamber, in International Class 34 (as amended).
Finally, Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register of TORPEDO6 for:
Electronic cigars, namely, electronic devices that utilize
technology to heat liquids to create a vapor for a human to
inhale by mouth, being a battery, an LED light source, a
mouthpiece, and a cartomizer in the nature of a
compartment for the fluid to be heated, a heating coil, and
a vaporizing chamber, in International Class 34 (as
amended).
All of the five applied-for terms are in standard characters. Each application was
filed on April 18, 2013, based on Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention to
use the marks in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b).
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of each of the
applied-for terms under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1), on the ground that they are merely descriptive of Applicant’s goods.

4 Application Serial No. 85908505.
5 Application Serial No. 85908568.
6 Application Serial No. 85908598.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 3 -
In addition, the first two applications listed supra have been refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d), on the ground of
likelihood of confusion with the following marks, each registered to a different
owner, for “cigars” in International Class 34:
• CORONA (Application Serial No. 85908330) – LA CORONA;7 and
• CHURCHILL (Application Serial No. 85908525) – CHURCHILL.8
After the Trademark Examining Attorney made each refusal final, Applicant
appealed to this Board.
Appeals Consolidated
We have considered all arguments and evidence filed in each case. These appeals
present common questions of law and fact and overlapping records, despite the
variations among the marks and slight variations in the identifications of goods,
and the additional Section 2(d) refusals of two of the applications. Therefore, in the
interest of judicial economy, we find it appropriate to consolidate the cases and
decide them in this single opinion. In re Country Music Ass’n Inc., 100 USPQ2d
1824, 1827 (TTAB 2011). We affirm the refusal to register as to each application.
I. Mere Descriptiveness
A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality,
feature, function, or characteristic of the goods with which it is used. See In re
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

7 Registration No. 92892, issued August 5, 1913 on the Principal Register; renewed.
8 Registration No. 653575, issued October 22, 1957 on the Supplemental Register; renewed.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 4 -
Descriptiveness determinations are made in relation to an applicant’s identified
goods or services, the context in which the proposed mark is being used, and the
possible significance the term would have to the average consumer because of the
manner of its use or intended use. See Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219.
Descriptiveness is not considered in the abstract. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488
F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Words that are merely
descriptive must be left free for competitive use. See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58
USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001) (finding VIRTUAL FASHION merely descriptive
of shopping software and electronic fashion retailing services).
Among the five applications before us, Applicant has used three slightly
different goods identifications. Each begins “Electronic cigars, namely, . . . .” A
“namely” clause is often used in an identification of goods to clarify terminology.
Using “namely” typically focuses the scope of the identification to those particular
items within the language following the word “namely.” TMEP § 1402.03(a) (2015).
In each of these applications, however, the wording after the “namely” clause
merely provides a detailed description of the function and individual components of
Applicant’s devices. Therefore, we find that Applicant’s goods are “electronic cigars,”
which is listed in the USPTO Acceptable Identification of Goods & Services Manual
(ID Manual)9 in Class 34 and appears from the record evidence – including the
wording on boxes of Applicant’s products – to be the common name for such goods,
and assess whether each of the applied-for terms is descriptive of “electronic cigars.”

9 The Board may take judicial notice of entries from the ID Manual.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 5 -
The Examining Attorney submitted evidence establishing that each of the five
terms Applicant seeks to register is a descriptive word designating a shape and size
of a traditional cigar. The Examining Attorney also made of record evidence that
many electronic cigar makers closely mimic traditional cigar designs: “Many
vendors make extra effort on the design and package of the e-cigars to resemble the
conventional cigars as much as possible.”10
In its appeal briefs, Applicant emphasizes that its products are not conventional
cigars, but rather electronic inhaling devices that neither contain tobacco nor have
the same dimensions as conventional tobacco products. E.g.: “Applicant’s products
are electronic inhalers or vaporizers, shaped like a cigar, but with different
dimensions and configurations.”11 Applicant argues that consumers would not
understand the words it seeks to register to describe such products, but rather as
arbitrary or coined terms. Based on the record evidence that electronic cigar makers
replicate and compare their goods to traditional cigars, we cannot agree.
We specifically address in turn each of the terms Applicant seeks to register.12
A. PANATELA (Application Serial No. 85908505)
“Panatela” is a noun defined as:

10 Application Serial Nos. 85908505 and 85908568, October 5, 2014 Final Office Action at 5;
Application Serial No. 85908598, id. at 6; Application Serial Nos. 85908525 and 85908330,
October 21, 2014 Final Office Action at 5 (from ecigsopedia.com); see also id. at 6, 8 (“These
electronic devices look and feel like a real Cuban . . . . Many electronic cigar vendors will
spend a few extra bucks to make them look as authentic as possible before you even pick it
up out of the package.”) (from info-electronic-cigarette.com/electronic-cigars/).
11 Application Serial Nos. 85908568 and 85908598, Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE 6.
12 Where not specified, citations are to the record of the application discussed in each
subsection.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 6 -
• “A long slender cigar,”13
• “a long slender straight-sided cigar,”14 and
• “a cigar having a long, slender shape, usually about 5 inches in length and
rounded at the mouth end.”15
One dictionary also provides the alternate spelling “panatella” for the latter
definition.16 Consistent with these dictionary definitions, the “Cigar Choice Guide”
lists “Panatela” as a type of cigar, and describes “Panatela Cigars” as
generally similar to Coronas only they are usualy [sic]
longer and thinner. . . . Their typical sizes are 5.5 to 7
inches in length and have a ring gauge of 34 to 38.
Due to the long, thin nature of Panatelas they are widely
hailed as an elegant cigar for female smokers. This
stereotype is not entirely true as it is enjoyed by both men
and women alike.17
Examples of Panatela cigars given by this source are “The Padron Panatela” and
“Baccarat Panatela.”
Applicant, which markets its products under the name “Tryst,” submitted a page
from its website “relating to the PANATELA product” demonstrating that it is
offering an electronic cigar in a long, slender, straight-sided shape, although in this
evidence the name is spelled with an additional “l” – “Panatella:”18

13 March 8, 2014 Office Action at 2 (from education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary), 7 (from
yourdictionary.com, citing The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th
ed. 2010)).
14 Id. at 3 (from merriam-webster.com/dictionary).
15 Id. at 6 (from yourdictionary.com, citing Webster’s New World College Dictionary (2010)).
16 We grant the Examining Attorney’s request and take judicial notice of this definition
from the online Collins Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com – American English).
17 September 8, 2014 Response to Office Action at 7 (from cigarchoiceguide.com). Cigar
diameters, or “ring gauges,” are measured in 64ths of an inch. See Application Serial
No. 85908568, March 8, 2014 Office Action at 10.
18 Id. at 5, 8 (from Applicant’s website enjoytryst.com); see also October 5, 2014 Final Office
Action at 3.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 7 -

The “Panatella” page from Applicant’s website describes this product as “long, slim
and elegant.”19
Applicant argues that its customers “do not smoke conventional cigars.”20
Nonetheless, Applicant appears to market its goods to smokers of conventional
cigars. Its website states: “Trysts [sic] trademarked Electronic Robusto or Electronic
Panatella each posses[s] 5 unique flavors that will prove to be a special delight to
cigar aficionados.”21
In addition, the record demonstrates that at least two third parties have used
“Panatela” and the phonetically identical term “Panatella” descriptively or
generically in association with electronic cigars. E-Lites offers a “slim, panatela
style disposable E-Gar,”22 while Totally Wicked offers a disposable “Panatella”
electronic cigar.23

19 October 5, 2014 Final Office Action at 3 (“A long, slim and elegant cigar lends itself to
conversation. And when it’s electronic, well, all the better. Gents and modern ladies both
delight in the Tryst Panatella electronic cigar.”).
20 Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE 5.
21 October 5, 2014 Final Office Action at 2 (from enjoytryst.com/about-tryst).
22 March 8, 2014 Office Action at 19 (from e-lites.org/electronic-cigar).
23 Id. at 14-16 (review of Totally Wicked Panatella eCigar from content.spinfuel.com/totally-
wicked-e-cigars/), 23 (from vapingmegalist.com/list-vaporizer-cigar).
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 8 -
Based on careful consideration of all the record evidence, we find that
PANATELA is merely descriptive of Applicant’s electronic cigars, just as it is
descriptive of conventional Panatela cigars, in that it immediately conveys
knowledge of features or characteristics of Applicant’s goods, including their long,
slender size and straight-sided shape.
B. ROBUSTO (Application Serial No. 85908568)
The Topcubans.com website (excerpted below) states that the Robusto is “[t]he
most popular format being produced in Cuba,” with a length of 4⅞ inches and a ring
gauge, or thickness, of 50:24

Other evidence provides similar information regarding the descriptive or generic
use of the term Robusto to identify a kind of cigar. A glossary on the Epicurus.com

24 March 8, 2014 Office Action at 7. The “Robusto” is the fourth cigar from the right,
displayed in a darker color than the other sizes.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 9 -
website defines Robusto as: “A cigar shape which is usually 5 to 5½ inches by a 50
ring gauge,”25 while an educational site gives the length of a Robusto as 4½ to 5½
inches, again with a ring gauge of 50.26 Applicant submitted a page from
CigarChoiceGuide.com listing Robusto as a type of cigar with a length of
approximately 5 inches and a ring gauge of approximately 50, yielding “a very full
flavor and a powerful strength.”27 The Examining Attorney also submitted evidence
that at least one other purveyor of electronic cigars offers a Robusto style:28

25 Id. at 2-3.
26 Id. at 10 (from columbia.edu/cu/cigar/started.html).
27 September 8, 2014 Response to Office Action at 8.
28 March 8, 2014 Office Action at 13-14 (from ecigsejuice.com). Applicant argues that this
evidence is not relevant because it is dated March 7, 2014, after Applicant filed the subject
application. As the Examining Attorney correctly points out, however, the determination of
registrability “must be on the basis of facts disclosed in evidence adduced by applicant
and/or the Examiner during the prosecution of the application up to and including the time
of appeal.” In re Texas Meat Brokerage, Inc., 199 USPQ 40, 44 (TTAB 1978) (citing In re
Thunderbird Prods. Corp., 406 F.2d 1389, 160 USPQ 730, 732-33 (CCPA 1969)).
Applicant’s argument that evidence subsequent to its filing date is irrelevant is equally
unavailing with respect to its other applications.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 10 -
In addition, third-party website CSPnet.com (“The source for convenience store and
fuel news”) compares Applicant’s product to a “traditional Robusto”:29

Applicant’s ROBUSTO electronic cigar also appears to be the same shape as a
conventional Robusto cigar:30

29 March 8, 2014 Office Action at 15. As shown in the next image, Applicant submitted a
page from its website demonstrating that this “Tryst” product is its ROBUSTO e-cigar.
September 8, 2014 Response to Office Action at 9.
30 October 5, 2014 Final Office Action at 3 (from enjoytryst.com/tryst-collections/robusto);
see also September 8, 2014 Response to Office Action at 9.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 11 -
The record thus demonstrates that electronic cigars made by Applicant and
others are designed to replicate the style, if not the tobacco content, of conventional
Robusto cigars. Although Applicant’s identified goods are not limited as to size or
shape, the evidence from CSPnet.com indicates that Applicant’s electronic Robusto
product mimics the length of traditional Robusto cigars; even if it does not, because
the identification is not limited, Applicant could seek to use ROBUSTO in
association with goods matching those dimensions.
Moreover, although Applicant contends that its customers do not smoke
conventional cigars, Applicant appears to market its goods to just such consumers.
Applicant’s website states in part that: “Trysts [sic] trademarked Electronic
Robusto or Electronic Panatella each posses[s] 5 unique flavors that will prove to be
a special delight to cigar aficionados.”31
Based on careful consideration of all the record evidence, we find that
ROBUSTO is also descriptive of electronic cigars, just as it is descriptive or generic
of conventional Robusto cigars, in that it immediately conveys knowledge of
features or characteristics of Applicant’s goods, including their size and shape.
C. TORPEDO (Application Serial No. 85908598)
According to the Topcubans.com website, a “Torpedo” cigar measures 6⅛ inches
long with a 52 ring gauge and is “easily recognized through the Montecristo No.2
(most popular Cuban cigars in the world)”:32

31 October 5, 2014 Final Office Action at 2 (from enjoytryst.com/about-tryst).
32 March 8, 2014 Office Action at 2. The “Torpedo” cigar is the fifth cigar from the left,
displayed in a darker color.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 12 -

The site offers a “Torpedo Sampler (box of 6)” for $108, which appears to comprise
similarly shaped cigars from different manufacturers, as shown in this excerpt:33

Consistent with this evidence, the “Cigar Choice Guide” lists “Torpedo” as a type
of cigar, stating:

33 Id. at 3.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 13 -
The Torpedo cigar has is [sic] a straight cigar which
comes to a pointed cap at the end. Typical sizes are 6 to 7
inches in length and ring gauges ranging from 50 to 55.
They are one of the most universally recognized kinds of
cigars as they are the type that Montecristo No. 2 is – the
most popular cigar throughout the world. You should
spend way over an hour trying to smoke and therefore
savour this beloved cigar type.34
Similarly, the “Best Cigar Blog” describes the subtle differences in the tapered head
shape among three types of cigars, including the torpedo.35 The Stogie Fresh
website includes the Torpedo in “An Introduction to Cigar Sizes,” which discusses
“the common names of cigar types and their typical dimensions.”36 The Torpedo is
described as typically 6-6.5 inches with a larger ring gauge shaft (often 52 to 56)
“which then gently tapers to a point,” and is illustrated as follows:37

The record also contains evidence of a descriptive or generic use of “torpedo” in
association with electronic cigars by a third party, which offers an electronic cigar
packaged with “one torpedo tip and one extended ash tip:”38

34 September 8, 2014 Response to Office Action at 7 (from cigarchoiceguide.com).
35 March 8, 2014 Office Action at 4 (from bestcigarprices.com/blog/cigar-101-cigar-shapes/).
36 Id. at 7-9 (from stogiefresh.info/edu-cigars/articles/cigar-sizes.html).
37 Id. at 9.
38 October 5, 2014 Final Office Action at 7.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 14 -

The TORPEDO application was filed on an intent-to-use basis and contains no
limitations as to the size or shape in which Applicant’s electronic cigars may be
offered, including the conventional cigar shape called a “Torpedo.”39 We therefore
find that TORPEDO is descriptive in association with electronic cigars in that it
immediately conveys knowledge of features or characteristics of those goods,
including their size and shape.
D. CORONA (Application Serial No. 85908330)
Definitions of “corona” include: “[from La Corona, a trademark]: a long cigar
having the sides straight to the end to be lit and being roundly blunt at the other
end.”40 Applicant did not specify dimensions of its goods, but submitted the image
below, described as a photo of “Applicant’s intended product, specifically relating to
its CORONA brand product.”41

39 Applicant indicates that it submitted an artist’s rendering of its TORPEDO product
during examination, but no image of Applicant’s TORPEDO goods is of record.
40 March 13, 2014 Office Action at 35 (from merriam-webster.com dictionary).
41 September 15, 2014 Response to Office Action at 10, 13-14.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 15 -
Applicant’s intended product thus fits the definition of “a long cigar having the sides
straight to the end to be lit and being round blunt at the other end.”
The website CigarChoiceGuide.com lists “Corona” as a cigar type, and indeed
states that Coronas “are one of the most popular cigar types. Coronas are made in
numerous cigar manufacturers across the globe . . . . The majority of cigars fall into
the corona bracket.”42 The cigaraficionado.com website calls the Corona, a straight-
sided cigar, “the benchmark size against which all other sizes are measured.”43
In addition, several third parties have used “Corona” descriptively in association
with electronic cigars:
• Smokin’ Cuban Disposable E-Cigar: “The Vaporillo’s Smokin’ Cuban
Disposable Electronic Cigar is the premier choice E-Cigar for any
traditional smoker! This Electronic Cigar is a timeless original. It’s [sic]
sleek, innovative style will remind you of your favorite 7” Corona style
cigar.”44
• HD Corona Disposable Electronic Cigar: “The HDCorona Cigar looks like
a real Corona-style cigar, and has a realistic ash tip. Equivalent to
approximately 35 Cigars!”45
• The BelvedereTM Smart Smoke Cigar: “Comparable to 6 domestic
traditional Grand Corona cigars. Length range of 5⅝ – 6⅝. Ring gauge of
45-47.”46
• Totally Wicked Large Soft Bodied Luxury Disposable e-cigar: “The e-cigar
is approximately the size of a long Corona cigar. . . .”47

42 Id. at 12.
43 March 13, 2014 Office Action at 40.
44 Id. at 51-52 (from vaporillos.com).
45 Id. at 41-42 (from hdsmoke.com).
46 Id. at 48 (from smartsmoke.com).
47 October 21, 2014 Final Office Action at 6-7 (from totallywicked-eliquid.com).
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 16 -
The CORONA application was filed on an intent-to-use basis and contains no
limitations as to the size or shape in which Applicant’s electronic cigars may be
offered, including the conventional cigar shape called a “Corona,” the shape of
Applicant’s intended product. We therefore find that CORONA is descriptive in
association with electronic cigars in that it immediately conveys knowledge of
features or characteristics of those goods, including their size and shape.
E. CHURCHILL (Application Serial No. 85908525)
According to the website Topcubans.com, the “Churchill” cigar size is 7 inches
long with a 47 ring gauge:48

48 March 14, 2014 Office Action at 45. The “Churchill” is the third cigar from the left,
displayed in a darker color than the other sizes.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 17 -
Similarly, the website CigarChoiceGuide.com lists “Churchill” as a cigar type, and
states in part: “The Churchill is named after Sir Winston Churchill. It was very rare
that he was seen without a cigar in his hand. Churchill cigars are also known as
Julieta cigars and are typically around 7 inches in length and have a ring gauge of
around 47.”49
Applicant did not specify dimensions of its
goods, but did submit the image at right,
which it described as “a picture of Applicant’s
intended product.”50 The shape of Applicant’s
intended product thus closely approximates
the shape of the “Churchill” cigar represented
on the Topcubans.com website on the
preceding page.

The record contains evidence of two third-party uses of the term in association
with electronic cigars: the ROK Stogie, described as “a Churchill-style full corona,”51
and the First Union gift box of three e-cigars, called “the Churchill of E-Cigars!”52
The CHURCHILL application was filed on an intent-to-use basis and contains
no limitations as to the size or shape in which Applicant’s electronic cigars may be
offered, including the conventional cigar shape for which the descriptive name is

49 September 15, 2014 Response to Office Action at 10.
50 September 15, 2014 Response to Office Action (second entry) at 1-2.
51 March 14, 2014 Office Action at 53 (from vapemeup.com).
52 Id. at 51-52 (from shop.vapinusa.com).
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 18 -
“Churchill,” the shape of Applicant’s intended product. We therefore find that
CHURCHILL is descriptive in association with electronic cigars in that it
immediately conveys knowledge of features or characteristics of those goods,
including their size and shape.
II. Likelihood of Confusion
Although we have found each of the applied-for terms to be merely descriptive
and therefore unregistrable, we will, in order to render a decision on all the issues
before us, now consider the refusals based on the ground of likelihood of confusion.
In discussing these refusals, we will treat the terms Applicant seeks to register,
CORONA and CHURCHILL, as highly suggestive. We accord the cited mark LA
CORONA, which is registered on the Principal Register, the presumptions to which
it is entitled under Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act. See King Candy Co. v. Eunice
King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (CCPA 1974). As to the
cited mark CHURCHILL, the scope of protection extended to marks registered on
the Supplemental Register “has been limited to the substantially identical notation
and/or to the subsequent use and registration thereof for substantially similar
goods.” In re Hunke & Jochheim, 185 USPQ 188, 189 (TTAB 1975);53 see also In re
Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, 198 USPQ 337 (CCPA 1978).
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all probative
facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of
confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567

53 Applicant’s cite of this case to support its assertion that the goods must be “substantially
identical” is inaccurate. ’525 Application, Appeal Brief at 5-6, 4 TTABVUE 6-7.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 19 -
(CCPA 1973); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201,
1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, however, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between
the goods. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192
USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to
the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and
differences in the marks.”).
A. Similarity of the Marks
We first consider the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on “‘the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation, and commercial impression.’” Palm Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567). “The proper test is not a side-
by-side comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently
similar in terms of their commercial impression’ such that persons who encounter
the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Coach
Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The focus is on the recollection of the average
purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than a specific impression of
trademarks. Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424,
1430 (TTAB 2013).
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 20 -
1. CHURCHILL (“’525 Application”)
Applicant seeks to register CHURCHILL, which is identical to the cited mark
CHURCHILL.
2. CORONA (“’330 Application”)
The applied-for term CORONA differs from the cited mark LA CORONA only by
the absence of the initial two-letter word “la.”
We grant the Examining Attorney’s request to take judicial notice that “la” is the
Spanish word for the English definite article “the.”54 Under the doctrine of foreign
equivalents, foreign words from common languages are translated into English to
determine similarity of connotation with English word marks. Palm Bay, 73
USPQ2d at 1696. The doctrine is applied when it is likely that the ordinary
American purchaser would “stop and translate [the word] into its English
equivalent.” Id. Spanish is a “common language” in the United States, and the
Board has routinely applied the doctrine of foreign equivalents to Spanish-language
marks. In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1127 (TTAB 2015). We find that
ordinary purchasers of electronic cigars would translate “la” in the cited mark as
“the.” It is well-established that the definite article “the” has no trademark
significance. See, e.g., In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009); In
re The Place Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467, 1468 (TTAB 2005); In re Narwood Prods., Inc.,
223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984).

54 See Definition from Collins Spanish-English Dictionary (2015) (collinsdictionary.com)
attached to Examiner’s Statement, 6 TTABVUE 17. The Board may take judicial notice of
dictionary definitions. In re Cordua Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.4 (TTAB 2014).
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 21 -
We find, when the marks are considered in their entireties, CORONA highly
similar to LA CORONA in sight, sound, meaning, and overall commercial
impression. The first du Pont factor weighs strongly in favor of a likelihood of
confusion with respect to both applications.
B. Similarity of the Goods
We turn next to the second du Pont factor, the similarity of the goods. It is not
necessary that the goods be identical or even competitive to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion. Rather, it is sufficient that the goods are related in some
manner, or that the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they
would be encountered by the same persons in situations that would give rise,
because of the marks, to a mistaken belief that they originate from the same source
or that there is an association or connection between the sources of the goods. In re
Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d at 1635. The greater the degree of similarity between
the marks, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods necessary to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812,
1815 (TTAB 2001).
In both cited registrations, the goods are identified as “cigars.” Applicant’s goods
are identified in both subject applications as:
Electronic cigars, namely, electronic device to heat liquids
to create a vapor for a human to inhale by mouth, being a
battery, an LED light source, a mouthpiece, and a
cartomizer, in the nature of a compartment for the fluid to
be heated, a heating coil, and a vaporizing chamber.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 22 -
As discussed supra, because such goods are commonly known as “electronic cigars,”
we compare cigars and electronic cigars.
First, “cigars” may be broad enough to encompass both traditional cigars made of
rolled tobacco leaves and electronic cigars. Our decision does not rest on this basis,
however, because we find cigars and electronic cigars to be closely related “smoking”
devices. Indeed, the Examining Attorney submitted evidence that electronic cigars
are marketed as comparable to, and a substitute for, traditional cigars. For
example, the website Ecigsopedia.com states that: “Smoking electronic cigars or e-
cigars is the most novel way of smoking cigars.” (emphasis added).55 Third party
“Smart Smoke” states the following on a page of its website offering an electronic
cigar for sale: “Looking for the authentic cigar experience without the tar and
smoke? Smart Smoke is proud to offer the Belvedere, a one-of-a-kind simple one-
piece disposable design in an authentic and desirable cigar flavor and strength.”56
The site says that the electronic Belvedere is “Comparable to 6 domestic traditional
Grand Corona cigars.”57 Some of the customer reviews at the bottom of this page
underscore the relatedness of the goods:
• Reviewer: Richard Keenley from Spokane Valley, WA
I was very skeptical at first, I am a avid cigar user in the sense of taste.
No way will a “electric cigar” ever replace my real ones especially with a
good glass of brandy… WOW! I was blown away.. My wife bought me on[e]
in the mall as a gift and it took me a week to even try it, but sure glad I
did… Thanks SmartSmoke!

55 ’330 Application, October 21, 2014 Final Office Action at 4.
56 Id., March 13, 2014 Office Action at 48.
57 Id.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 23 -
• Reviewer: Happy Customer
I absolutely love a good cigar, and must admit didn’t even want to try one,
I stopped by the valley mall and the sales associate there caught me
eyeballing the box in their display, and offered to let me try it. I said “no
thanks, I like the real thing” he then said “Well what if this is just as good
if not BETTER, and you’re missing out by not trying the flavor?” So when
he handed it out to me I took a couple puffs and was BLOWN AWAY. You
guys nailed it! Congrats!
• Reviewer: Anonymous Person
This flavor is unbelievable! It tastes just like a Montecristo cigar!
LOVE IT!
• Reviewer: Anonymous Person from Spokane, WA United States
I cannot tell you enough how much I love this cigar flavor. It feels, tastes,
and smells just like a cigar. You guys nailed it!58
Based on all the evidence of record, we find that cigars and electronic cigars are
substantially similar goods. Therefore, the second du Pont factor weighs in favor of
a finding of likelihood of confusion for both applications.
C. Classes of Customers and Channels of Trade
Finally, Applicant contends that the customers and channels of trade are
different for its products than for the conventional cigars identified in the cited
registrations. These arguments pertain to the third and fourth du Pont factors.
Because there are no limitations as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers in
the description of goods in the cited registrations, we presume that the registrants’
goods move in all channels of trade normal for such goods and are available to all
potential classes of ordinary consumers. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank
Group, Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Jump
Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006).

58 Id. at 49-50.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 24 -
There is record evidence that traditional cigars are sold through the same
channels of trade as electronic cigarettes,59 but no evidence establishing that the
same is true of electronic cigars. We therefore find the third du Pont factor to be
neutral.
As quoted in the immediately preceding subsection, there is record evidence that
electronic cigar makers specifically market their goods to smokers of conventional
cigars (“Looking for the authentic cigar experience without the tar and smoke?”;
“The Vaporillo’s Smokin’ Cuban Disposable Electronic Cigar is the premier choice
E-Cigar for any traditional smoker!”),60 and that some consumers use both kinds of
cigars. For example, ElectricCigars.net states that:
Sophistication has reached a new high, as the electronic
cigar emerges on the market, more cigar aficionados are
switching to this new way to enjoy a cigar without the
ash, smoke, or leftover stink! . . . If you like cigars but
don’t like the smoke or smell that comes with them, then
it’s time to try this premium electronic cigar which has
great flavor and vapor, it’s as close to the real thing as
you can get.61
Applicant itself, as noted supra, touts that its electronic cigars “will prove to be a
special delight to cigar aficionados.” The fourth du Pont factor thus weighs in favor
of a likelihood of confusion.

59 See ’525 Application, March 14, 2014 Office Action at 24-37 (from smokersoutlet
online.com), 38-44 (from bnbtobacco.com).
60 ’330 Application, March 13, 2014 Office Action at 48 (from smartsmoke.com), 52 (from
vaporillos.com).
61 Id. at 43, 47.
Serial Nos. 85908330, 85908505, 85908525, 85908568, and 85908598
- 25 -
Conclusion as to Likelihood of Confusion
We have considered all of the arguments and evidence of record as they pertain
to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factors. To the extent that any other du Pont
factors for which no evidence was presented by Applicant or the Trademark
Examining Attorney may nonetheless be applicable, we treat them as neutral.
With respect to both applications, the first, second, and fourth du Pont factors
weigh in favor of a likelihood of confusion – the first heavily so – while the third
factor is neutral. We find that the terms Applicant seeks to register, CORONA and
CHURCHILL, are likely to cause confusion with the registered marks LA CORONA
and CHURCHILL, respectively, when used in association with Applicant’s
identified goods.
Decision: The refusals to register are affirmed on all grounds as to all five
applications.