Masco Cabinetry Holdings, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2007

No. 78515997 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2007)

Mailed: April 6, 2007

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Masco Cabinetry Holdings, Inc.
________

Serial No. 78515997
_______

Edgar A. Zarins, Esq. of Masco Corporation for Masco Cabinetry
Holdings, Inc.

Zachary R. Bello, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111
(Craig D. Taylor, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Holtzman, Mermelstein and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Holtzman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

An application has been filed by Masco Cabinetry Holdings,
Inc. to register the mark KENTFIELD (in standard character form)
for goods ultimately identified as "cabinetry, namely kitchen and
bath cabinets" in Class 20.1
The trademark examining attorney has refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that

1 Serial No. 78515997, filed November 12, 2004, based on an allegation
of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

THIS OPINION IS
NOT A PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Serial No. 78515997
2
applicant's mark, when applied to applicant's goods, so resembles
the registered mark KENTFIELD (in typed form) for "wood doors" in
Class 19, as to be likely to cause confusion.2
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed. Briefs
have been filed.
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis
of all of the probative facts in evidence that are relevant to
the factors bearing on the likelihood of confusion issue. In re
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA
1973). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, however, two key
considerations are the similarities or dissimilarities between
the marks and the similarities or dissimilarities between the
goods. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544
F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
Applicant's mark KENTFIELD is identical to the mark in the
cited registration. The fact that the respective marks are
identical "weighs heavily against applicant." In re Martin's
Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
We note that when marks are identical it is only necessary
that there be a viable relationship between the goods in order to
support a holding of likelihood of confusion. See In re

2 Registration No. 2098197; issued September 16, 1997; Sections 8 and
15 affidavit accepted and acknowledged.

Serial No. 78515997
3
Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB
1983). Here, however, there is more than a viable relationship
between the respective goods. Applicant's goods are kitchen and
bath cabinets. Registrant's goods are "wood doors." Applicant
characterizes registrant's "wood doors" as "entry" doors and
maintains that these doors are "different" from kitchen and bath
cabinets. However, because there is no restriction in the
identification of goods, we must assume that the identification
"wood doors" encompasses wood doors of all types including wood
cabinetry doors. See J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's
Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and
Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computers Services Inc., 918 F.2d
937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (registrability is
based on the identification of goods "regardless of what the
record may reveal as to as to the particular nature of an
applicant's goods...").3

3 It is not clear whether applicant's contention that registrant's
goods are entry doors was made on the basis of actual knowledge about
the nature of registrant's goods, or because of the class assigned to
registrant's goods. Either way, the argument fails because the goods,
as identified, are not limited to a particular type of door. With
regard to classification, we note that registrant's goods are in Class
19 ("non-metallic building materials") whereas applicant's goods have
been classified in Class 20 ("furniture and articles not otherwise
classified"). However, "it is well recognized that the system of
dividing goods into classes is purely a manner of convenience and that
a determination on the question of likelihood of confusion cannot be
restricted by the artificial boundary created by classification." In
re Vic Boff Health and Fitness Aides, Inc., 189 USPQ 357, 358 (TTAB
1975). Furthermore, the classification of goods can change. See In re
Serial No. 78515997
4
Applicant's kitchen and bathroom cabinets and registrant's
cabinet doors are by their nature inherently related goods.
Cabinet doors may be purchased as replacement parts for existing
kitchen and bathroom cabinet units. Even if we assume that
registrant's goods are entry doors, which as applicant points out
are specifically different from cabinets, the two types of
products are nevertheless related and complementary in the sense
that both products could be purchased as part of the same home
improvement or remodeling project. See Recot Inc. v. M.C.
Becton, 214 F.3d 1332, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(although products may be distinctly different in kind, "the same
goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to
the origin of the goods. It is this sense of relatedness that
matters in the likelihood of confusion analysis"). In addition,
the examining attorney has submitted several use-based, third-
party registrations showing, in each instance, a mark which is
registered for cabinets on the one hand, as well as doors or
cabinet doors on the other. For example, Registration No.
2572416 for the mark BUILD YOUR OWN FURNITURE SYSTEMS lists
"cabinets" and "doors for furniture"; Registration No. 2993165
for the mark PENTCO lists "kitchen cabinet doors" and "cabinets";
Registration No. 2801808 for the mark SCIC lists "kitchen

Kayser-Roth Corp., 29 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (TTAB 1993) ("the Office
classification system is not static").
Serial No. 78515997
5
cabinets" and "kitchen doors"; Registration No. 2888691 for the
mark BERTCH lists "non-metallic doors" and "kitchen cabinets,
bathroom cabinets"; and Registration No. 2915299 for the mark
ARCHITECTURAL TRADITIONS covers the custom manufacture of both
doors and cabinets. These third-party registrations, although
not evidence of use of the marks in commerce, serve to suggest
that the respective goods are of a type which may emanate from
the same source. See In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d
1783 (TTAB 1993) and In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d
1467 (TTAB 1988). It can also be seen from this evidence that
cabinet doors are available as separate components, apart from
the cabinet itself.
Applicant's arguments concerning the different production
requirements for the respective products and the different
machinery used to manufacture the products are unsupported, and
in any event, unpersuasive. To the extent that there are any
such differences, consumers would not be expected to know about
them, or for that matter care about them. Applicant's arguments
regarding the asserted differences in time and expense involved
in remodeling or replacing kitchen and bathroom cabinets as
opposed to replacing a door are similarly unsupported and
unpersuasive. These considerations, assuming they are true, may
affect a consumer's decision about whether or when to purchase
the products, or the decision to buy one product over the other,
Serial No. 78515997
6
but they would not necessarily affect a consumer's perception
that the two products are related. See Recot Inc. v. M.C.
Becton, supra.
Furthermore, absent any restriction in the application or
registration, we must presume that the goods move through all the
normal trade channels and that they are sold to all the usual
purchasers. See Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computers
Services Inc., supra. The normal channels of trade for cabinetry
and doors, whether entry doors or cabinet doors, include home
improvement stores or similar types of retail outlets. The
normal purchasers of such goods would include ordinary consumers
such as homeowners and do-it-yourself remodelers. We note that
the examining attorney has submitted several third-party
registrations showing marks that have been registered for retail
stores or other retail outlets that sell both cabinets as well as
doors or cabinet doors. See, for example, Registration No.
22760245 for the mark ESW ENCLOSURE SYSTEMS WORLDWIDE (cabinets
and cabinet doors); Registration No. 2968672 for the mark REJUVE
(cabinets and doors); and Registration No. 2964169 FINDING THE
PRODUCT IS SIMPLE, IT'S OUR SERVICE THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE!
(cabinets and doors).
Applicant's contention that cabinets and doors are sold in
different "venues or departments" of the stores, even if true, is
not significant. Both types of products might very well be
Serial No. 78515997
7
encountered by the same purchasers in the same retail outlets,
regardless of the specific location of each product in a
particular store. Furthermore, the products may not even be
purchased at the same time. Consumers who had previously
purchased applicant's KENTFIELD kitchen or bathroom cabinets may
later decide to replace a door to the cabinet, or an entry door
to the room. Those same consumers, who then encounter
registrant's cabinet doors or entry doors, under the identical
KENTFIELD mark, regardless of where or when they found them in
the store, are likely to believe the doors come from or are in
some way connected with the same company that produced the
cabinets.
It is reasonable to assume that an entry door or cabinet
door is not an impulse purchase, as applicant claims, but instead
that the purchase of both applicant's and registrant's types of
products would involve a certain amount of time and expense. It
is also reasonable to assume that the purchasers of cabinets and
doors would to some extent be knowledgeable about such products
and would exercise some degree of care in their purchasing
decisions. However, even knowledgeable and careful purchasers of
more expensive goods can be confused as to source under
circumstances where, as here, identical marks are used on closely
related goods. See In re Research Trading Corp., 793 F.2d
1276, 230 USPQ 49, 50 (Fed. Cir. 1986) citing Carlisle Chemical
Serial No. 78515997
8
Works, Inc. v. Hardman & Holden Ltd., 434 F.2d 1403, 168 USPQ
110, 112 (CCPA 1970) ("Human memories even of discriminating
purchasers...are not infallible.").
In view of the foregoing, and because identical marks are
used in connection with closely related goods, we find that
confusion is likely.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act is affirmed.