Next Level Catholic Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2021

88588886 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: June 30, 2021
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Next Level Catholic Inc.
_____
Serial No. 88588886
_____
Jungjin Lee, Erin C. Bray, and Heather M. Dent of
Trademark Lawyer Law Firm PLLC
for Next Level Catholic Inc.

Rudy R. Singleton, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102,
Mitchell Front, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Lynch, Larkin and Coggins,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Lynch, Administrative Trademark Judge:
I. Background
Next Level Catholic Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark NEXT LEVEL CATHOLIC ACADEMY in standard characters, with a
disclaimer of CATHOLIC ACADEMY, for:
Serial No. 88588886
- 2 -
Printed publications, namely, brochures, booklets, and
teaching materials in the field of Catholic education,
Catholic spirituality, and Catholic instruction, in
International Class 16; and
Educational services, namely, providing online instruction
in the field of Catholic catechetical education and
instruction; Educational and entertainment services,
namely, a continuing program about Catholic catechetical
education and instruction accessible by radio, television,
satellite, audio, video and computer networks; Education
services, namely, providing live and on-line classes,
seminars, workshops in the field of Catholic catechetical
education and instruction and distribution of course
materials in connection therewith in printed format, in
International Class 41.1
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under Trademark Act Section
2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on a likelihood of confusion with the mark NEXT
LEVEL WORSHIP, registered on the Principal Register in standard characters, with
a disclaimer of WORSHIP, for:
Education services, namely, providing lectures, non-
downloadable webinars and videos in the field of religious
leadership training and Christian worship ministry;
Educational services, namely, conducting conferences and
online courses in the field of religious leadership training
and Christian worship ministry; On-line journals, namely,
blogs featuring information in the field of religious
leadership training and Christian worship ministry, in
International Class 41.2
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant requested
reconsideration and appealed. The Examining Attorney denied the request for

1 Application Serial No. 88588886 was filed August 22, 2019, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on alleged use of the mark in commerce.
2 Registration No. 5141553 issued on February 14, 2017.
Serial No. 88588886
- 3 -
reconsideration, and the appeal proceeded, with Applicant and the Examining
Attorney submitting briefs.3 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the refusal to
register.
II. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) involves an analysis of all of the probative
evidence of record bearing on a likelihood of confusion. In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours
& Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (setting forth factors to be
considered, referred to as “DuPont factors”); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315
F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Board considers only those
DuPont factors for which there is evidence and argument. In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912
F.3d 1376, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Stratus Networks,
Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Commc’ns Inc., 955 F.3d 994, 2020 USPQ2d 10341, *3 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (“Not all DuPont factors are relevant in each case . . . .”). Two key considerations
are the similarities between the marks and the relatedness of the goods and services.
See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29

3 Applicant’s Brief is single-spaced and thus fails to comply with Trademark Rule 2.126(a)(1),
37 C.F.R. § 2.126(a)(1). However, it appears that even if properly line-spaced, it would fall
within the page limit, and we have exercised our discretion to consider it regardless of the
improper formatting. Applicant’s Brief also includes evidentiary attachments, which is
neither a convenience, nor a courtesy. Life Zone Inc. v. Middleman Grp. Inc., 87 USPQ2d
1953, 1955 (TTAB 2008) (evidence attached to briefs will almost always be either untimely
or duplicative, and in either event should not be filed); see also 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(b)(3)
(“Citation to evidence in briefs should be to the documents in the electronic application record
by date, the name of the paper under which the evidence was submitted, and the page number
in the electronic record”). The entire record from prosecution of the application is readily
available to the Board, and the exhibits in question are duplicative of materials in the record.
Serial No. 88588886
- 4 -
(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. Strength of the Cited Mark
Applicant has raised the sixth DuPont factor, under which we consider the alleged
weakness of the cited registered mark, based on the “[t]he number and nature of
similar marks in use on similar … goods [and services].” DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567.
Applicant argues that “[n]umerous third-party uses of ‘next level’ as a component of
the marks indicate a ‘crowded field’ and further demonstrate the weakness of
Registrant’s cited mark.”4 “A mark’s strength is measured both by its conceptual
strength (distinctiveness) and its marketplace [or commercial] strength (secondary
meaning).” In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1686 (Fed.
Cir. 2010). For likelihood of confusion purposes, a mark’s strength “varies along a
spectrum from very strong to very weak.” Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont
Holdings, LLC, 857 F.3d 1323, 122 USPQ2d 1733, 1734 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Palm
Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369,
73 USPQ2d 1689, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d
1340, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2003))).
Applicant contends that the cited mark NEXT LEVEL WORSHIP merits a
narrowed scope of protection both because of the “large number of marks containing

4 7 TTABVUE 14 (Applicant’s Brief) (citations omitted).
Serial No. 88588886
- 5 -
the phrase ‘next level’ (including spelling variations) within the field of educational
services” and because of “numerous third-party uses of the word ‘worship’ as a
component of the[ir] marks.”5 However, despite the reference to use, Applicant
supported this allegation only with third-party registration evidence, but not with
any evidence of third-party use. Third-party registration evidence goes not to the
commercial strength of the cited mark, but rather only to its conceptual strength. Tao
Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1057 (TTAB 2017)
(“Use evidence may reflect commercial weakness, while third-party registration
evidence that does not equate to proof of third-party use may bear on conceptual
weakness if a term is commonly registered for similar goods or services.”) (citing
Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693, 694-95 (CCPA 1976));
see also In re Guild Mortg. Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10279 *3 (TTAB 2020) (“[E]vidence of
third-party registrations is relevant to ‘show the sense in which . . . a mark is used in
ordinary parlance.’”).
Considering the evidence to show potential conceptual weakness of components of
the cited mark, we first address the NEXT LEVEL portion. Applicant submitted some
third-party registrations for marks that consist of or include NEXT LEVEL for
various types of educational services.6 However, we do not consider all types of
educational services to be related to the services identified in the cited registration
for purposes of showing conceptual weakness of the cited mark. None of the third-

5 7 TTABVUE 15 (Applicant’s Brief).
6 TSDR March 13, 2020 Response to Office Action and October 9, 2020 Request for
Reconsideration at 109-21 (duplicative evidentiary submissions).
Serial No. 88588886
- 6 -
party marks are for online journals or educational services focused on religious
leadership training or Christian worship, or anything shown to be related thereto,
and therefore are not persuasive to show weakness of the cited registration.7 See
Omaha Steaks Int’l v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 128 USPQ2d 1686
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (error to rely on third-party evidence of similar marks for dissimilar
goods, as Board must focus “on goods shown to be similar”); In re i.am.symbolic, llc,
866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1751 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (disregarding third-party
registrations for goods in other classes where the proffering party “has neither
introduced evidence, nor provided adequate explanation to support a determination
that the existence of I AM marks for goods in other classes, … support[s] a finding
that registrants’ marks are weak with respect to the goods identified in their
registrations”). Given the lack of relatedness of the third-party registrations to the
services in the cited registration, we do not find NEXT LEVEL conceptually weak in
the context of Registrant’s recited services.
Next, we consider Applicant’s argument that the WORSHIP portion of the cited
mark is weak. Again, Applicant relies only on third-party registration evidence, but
not on any third-party use. Applicant submitted six third-party registrations of marks
that include WORSHIP for services that overlap with or on their face are highly

7 For example, the registration for NEXTLEVEL PRACTICE recites educational services
focused on business consulting and educational services in the field of business improvement
for dental, periodontal, and medical businesses, the registration for NEXT LEVEL
PHYSIQUE recites “personal fitness training services and consultancy,” and the registration
for NEXT LEVEL PARTNERS identifies “consultancy services for businesses, namely,
analyzing and developing lean processes, and executive recruitment consultation” as well as
“business training services, namely lean process training and leadership training.” TSDR
March 13, 2020 Response to Office Action at 113-18.
Serial No. 88588886
- 7 -
related to Registrant’s, and which either contain disclaimers of WORSHIP, appear
on the Supplemental Register, or are registered on the Principal Register with claims
of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).8 The Examining Attorney agrees with
Applicant, noting that “[t]he registrant’s mark includes the additional descriptive,
disclaimed and less significant wording ‘WORSHIP.’”9 We also concur. Because the
cited registration’s services focus in part on Christian worship ministry, WORSHIP
describes the services, and consumers would not rely on the descriptive wording to
indicate source. See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
While we find WORSHIP conceptually weak, the record does not show conceptual
or commercial weakness of NEXT LEVEL, or of the cited NEXT LEVEL WORSHIP
mark as a whole.
B. Similarity of the Marks
We next compare the marks “in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression.” Palm Bay Imps. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (quoting DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567). “Similarity in any one of these elements
may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC,
126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812
(TTAB 2014)). We assess not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-

8 TSDR October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration at 122-33.
9 9 TTABVUE 9-10 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
Serial No. 88588886
- 8 -
side comparison, but rather whether their overall commercial impressions are so
similar that confusion as to the source of the goods and services offered under the
respective marks is likely to result. Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d
1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Edom Labs. Inc. v. Lichter,
102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012).
We compare Applicant’s mark NEXT LEVEL CATHOLIC ACADEMY to the cited
mark NEXT LEVEL WORSHIP, and find the marks very similar. They share the
same dominant term, NEXT LEVEL, and its placement at the beginning of both
marks makes it especially prominent. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 128
USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “[t]he identity of the marks’ two initial
words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words
first”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988)
(first part of a mark “is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and
remembered.”). The identical dominant element looks and sounds the same. As urged
by Applicant, we compare the marks in their entireties. However, for rational
reasons, we may give more or less weight to a particular feature of a mark, such as a
common dominant element, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration
of the marks in their entireties. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d
1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
While additional wording in the marks creates some difference in appearance and
sound, we find the marks overall more similar than dissimilar, particularly because
we must consider the marks “‘in light of the fallibility of memory.’” See In re St. Helena
Serial No. 88588886
- 9 -
Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting San Fernando
Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elecs. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1 (CCPA
1977)). In Applicant’s mark, the additional wording, CATHOLIC ACADEMY, is
descriptive or generic,10 and has been disclaimed. And in the cited mark, the
additional word, WORSHIP, is similarly descriptive or generic, and has been
disclaimed. As noted above, this reduces the significance of the additional wording in
both marks in the likelihood of confusion analysis because consumers would view it
merely as referring to the goods and services, and would not rely on the wording to
indicate source. See Detroit Athletic Co., 128 USPQ2d at 1050.
As to the marks’ connotations and commercial impressions, we find them to be
similar. Consumers would derive the same meaning and impression from the shared
term NEXT LEVEL in Applicant’s mark as they would in the cited mark, and the
additional generic or descriptive wording in both marks is less significant in terms of
meaning and impression. Applicant makes no argument that NEXT LEVEL carries
a different meaning in its mark than in the cited mark, but insists that the additional
wording distinguishes the marks. While the additional wording certainly differs,
because it conveys information about the goods and services, adding CATHOLIC
ACADEMY and WORSHIP to NEXT LEVEL in the marks does not help consumers
distinguish source. Also, the additional wording in both marks relates to religion,
thereby increasing the overall similarity in commercial impression.

10 The record includes relevant definitions of “Catholic” and “academy.” TSDR October 9, 2020
Request for Reconsideration at 39, 44 (dictionary.com).
Serial No. 88588886
- 10 -
Given the resemblance in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial
impression when the marks are considered in their entireties, the marks are similar,
and the first DuPont factor weighs in favor of likely confusion.
C. Relatedness of the Goods and Services
In analyzing the second DuPont factor, we look to the identifications in the
application and cited registration. See Detroit Athletic Co., 128 USPQ2d at 1051;
Stone Lion Capital Partners v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous. Comput. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937,
16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[L]ikelihood of confusion can be found ‘if the
respective goods [and services] are related in some manner and/or if the
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the
mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.’” Coach Servs., 101 USPQ2d
at 1722 (internal citations omitted). It is sufficient for a refusal based on likelihood of
confusion that relatedness is established for any good or service encompassed by the
identification in a particular class in the application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen.
Mills Fun Grp, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981); In re i.am.symbolic,
llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1409 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 123 USPQ2d 1744.
Applicant offers numerous arguments based on alleged marketplace realities,
such as Registrant’s services focusing on education “outside of the United States,”
and primarily being offered “in person,” and Applicant complains that “[t]he
Examining Attorney has completely ignored this argument because they [sic] were
Serial No. 88588886
- 11 -
based on extrinsic evidence.”11 We agree with the Examining Attorney that we cannot
consider such arguments that improperly attempt, based on extrinsic evidence of use,
to narrow the scope of the cited registration or deviate from the identifications of
goods and services. “Trademark cases involving the issue of likelihood of confusion
must be decided on the basis of the respective descriptions of goods [and services].”
Paula Payne Prods. v. Johnson Pub. Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76, 77 (CCPA 1973)
(citations omitted) (“What is more significant than appellee’s failure to limit the
description of goods to a particular channel of trade or market, is the absence of a
limitation in appellant’s registration which would exclude appellee’s market”). “The
authority is legion that the question of registrability of an applicant’s mark must be
decided on the basis of the identification of goods [and services] set forth in the
application regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an
applicant’s goods [and services], the particular channels of trade or the class of
purchasers to which sales of the goods [and services] are directed.” Octocom Syst., 16
USPQ2d at 1787.
Turning first to Applicant’s Class 41 educational services, the Examining
Attorney argues that they are encompassed by the more broadly recited educational
services in the cited registration. We agree. For example, the cited registration
includes conducting “online courses in the field of religious leadership training and
Christian worship ministry.” The record includes a relevant definition of the noun
form of “worship” as “reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage,

11 7 TTABVUE 12 (Applicant’s Brief).
Serial No. 88588886
- 12 -
or to any object regarded as sacred” and a definition of the verb form, used without
an object, as “to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.”12 Applicant’s
services include “on-line classes … in the field of Catholic catechetical education and
instruction.” The record includes relevant definitions of “Catholic” as “of or relating
to a Catholic church, especially the Roman Catholic Church” and “catholic” as
“pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.”13 We take judicial notice that
“catechetical” can be defined as “[r]elating to religious teaching by means of questions
and answers.”14 Thus, Registrant’s Christian education on rendering religious
reverence and homage overlaps with and encompasses Applicant’s Catholic (as noted
above, a Christian church) religious education by means of questions and answers.
See S.W. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015) (where
the goods in an application or registration are broadly described, they are deemed to
encompass all the goods of the nature and type described therein); In re Hughes
Furniture Indus., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1134, 1137 (TTAB 2015) (“Applicant’s broadly
worded identification of ‘furniture’ necessarily encompasses Registrant’s narrowly
identified ‘residential and commercial furniture.’”).
Turning next to Applicant’s Class 16 printed brochures, booklets, and teaching
materials in the field of Catholic education, Catholic spirituality, and Catholic

12 TSDR October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration at 49 (dictionary.com).
13 TSDR October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration at 38-39 (dictionary.com).
14 Lexico.com entry for “catechetical,” sourced from the Oxford English Dictionary, U.S.
English, accessed June 29, 2021. The Board may take judicial notice of definitions from
dictionaries, including online dictionaries that exist in printed format. E.g., In re S. Malhotra
& Co. AG, 128 USPQ2d 1100, 1104 n.9 (TTAB 2018).
Serial No. 88588886
- 13 -
instruction, the Examining Attorney contends that they are complementary to the
type of educational services in the cited registration. The Examining Attorney points
to Applicant itself as an example of a single source offering services that overlap with
those in the cited registration, and also offering the Class 16 goods under the same
mark. Moreover, the cited registration identifies online “journals,” a type of
publication often found in print form. In addition, the Examining Attorney introduced
12 use-based, third-party registrations showing that the same entity has registered
a single mark identifying both printed materials about religious education, and
educational services in the field of religion.15 Such registrations are relevant to show
that the respective goods are of a type that may emanate from a single source under
one mark. L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1140 (TTAB 2012); In re Albert
Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck
Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988), aff’d (unpublished), No. 88-
1444, 864 F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 1988).
We find the complementary nature of the goods and services, on their face,
buttressed by the third-party registrations and other evidence, sufficient to show the
relatedness of Applicant’s Class 16 goods to the services in the cited registration.
The second DuPont factor weighs in favor of likely confusion, as to both Class 41
and Class 16.

15 TSDR April 10, 2020 Office Action at 2-38.
Serial No. 88588886
- 14 -
D. The Trade Channels and Classes of Consumers
Turning to the trade channels and classes of consumers, because the
identifications in the application and cited registration have no restrictions on
channels of trade, we must presume that the goods and services travel in all channels
of trade appropriate for such printed publications and educational services. See
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005
(Fed. Cir. 2002).
For Applicant’s Class 41 services that are at least in part legally identical to the
Class 41 services in the cited registration, we may presume that the trade channels
and classes of consumers for those overlapping services are identical. See Cai v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
Viterra, 101 USPQ2d at 1908 (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); see also Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v.
Akea, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1743 (TTAB 2014); L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc. v. Cosser, 81
USPQ2d 1956, 1971 (TTAB 2007) (“Because the goods of both parties are at least
overlapping, we must presume that the purchasers and channels of trade would at
least overlap.”).
For Applicant’s Class 16 printed publications, Applicant’s own identification
indicates that the trade channels and classes of consumers overlap with its Class 41
religious education services, because its Class 41 recitation mentions “and
distribution of course materials in connection [with the religious education services]
Serial No. 88588886
- 15 -
in printed format.” Thus, Applicant’s own identification shows that its printed
publications are supplied as part of its educational services, reaching the same
consumers in the same trade channel. This is corroborated by Internet evidence
submitted by Applicant demonstrating that at least one entity (Registrant) engaged
in religious education promotes giving students “amazing materials” in connection
with the educational services.16
Applicant again attempts to read trade channel limitations into the identifications
of services by resorting to extrinsic evidence, but we must rely on the identifications
alone. See Detroit Athletic Co., 128 USPQ2d at 1053 (noting the impermissibility of
an applicant’s attempt to restrict the breadth of the goods or trade channels described
in the cited registration). We cannot consider alleged marketplace realities not
reflected in the identifications, such as Applicant’s contention that Registrant’s
services are only in-person and not online. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222
F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (affirming Board finding that where
the identification is unrestricted, “we must deem the goods to travel in all appropriate
trade channels to all potential purchasers of such goods”).
Thus, the third DuPont factor weighs in favor of likely confusion.
E. Conditions under Which and Buyers to Whom Sales Are Made
The fourth DuPont factor involves “[t]he conditions under which and buyers to
whom sales are made, i.e., impulse vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.” DuPont,

16 TSDR October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration at 63-64.
Serial No. 88588886
- 16 -
177 USPQ at 567. Applicant contends that the cost of its services (advertised as
“Regularly $37/mo”)17 means they would be subject to a higher degree of care in
purchasing. However, Applicant’s identified goods and services are unrestricted in
terms of price point, and we note that Applicant’s own NEXT LEVEL CATHOLIC
ACADEMY website screenshots show that at least some of its services are free, such
as the “FREE LENTEN VIDEO STUDY THAT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE!”18 This
factor is neutral.
III. Conclusion
The overall similarity of the marks for in-part legally identical services and
related goods and services that move in some of the same channels of trade to the
same classes of customers renders confusion likely.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed.

17 TSDR March 13, 2020 Response to Office Action at 97.
18 TSDR March 13, 2020 Response to Office Action at 91.