Ripalip, L.L.C.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

No. 86259338 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: August 8, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Ripalip, L.L.C.
_____

Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
_____

William E. Anderson of Christensen Fonder PA,
for Ripalip, L.L.C.
Miroslav Novakovic, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108,
Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Taylor, Mermelstein and Kuczma,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Ripalip, L.L.C. (“Applicant”) appeals from the final refusals to register on the
Principal Register the marks RIPALIP1 (in standard characters) and 2
(RIPALIP and Design) for (as amended):

1 Application Serial No. 86259338 was filed on April 22, 2014, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act.
2 Application Serial No. 86259431 was filed on April 22, 2014, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 2 -
Bags specially adapted for covering, carrying or storing
marine electronics, namely, GPS device, chartplotter
device, sonar device, and radar device, wherein the bags
have inner dimensions that are sized and shaped to largely
conform to the outer dimensions of the marine electronics
and an opening sized to receive the outer dimensions of the
marine electrons [sic] such that the bags can cover the
marine electronic when mounted on a boat in International
Class 9.
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s marks
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), in view of Registration
No. 39887713 owned by Contemporary Classic Outdoors LLC for the mark RIP SOME
LIPS for fishing lure containers, fishing tackle containers, fishing rod cases and
fishing tackle bags in International Class 28.
When the refusals were made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration of the refusal of Serial No. 86259431. After the Trademark
Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration, Applicant filed its
opening appeal briefs. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant’s opening briefs, the
Board consolidated the appeals for application Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
in an order dated March 15, 2016,4 and the Trademark Examining Attorney
submitted a consolidated brief. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the refusals
to register.

Trademark Act. The mark consists of the front view of a fish having a swollen and bandaged
bottom lip and the word RIPALIP under the fish.
3 Registration No. 3988771 issued July 5, 2011.
4 See 9 TTABVUE in Ex parte Appeal for 86259338; and 12 TTABVUE in Ex parte Appeal for
86259431.
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 3 -
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under § 2(d) of the Trademark Act 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 (CCPA 1973); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d
1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis,
two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities
between the goods at issue. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544
F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976). In this case, Applicant and the Trademark
Examining Attorney have also submitted evidence and arguments regarding the
similarity of the trade channels of the goods and the number and nature of similar
marks in use on similar goods. We carefully considered all of the evidence of record
and arguments as they pertain to the relevant du Pont factors (including any evidence
and arguments not specifically discussed in this opinion). To the extent that any other
du Pont factors for which no evidence or argument were presented may nonetheless
be applicable, we treat them as neutral.
A. Similarity of the Marks
It is well settled that marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in
appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital
Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En
1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 4 -
Applicant’s marks RIPALIP and , and Registrant’s mark RIP SOME LIPS,
are similar in overall appearance because the marks begin with the word “RIP,” and
end with the word “LIP”/“LIPS.” Because Applicant’s marks RIPALIP and RIPALIP
and Design substitute the letter “A” for the word “SOME” in the registered mark RIP
SOME LIPS, there are some differences in the sound and in the appearance of the
marks. However, the “A” and “SOME” portions of the marks convey the same
impression with “SOME” functioning as the plural of “A.” Moreover, the differences
are slight given that the “A” and “SOME” portions of the marks merely serve to
connect the more distinctive shared terms “RIP’ and “LIP(S).” Jack Wolfskin
Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797
F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the Board may state that, for
rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of the
mark). Thus, as a whole, the marks are similar in appearance and sound.
While the last portion of Applicant’s marks do not include an “S” which appears
at the end of the registered mark, it is well established that trademarks and/or service
marks consisting of the singular and plural forms of the same term are essentially
the same mark. See Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D&D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347,
1355 (TTAB 2014) citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 114 USPQ 339, 341
(CCPA 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms
of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark); Chicago Bears
Football Club v. 12th Man/Tennessee LLC, 83 USPQ2d 1073, 1077 (TTAB 2007) (“we
cannot attribute much trademark significance to the difference in the plural and
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 5 -
singular form of the word ‘Bear’ in the marks”); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691,
692 (TTAB 1985) (noting that the pluralization of NEWPORT is “almost totally
insignificant” in terms of likelihood of confusion among purchasers); In re Sarjanian,
136 USPQ 307, 308 (TTAB 1962) (finding no material difference between the singular
and plural forms of RED DEVIL). Therefore, the pluralization of the word “LIP” in
Registrant’s mark does not affect or otherwise diminish the overall similarity
between the marks.
Similarly, the absence of spaces in Applicant’s marks RIPALIP and RIPALIP and
Design, and the presence of spaces in Registrant’s mark RIP SOME LIP, is of little
significance in our comparison of the marks. See Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser
LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1464, 1470 (TTAB 2016) (“the absence of a space in Applicant’s
mark MINIMELTS does not meaningfully distinguish it from Opposer’s [MINI
MELTS] mark”); Mag Instrument Inc. v. Brinkman Corp., 96 UPSQ2d 1701, 1714
(TTAB 2010) (“presence or absence of a space before STAR does very little, if
anything, to distinguish the two marks [MAXSTAR versus MAG STAR]”); Giersch v.
Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1025 (TTAB 2009) (“the spaces that
respondent places between the words [DESIGNED TO SELL] do not create a distinct
commercial impression from petitioner’s presentation of his mark
[DESIGNED2SELL] as one word”); Seaguard Corp. v. Seaward Int’l, Inc., 223 USPQ
48, 51 (TTAB 1984) (“[T]he marks ‘SEAGUARD’ and ‘SEA GUARD’ are, in
contemplation of law, identical.” (internal citation omitted)). The spaces are an
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 6 -
insignificant difference that is not likely to be noticed or remembered by purchasers
when encountering these marks at separate times.
Turning to the commercial impression of the marks, as Applicant admits, the use
of terms containing “RIP” and “LIPS” are used to describe the activity of fishing.5
“Ripping lips” is a term “used by fisherman to describe the action of setting the hook
too hard, resulting in literally ripping the lips off a fish.”6 The design portion of
Applicant’s mark featuring a fish with a bandaged lip rather than
distinguishing the marks, actually emphasizes their similarity by reinforcing the
concept of fishing and the euphemism “ripping lips.” See Herbko Int’l Inc. v. Kappa
Books Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he puzzle design does not
convey any distinct or separate impression apart from the word portion of the mark.
Rather, it serves only to strengthen the impact of the word portion in creating an
association with crossword puzzles.”); In re Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. AG, 110
USPQ2d 1751, 1762 (TTAB 2014) (“the combination of the design with the word
TOURBILLON reinforces the singular impression conveyed by the mark as a whole,
which is nothing more than the significance of ‘tourbillon’”). Therefore, the inclusion
of the design portion of Applicant’s word and design mark does not overcome its
similarity to Registrant’s word mark.

5 Applicant’s Ex Parte Appeal Brief p.11 (6 TTABVUE 12).
6 4/15/2015 Final Office Actions p. 9. from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?
term=ripping+lips 04/14/2015.
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 7 -
While the marks at issue are not identical, when comparing marks, the test is not
whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather
whether the marks are sufficiently similar in their entireties that confusion as to the
source of the goods offered under Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks is likely to
result. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046,
1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813
(TTAB 2014). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who
retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. L’Oreal S.A. v.
Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d
1084, 1089-90 (TTAB 2016); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108
(TTAB 1975). While Applicant’s marks contain the letter “A” in place of the word
“SOME” in the registered mark, the marks create the same commercial impression
by using RIP and LIP(S) in the same order, juxtaposed by “A” or “SOME.”
Based on the overall similarity of the marks RIPALIP, and RIP SOME
LIPS in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, it is likely that the
average purchaser would retain the same recollection for each mark.
B. Number and Nature of Similar Marks in Use on Similar Goods
Applicant maintains that its marks RIPALIP and RIPALIP and Design are not
likely to cause confusion with the registered mark RIP SOME LIPS, in spite of their
common elements “RIP” and “LIP,” because that wording is commercially weak and
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 8 -
diluted, descriptive as related to the goods, and the marks create entirely different
commercial impressions.7
In support, Applicant points to the results of its internet search for “rip some lips”
shown in Exhibit 3,8 which it contends “clearly refers to the activity of fishing.” A
closer look at Applicant’s Exhibit 3 shows it lists a portion of the internet search
results summary for an internet search on the phrase “rip some lips.” Although the
entries in the search results summary only provide limited information, six of the
nine entries identify the same online fishing video/show called “Rip Some Lips” by
hosts identified as Hunter and Grant; the three other entries, generally related to
fishing, do not give sufficient information to ascertain the derivation of their reference
to “rip some lips.”
Search engine results – which provide little context to discern how a term is
actually used on the webpage that can be accessed through the search result link –
may be insufficient to determine the nature of the use of a term or the relevance of
the search results to registration considerations. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488
F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79
USPQ2d 1048 (TTAB 2006) (list of internet search results is “not given much weight”
because “[t]hese web page excerpts do little to show the context within which a term
is used on the web page that could be accessed by the link”). The search result

7 Applicant’s Ex Parte Appeal Briefs p. 11 (6 TTABVUE 12) for Serial No. 86259338 and (9
TTABVUE 12) for Serial No. 86259431.
8 2/23/2015 Responses to Office Action, Exhibit 3, pp. 22-23, from https://www.google.com/
search?q= “rip+some+lips”&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8....
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 9 -
summary identified as Exhibit 3 by Applicant does not provide sufficient information
of the meaning of “rip some lips” or of its commercial weakness.
Applicant also maintains that RIP and LIP are highly diluted as applied to the
relevant goods citing seven third-party registrations for goods in Classes 25 or 28,
arguing that in view of those registrations Registrant’s mark is subject to a narrow
scope of protection.9 Although Applicant failed to submit copies of the registrations
or their electronic equivalent (i.e., complete printouts taken from any of the USPTO’s
automated systems) in order to make the registrations of record, because the
Trademark Examining Attorney failed to object to the chart submitted as Exhibit 5
to Applicant’s 2/23/2015 Responses to the Office Actions, or to advise Applicant of the
insufficiency of this evidence, we deem any objection to be waived, and consider the
evidence set forth in the charts attached as Exhibit 5 to Applicant’s Responses. See
In re 1st USA Realty Professionals Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1583 (TTAB 2007); In re
Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1389 n.2 (TTAB 1991); Trademark Board Manual
of Procedure § 1208.02 (June 2016).
While “… extensive evidence of third-party use and registrations [can be]
‘powerful on its face,’” and is relevant to show that a segment common to both parties’
marks may have “a normally understood and well-recognized descriptive or
suggestive meaning, leading to the conclusion that that segment is relatively weak,”

9 See 2/23/2015 Responses to Office Action pp. 25-26, Exhibit 5, Table of “RIP” and “LIP”
Marks. One of the “registrations” mentioned by Applicant was Application Serial No.
86340961 for the mark RIPPIN LIPS which was abandoned on March 14, 2016, after
Applicant filed its brief. Registration No. 3774460 for the mark RIP FLIPS, also listed on the
Table of “RIP” and “LIP” Marks, is disregarded because it does not contain a form of the word
“LIP.”
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 10 -
such evidence has not been submitted. See Jack Wolfskin, 116 USPQ2d at 1135-36;
Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674-75
(Fed. Cir. 2015). By contrast, Applicant submitted only seven registered marks10
owned by five different owners11 which include the terms “RIP” and “LIP,” and a copy
of one webpage mentioning two of those registered marks in connection with
apparel.12 While a considerable or extensive number of third-party registrations may
well have, in the aggregate, evidentiary value, such evidence is lacking in this case.
The registrations identified by Applicant give little or no indication of the impact of
the mark’s use on consumers of the products involved. See Jack Wolfskin, 116
USPQ2d at 1135-36; Juice Generation, 115 USPQ2d at 1674; In re Mr. Recipe, LLC,
118 USPQ2d at 1089 n. 9 (TTAB 2016).
Four of the seven marks are registered only for apparel, which goods are unrelated
to Applicant’s and Registrant’s non-apparel goods. The weakness or dilution of a
particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of
similar marks in use in the marketplace in connection with similar goods. See In re

10 Registration Nos. 3774460 (RIP FLIPS), 3988771 (RIP SOME LIPS), 4126452 (RIPNLIP
OUTFITTERS (Stylized), 4176223 (RIP N LIP OUTFITTERS), 4348820 (RIP A LIP),
4607312 (LIP RIPPER FISHING GEAR), 4623127 (RIPPN-LIPS), 4648250 (HOOKED ON A
CURE RIPALIP). Applicant also submitted Registration No. 3774460 for the mark RIP
FLIPS, See Exhibit 5, p. 25-26 of 2/23/2015 Responses to Office Action.
11 Registration Nos. 4348820 (RIP A LIP) and 4648250 (HOOKED ON A CURE RIPALIP) for
T-shirts are owned by Rip-A-Lip, LLC and Rip A Lip Inc., located at 647 Pass Road, Gulfport,
Mississippi. Registration Nos. 4126452 (RIPNLIP OUTFITTERS (Stylized)) for decals and
bumper stickers and 4176223 (RIP N LIP OUTFITTERS) for clothing are owned by William
C. Pigott, III of Fort Meyers, Florida.
12 See 2/23/2015 Responses to Office Action, Exhibit 4, p. 24, Rip A Lip Fish Wear webpage
from http://www.ripalipfishwear.com/our-story.html.
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 11 -
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ at 567; In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021,
1026 (TTAB 2006); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d at 1389. Of the three remaining
registered marks, one is for decals and bumper stickers which is not related to either
Applicant’s or Registrant’s goods and therefore is not relevant. The last two
registrations are for Registrant’s mark and for the registered mark RIPPN-LIPS
which is different from Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks.
Additionally, Applicant argues the fact that the marks in the two registrations
initially cited against Applicant’s applications13 (i.e., Registrant’s mark and
Registration No. 4348820 for RIP A LIP for “ T-shirts”) are “peacefully coexisting
without confusion on the [trademark] register” means there is room for Applicant’s
marks, which are for differing goods and have a different appearance and sound.14 As
noted above, Registration No. 4348820 is for unrelated apparel items and therefore
is not relevant.
Not only are the registrations identified by Applicant (with the exception of
Registrant’s registration) for very different goods, the Board is not bound by the prior
decisions of examining attorneys in allowing marks for registration. It has been noted
many times that each case must be decided on its own facts. “Even if all of the third-
party registrations should have been refused registration...such errors do not bind
the USPTO to improperly register Applicant’s marks.” In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop,

13 Registration Nos. 3988771 (RIP SOME LIPS) and 4348820 (RIP A LIP) were initially cited
against Applicant’s applications. However, the refusal to register based on Registration No.
4348820 was subsequently withdrawn. See 4/15/2015 Final Office Actions p. 3.
14 Applicant’s Ex Parte Appeal Briefs p. 13 (6 TTABVUE 14) for Serial No. 86259338 and (9
TTABVUE 14) for Serial No. 86259431.
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 12 -
571 F.3d 1171, 91 USPQ2d 1218, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2009), citing In re Boulevard
Entertainment, Inc., 334 F.3d 1336, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also
In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even
if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to [applicant’s]
application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind the Board
or this court.”). Thus, the limited third-party registrations submitted by Applicant do
not compel a different result.
While Registrant’s mark is suggestive of the fishing-related goods identified in its
registration, even if marks containing the terms “RIP” and “LIP” are deemed to be
weak, marks deemed “weak” are still entitled to protection against the registration
by a subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related and complementary goods.
In re Max Capital Group Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1246 (TTAB 2010); In re Chica Inc.,
84 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (TTAB 2007); In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 216 USPQ 793, 795
(TTAB 1982).
Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient for us to find that customers are so used
to seeing marks containing the terms “RIP” and “LIP” for the types of products
identified in the cited registration and subject applications such that the cited mark
is so weak or otherwise entitled to such a narrow scope of protection that customers
would be careful in distinguishing Registrant’s mark from Applicant’s marks.
C. Similarity of the Goods, Channels of Trade and Purchasers
We turn now to the du Pont factor involving the relatedness of the parties’ goods
and keep in mind that it is not necessary that the respective goods be similar or
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 13 -
competitive to support a holding of likelihood of confusion. It is sufficient that the
respective goods are related in some manner, or that the circumstances surrounding
their marketing of the goods are such that they would be likely to be encountered by
the same persons under circumstances that could, because of the similarity of the
marks, give rise to the mistaken belief that they originated from the same producer.
See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d at 1388; In re International Telephone &
Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910, 911 (TTAB 1978). Even if the goods in question are
different from, and thus not related to one another 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. Recot Inc. v.
M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The respective
goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding
their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the
goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Services, Inc. v.
Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); In re Albert
Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 1993).
Contrary to Applicant’s argument15, the fact that Applicant’s goods, i.e., bags
specially adapted for covering, carrying or storing marine electronics, namely, GPS

15 Applicant’s Ex Parte Appeal Briefs p. 14 (6 TTABVUE 15) and pp. 14-15 (9 TTABVUE 15-
16).
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 14 -
device, chartplotter device, sonar device, and radar device, … wherein the bags have
inner dimensions such that the bags can cover the marine electronic when mounted
on a boat, and Registrant’s goods, i.e., fishing lure containers, fishing tackle
containers, fishing rod cases and fishing tackle bags, “are categorized in different
classes” by the USPTO (Class 9 for Applicant’s goods and Class 28 for Registrant’s
goods) does not establish that the goods are unrelated. The determination of the
classification of goods is a purely administrative determination unrelated to the
determination of likelihood of confusion. Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971,
975, 29 USPQ2d 1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Graco Inc. v. The Warner-Graham
Company, 164 USPQ 400, 402 (TTAB 1969), citing In re Knapp-Monarch Company,
296 F.2d 230, 132 USPQ 6, 7 (CCPA 1961).
Here, Applicant’s bags for covering, carrying or storing marine electronics
including GPS devices that the bags can cover when mounted on a boat, and
Registrant’s fishing tackle bags, are related. Not only are these goods for use on a
boat16, they are offered for sale on the same websites, many of which are specifically
targeted to fishing gear.17

16 Registrant’s fishing tackle bags can be used on a boat. See for example, the listings for:
AFTCO Angler’s Bag AB2001ROY which states: “The AFTCO Angler’s Bag is designed to
carry all of the tackle, clothing and accessories needed for multi-day trips aboard private
yachts or party boats….” http://www.tackledirect.com/aftco-anglers-bag.html p. 31; Simms
Headwaters Tackle Bag which states “…Simms’ Headwaters™ Tackle Bag offers garage-like
gear capacity from truck tailgate to boat deck and beyond….” http://www.reds
flyfishing.com/Simms-Headwaters-Tackle-Bag-p/simms-headwaters-takcle-bag.htm p. 84,
4/15/2015 Final Office Actions.
17 See for example: http://www.alltackle.com; http://www.tackledirect.com; http://kayak
fishinggear.com; http://www.reelflyrod.com; http://www.redsflyfishing.com; http://www.
anglerschoicetackle.com cited in 4/15/2015 Final Office Actions.
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 15 -
The evidence shows that fishing tackle bags and bags for protecting, storing and
carrying marine electronics such as GPS devices are offered for sale at the same on-
line stores to the same classes of consumers, i.e., those who wish to use fishing gear
and GPS devices on a boat. Indeed, the internet evidence from third-party retailers
and producers of fishing and outdoor products show that fishing tackle bags feature
pockets that are specially adapted for carrying and storing electronics, including GPS
devices. For example:
• Newegg advertisement for the Ready To Fish Sided Tackle Bag, which “is
loaded with features to keep your fishing tackle” including “adjustable
compartments” and “pockets for electronics” from
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=9SIA1N60K60775
[See pp. 23-24 of the August 22, 2014 Office Actions].

• Sea Isle Tackle advertises the OHO Captain’s Bag, wherein “the interior of
the bag is lined with many pockets” such as “waterproof interior pocket for
electronics” http://www.seaisletackle.com/browse.cfm/4,4631.html [See
pp. 26-27 of August 22, 2014 Office Actions].

• Fishing Tackle Unlimited advertises the PFG Captain’s Bag, being “built
for the ultimate boat captain,” which is outfitted with “transparent
electronics pocket,” “fishing lure zipper pull,” and “padded laptop sleeve”
http://www.fishingtackleunlimited.com/p/fishing/c-/COLUM-UU9421-
491.html [See pp. 28-29 of the August 22, 2014 Office Actions].

• Calcutta advertises and lists for sale its Calcutta CTB10-360-4 Tackle Bag
featuring “4 utility boxes” and “Cell phone/GPS holder” from http://www.
calcuttafishingstore.com/products/bags-and-backpacks/backpacks/tackle
-bag-with-4-utility-boxes-black-and-yellow-CTB10-360-4.htm [See pp. 24-
25 of the April 15, 2015 Final Office Actions].

• Alltackle.com advertises the Albackore Fishing Tackle Backpack, wherein
“the top section can be used to hold power bait, binoculars, valuable
electronics” http://www.alltackle.com/albacore tackle bag.htm [See pp. 13-
19 of the April 15, 2015 Final Office Actions].

• Amazon.com advertises the Calcutta Gray Tackle Bag with 4 360 Trays,
which “offers tons of storage” and “Cell phone/GPS holder”
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 16 -
http://www.amazon.com/Calcutta-Gray-Tackle-Bag-Trays/dp/B0040
DR5BU [See pp. 20-21 of the April 15, 2015 Final Office Actions].

• Sports Authority advertises the FieldTeq Soft Sided Tackle Bag with “eight
external accessory pockets, dedicated electronics and map pockets”, where
“you can keep your lures, hooks and other fishing supplies separate and
organized” http://www.sportsauthority.com/FieldTeq-Soft-Sided-Tackle-
Bag/product.jsp?productId=43863136 [See pp. 26-27 of the April 15, 2015
Final Office Actions].

• Cabela’s advertises the Cabela’s Pro Guide® Tackle Bag, which “allows for
maximum storage potential and versatility” due to its “innovative utility
box configuration” and “feltlined cellphone/GPS pocket”
http://www.cabelas.com/ensemble/25-Off-Tackle-Storage%7C/pc/
106974180/Cabelas-Pro-Guide174-Tackle-Bags/6755.uts?destination=
/catalog/product... [See p. 29 of the April 15, 2015 Final Office Actions].

• TackleDirect advertises the AFTCO Angler’s Bag AB2001ROY, which “is
100% padded on all sides with sewn-in closed-cell foam to protect valuable
accessories” such as “cameras, binoculars, hand-held GPS, PDA’s, tackle,
etc.” http://www.tackledirect.com/aftco-anglers-bag.html [See pp. 31-32 of
the April 15, 2015 Final Office Actions].

• Angler’s Choice advertises the Calcutta CBB-MED Medium Boat Bag
featuring “a waterproof pouch,” which “is the perfect protection for cell
phones, wallets and other valuables from the elements, etc.,” and the
Calcutta CT1010WC Tackle Bag http://www.anglerschoicetackle.com/
calcutta/calcutta-cbblg-yellow-boat-bag-25830 [See pp. 89-92 of the April
15, 2015 Final Office Actions].

Applicant’s goods are used for carrying and storing marine electronics, including
GPS devices. The foregoing evidence establishes that fishing tackle bags are designed
to carry fishing tackle as well as other related items including, GPS devices. Thus,
Applicant’s goods are related and complementary to Registrant’s goods inasmuch as
Registrant’s fishing tackle bags can be used for carrying items such as GPS devices.
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 17 -
The evidence also shows that fishing tackle bags and bags for marine electronics,
including GPS devices, are commonly sold in the same on-line stores to the same
classes of customers, sometimes under the same trademark, such as Bass Pro:
• Bass Pro Shop lists the Bass Pro Shops Electronics Case, which is to protect
and store “GPS unit, fishfinder, and other expensive electronics,” along with
the Bass Pro Shops StalkerXPS Top Loader Tackle Bag
www.basspro.com/Bass-Pro-Shops-ElectronicsCase/product/10208991/
?cmCat=CROSSSELL_PRODUCT; www.basspro.com/Bass-Pro-Shops-
StalkerXPS-Top-Loader-Tackle-Bag-or-System/product/1304050934/
[See pp. 38-39 of the August 22, 2014 Office Action].

• Fishing Tackle Unlimited offers the Plano Softsider Tackle Bag with three
utility boxes, and the E-Merse Submersible Electronic Case for protecting
“cellphones, iPods, digital cameras, or other electronics”
http://www.fishingtackleunlimited.com/p/fishing/c-/PL-4464-00.html
[See pp. 30-31 of the August 22, 2014 Office Action].

• HOOK 1 Kayak Fishing Gear lists a number of tackle bags and boxes, such
as the Berkley Tackle Bag and various bags, cases and boxes for storing and
carrying electronics including the Attwood Dry Storage Box
http://www.kayakfishinggear.com/search?q=tackle&type=product [See
pp. 35-39 of the April 15, 2015 Final Office Action].

• ReelFlyRod.com offers various fishing and boat bags such as the Simms
Headwaters Tackle Bag, being advertised as “the end all tackle bag for
absolutely all your fly gear,” and the Patagonia Stormfront Roll Top Boat
Bag, which is “ideal for dry storage and transporting extra gear/electronics
to and from the water” http://www.reelflyrod.com/BAGS-LUGGAGE
c282.htm [See pp. 43-46 of the April 15, 2015 Final Office Action].

• Academy Sports+Outdoors offers various tackle and waterproof bags,
including the No Limits E-reader/Tablet Waterproof Pouch, as well as
containers for protecting and storing fishing gear and electronics, such as
sonar accessories and fishfinders http://www.academy .com/ shop /Cata-
logSearch?catalogId=10051&rel=nofollow&langId=-1&storId=10151&N=
[See pp. 56-59, 60, 61-62 of the April 15, 2015 Final Office Action].

• Overton’s lists for sale different marine electronics devices, such as GPS
navigation devices and the Lowrance Elite-3x DSI fishfinder, and a “wide
selection of tackle boxes, tackle trays, and sportsman’s bags in a variety of
sizes and shapes,” including the Overton’s Large Boat Bag and the Gander
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 18 -
Mountain Soft Tackle Bag http://www.overtons.com/marine-electronics/ ;
http://www.overtons.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?pdesc=Overtons-
Large-Boat-Bag&i=96874;http://www.overtons.com/search/tackle%20
bag [See pp. 69, 76-77, 80 of the April 15, 2015 Final Office Action].

In view of the foregoing, Registrant’s fishing tackle bags and Applicant’s bags for
carrying marine electronics such as GPS devices, are related goods sold in the same
on-line fishing (i.e., tackle, fishing, fly fishing, fishing gear stores) and sporting goods
specialty stores to the same class of consumers, i.e., people who want to fish while
they are on a boat. Thus, Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are related.
Applicant argues that its goods are limited to bags that include inner dimensions
sized and shaped to largely conform to the outer dimensions of the marine electronics,
while Registrant’s fishing tackle bags would never be used for such purposes or in
such a manner because they would not be sized to conform to specific marine
electronic devices.18 Applicant’s RIPALIP bags displayed on its website are shown in
two sizes: 13.5” W x 10” H x 4.5” D (designed to hold screen sizes of 8-12 inches) and
9.5” W x 8” H x 3.5” D (designed to fit[s] screen sizes 7 inches or less).19 The evidence
submitted by the Trademark Examining Attorney shows for example, the FieldTeq
Soft Sided Tackle Bag having “Eight external accessory pockets” by Sports Authority
is 18” W x 10” H x 14” D; Cabela’s Pro Guide® Tackle Bags having a cell phone/GPS
pocket, measure 14 ½” W x 10” H x 12” D and 18 ½” W x 12” H x 14” D; Tackle Direct
lists the AFTCO Angler’s Bag AB2001ROY with “sewn-in closed-cell foam to protect

18 Applicant’s Ex Parte Briefs p. 14 (6 TTABVUE 15) (9 TTABVUE 15).
19 See 4/15/2015 Final Office Actions pp. 10-12 showing pages from Applicant’s website http:
//www.ripalip.com/meps cover.php.
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 19 -
valuable accessories such as cameras, binoculars, hand-held GPS…” measuring 23”
W x 14” H x 12” D; and Red’s Fly Shop offers the Simms Headwaters Tackle Bag with
“garage-like gear capacity from trunk tailgate to boatdeck and beyond” is 18” W x 11”
H x 11” D.20 Thus, the fishing tackle bags come in sizes that could receive GPS
products of the size that Applicant’s products are designed to receive. Even if fishing
men and women carry GPS products in a separate bag from the bag that contains
their fishing lures, the evidence shows that retailers specializing in fishing related
products offer bags of both types.
The issue is not whether consumers would confuse the goods themselves, but
rather whether they would be confused as to the source of the goods. In re Davia, 110
USPQ2d at 1818; In re Toshiba Medical Systems Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1271-72
(TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound
devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary
purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel of the same
patients to treat the same disease); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830, 831 (TTAB 1984)
(due to the similarity of the marks and related nature of goods, purchasers of LITTLE
GOLIATH stapler kits and GOLIATH large diameter woodcased pencils are likely to
believe that both products emanate from or are in some way associated with same

20 For example, see 4/15/2015 Final Office Actions, Sports Authority http://www.sports
authority.com/FiledTeq-Soft-Sided-Tackle-Bag/product.jsp?productId=43863136 pp. 26-27;
Cabela’s Pro Guide® Tackle Bag http://www.cabelas.com/ensemble/25-Off-Tackle-Storage
%7C/pc/106974180/Cabelas-Pro-Guide174-Tackle-Bags... pp. 29; Tackle Direct AFTCO
Angles’s Bag AB2001ROY http://www.tackledirect.com/aftco-anglers-bag.html pp. 31-32;
Red’s Fly Fishing offers Simms Headwaters Tackle Bag http://www.redflyfishing.com
/Simms-Headwaters-Tackle-Bag-p/simms-headwaters-tackle-bag.htm, pp. 83-84.
Serial Nos. 86259338 and 86259431
- 20 -
source). Applicant’s goods are bags for marine electronics, including GPS and other
systems, used on boats. As shown by the evidence submitted, bags that can be used
to hold GPS devices are sold on the same fishing-related websites that sell fishing
tackle bags. Therefore, the purchasers for such goods would include boaters who use
their boats for fishing. The overlap in trade channels and purchasers are also factors
that weigh in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion. Applicant’s goods and
Registrant’s goods are items which are likely to be sold through the same retail
outlets to the same classes of purchasers. Therefore, marketing of these goods under
similar marks would be likely to cause confusion as to source.
In view of the foregoing, the goods are complementary and closely related, travel
in the same channels of trade, and are sold to the same classes of purchasers,
supporting a likelihood of confusion under the second and third du Pont factors.
D. Conclusion
While Applicant’s marks RIPALIP and , and Registrant’s mark RIP SOME
LIPS, are not identical, there is a strong similarity in sound, sight, meaning and
commercial impression. Additionally, the goods for which Applicant seeks to register
its marks are related to the goods recited in the cited registration, and the channels
of trade and classes of purchasers are overlapping. Therefore, we find a likelihood of
confusion between Applicant’s marks and the cited mark for the identified goods.
Decision: The refusals to register the marks in application Serial Nos. 86259338
and 86259431 under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act are affirmed.