Sales U.S.A., LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2007

No. 78475939 (T.T.A.B. May. 15, 2007)

Mailed:
May 15, 2007
Bucher

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Sales U.S.A., LLC
________

Serial No. 78475939
_______

Gerard T. Gallagher and Thomas J. Mauch of Baker & Daniels
LLP for Sales U.S.A., LLC.

Rebecca L. Gilbert, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 103 (Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Walters, Bucher and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Sales U.S.A., LLC seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark GO-FOR (in standard character format)
for the following goods, as amended: “low speed vehicles,
namely carts, marketed to the marine industry” in
International Class 12.1
This case is now before the Board on appeal from the
final refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to

1 Application Serial No. 78475939 was filed on August 30,
2004 based upon applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention
to use the mark in commerce.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 78475939
- 2 -
register this designation based upon Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). The Trademark
Examining Attorney has found that applicant’s mark, when
used in connection with the identified goods, so resembles
the mark GO-4 (in standard character format) for “motorized
three-wheeled land vehicles” also in International Class
12,2 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake
or to deceive.
The Trademark Examining Attorney and applicant have
fully briefed the case. We affirm the refusal to
register.
In arguing for registrability, applicant contends
that applicant’s mark and the registered mark create
different overall commercial impressions, that applicant’s
goods are different from registrant’s goods, and that the
respective goods will flow through different channels of
trade.
By contrast, the Trademark Examining Attorney
contends that the goods must be considered to be nearly
identical inasmuch as both marks share the same dominant

2 Registration No. 1756696 issued to Westward Industries
Ltd. on March 9, 1993 and then was subsequently assigned to
4389833 Manitoba Ltd.
Serial No. 78475939
- 3 -
feature, “Go,” and are phonetically identical, creating
very similar commercial impressions.
Likelihood of Confusion
We turn then to a consideration of the issue of
likelihood of confusion. Our determination of likelihood
of confusion is based upon our analysis of all of the
probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the
factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of confusion.
See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,
177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also In re Majestic
Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, however, two key, although not exclusive,
considerations are the similarities between the marks and
the relationship between the goods and/or services. See
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Dixie
Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Goods
It is not necessary that the goods at issue move in
the same channels of trade to support a holding of
likelihood of confusion. It is sufficient that the
Serial No. 78475939
- 4 -
respective goods are related in some manner, and/or that
the conditions and activities surrounding the marketing of
the goods are such that they would or could 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 originate from the same
producer. In re International Telephone & Telegraph
Corp., 197 USPQ 910, 911 (TTAB 1978).
Applying this standard, we note that applicant’s
goods have been identified as "low speed vehicles, namely,
carts, marketed to the marine industry.” As identified,
these carts appear to be motorized and could well include
three-wheeled vehicles. The trade channels are limited,
however, to the marine industry.
Applicant argues that registrant’s goods are
different in nature. For example, applicant argues that
while its vehicles are identified as low-speed vehicles,
registrant’s vehicles are able to move at speeds of up to
40 MPH. Applicant’s brief, p. 8. However, there are
several problems with this argument.
On the face of the cited registration, the top land
speed of registrant’s motorized, three-wheeled vehicles is
not stated. Furthermore, the screenprints from the
Serial No. 78475939
- 5 -
website of Westward Industries Ltd. were not submitted
until the time of the appeal brief. The Trademark
Examining Attorney correctly objected to their tardy
submission inasmuch as the record in an application must
be complete prior to appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d); TBMP
§§ 1207.01 et seq. See Rexall Drug Co. v. Manhattan Drug
Co., 284 F.2d 391, 128 USPQ 114 (CCPA 1960); and In re
Psygnosis Ltd., 51 USPQ2d 1594 (TTAB 1999). Accordingly,
we have not considered these web pages.3
Nonetheless, one could certainly envision a “low-
speed, motorized, three-wheeled land vehicle marketed to
the marine industry” that would fit both registrant’s and
applicant’s respective identifications of goods.
Accordingly, the record does not support applicant’s
arguments that these goods must be considered to be so
very different in nature, and we find that this du Pont
factor favors the position of the Trademark Examining
Attorney.

3 We hasten to add that even if we had considered the
contents of this website, it would not have changed the result
herein.

Serial No. 78475939
- 6 -
Channels of trade
As to channels of trade, applicant argues that
inasmuch as registrant’s goods are different in nature,
they will necessarily move through different channels of
trade. Specifically, applicant argues that registrant’s
goods are targeted to “security personnel or police
officers” – a distinctly different market than the marine
industry.
However, as noted above, the target audience for
registrant’s motorized vehicles is in no way limited on
the face of the registration. Accordingly, we must
presume that registrant’s goods may be sold in all of the
normal channels of trade to all of the usual purchasers
for goods of the type identified, i.e., that they might be
sold to the marine industry as well. See Canadian
Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813
(Fed. Cir. 1987).4 Hence, this related du Pont factor also
favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.

4 Applicant must acknowledge that if, despite their tardy
submission, we were to consider registrant’s web pages, we would
conclude that the primary targeted use for the GO-4 vehicle
appears to be municipal parking enforcement. While “security
patrol” and “policing” do appear on the listing of uses, this
vehicle is also touted as being useful for deliveries, courier
services and maintenance. These latter applications would not
seem incompatible with the types of uses the marine industry
might find appropriate for a low-speed, motorized vehicle.
Serial No. 78475939
- 7 -
Marks
We consider next the du Pont factor that focuses on
the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their
entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression. Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve
Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369,
73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In making this determination, our focus should be
placed on the recollection of the average consumer who
normally retains a general rather than a specific
impression of trademarks. Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper
Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975).
While we must consider the marks in their entireties,
in articulating reasons for reaching a conclusion on the
issue of likelihood of confusion, there is nothing
improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or
less weight has been given to a particular feature of a
mark. See In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224
USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [CASH MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT found
confusingly similar to THE CASH MANAGEMENT EXCHANGE].
The Trademark Examining Attorney has taken the
position that applicant’s proposed mark has the same sound
as the registered mark (both pronounced “gō-fôr”), and
Serial No. 78475939
- 8 -
that this fact, combined with the dominance of the
identical first word, “GO,” results in two marks that
create similar commercial impressions.
Acknowledging that the marks are substantially
identical phonetically, applicant contends that given
their visual differences, their respective commercial
impressions are substantially different.
We find that, as agreed upon by applicant and the
Trademark Examining Attorney, these two marks are likely
to be perceived as phonetically identical.
As to appearance, although “GO” is the first word of
both marks, it is true that registrant uses the numeral
“4” while applicant’s proposed mark uses the word “for.”
This does create some dissimilarity in overall appearance.5
As to connotation and commercial impression,
applicant argues that the word “for” is not the correct
spelling for the Arabic numeral “4,” and that trademarks
“utilizing Arabic numerals often utilize the numerals in
an effort to communicate a version level or revision level
of the product.” Applicant’s reply brief, p. 3. However,

5 We disagree with applicant’s characterization in its reply
brief, p. 2, that the visual differences in the marks are
“vast.” Rather, we find the overall appearance of the marks to
be somewhat different but cannot agree that the difference in
the second portions of these respective marks is as dramatic as
applicant argues.
Serial No. 78475939
- 9 -
there is no evidence in the record supporting applicant’s
assertion that this could be the fourth version of
registrant’s motorized vehicle. In fact, it is just as
likely that registrant, in adopting its mark, chose to use
this numeral as a catchy, conversational shorthand for the
word “for” in a manner not unlike one often sees used in
vanity license plates, or as a popular electronic
shorthand frequently used in casual exchanges such as
instant messaging or email transmissions.
Accordingly, “GO” is the first word of both marks,
and both trademarks end with the identical-sounding term,
“fôr.” Moreover, we recognize that the numeral “4” is
sometimes used as a shorthand for the word “for.” Hence,
when we consider the marks in their entireties, weighing
the slight difference in appearances against the marks’
identical phonetic properties, we find that the marks do
not have distinct connotations nor do they create sharply
different commercial impressions. Hence, given the
construction of these two marks, we find that these marks
are confusingly similar.
Conclusion
The goods herein must be construed as potentially
being closely related, and the same customers could
Serial No. 78475939
- 10 -
encounter and purchase the respective goods in the same or
similar channels of trade. The respective marks are
identical phonetically and quite similar as to commercial
impressions. Accordingly, we find there is a likelihood
of confusion.
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register herein
based upon Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.