Spinergy, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 1997

No. 74557929 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 1997)

Paper No. 13
EWH/kk
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE
AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB NOV 6, 97
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Spinergy Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/557,929
_______
Clarence A. Green of Perman & Green for Spinergy Inc.
Jeffery D. Frazier, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
104 (Sidney I. Moskowitz, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Cissel, Hanak and Hohein, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hanak, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Spinergy Inc. (applicant) seeks registration of REV-X
in typed capital letters for “mountain bicycle wheels and
racing bicycle wheels made of carbon fiber composite
materials.” The intent-to-use application was filed August
4, 1994.
The examining attorney refused registration pursuant to
Section 2(d) of the Lanham Trademark Act on the basis that
applicant’s mark, as applied to applicant’s goods, is likely
Ser No. 74/557929
2
to cause confusion with the mark REV and design, previously
registered in the form shown below for “bicycle parts and
accessories – namely, handlebar pads, frame bar pads, single
stem pads, double stem pads and seat covers.” Registration
No. 1,371,220.

When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed to
this Board. Applicant and the examining attorney filed
briefs. Applicant did not request a hearing.
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key
considerations are the similarities of the goods and the
similarities of the marks. Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort
Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA
1976).
In this case, while the marks are obviously similar, by
the same token, they are by no means identical. We simply
do not share the examining attorney’s view that “the letter
X in the applicant’s mark does not serve to change the
commercial impression created by the term REV.” (Examining
attorney’s brief page 5). The letter X is a significant
component of applicant’s mark, and in addition, it is
Ser No. 74/557929
3
clearly noticeable because it is separated from the REV
portion of applicant’s mark by means of a hyphen.
Moreover, we note that the only component common to
both applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark is the term REV.
The examining attorney has attached to his brief a
dictionary listing for the term “rev” showing that it means
“to increase the speed of.” Thus, as applied to applicant’s
carbon fiber bicycle wheels, the term REV is highly
suggestive. Applicant has made of record the declaration of
its Vice President, Gary Marcus. Attached to the Marcus
declaration are advertisements for carbon fiber bicycle
wheels manufactured by applicant and by applicant’s
competitors. These advertisements make it clear that one of
the reasons for purchasing very expensive carbon fiber
bicycle wheels is to enable the bicycle to go faster by
reducing the weight of the bicycle and by reducing the
amount of air drag. Because the term REV is highly
suggestive of at least applicant’s goods, it must be
remembered that “the mere presence of a common, highly
suggestive portion [word] is usually insufficient to support
a finding of likelihood of confusion.” Tektronix, Inc. v.
Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693, 694 (CCPA
1976).
Ser No. 74/557929
4
Considering next the goods, they are obviously related
in that they all are bicycle parts. However, once again,
the goods are by no means nearly identical.
In addition, applicant has established through the
Marcus declaration that carbon fiber bicycle wheels in
general, and not just applicant’s particular carbon fiber
bicycle wheels, are very expensive. Moreover, the examining
attorney has never taken issue with applicant’s contention
that purchasers of carbon fiber bicycle wheels are
sophisticated. In this regard, in deciding whether there is
a likelihood of confusion, it must be remembered that “there
is always less likelihood of confusion where goods are
expensive” and that purchaser “sophistication is important
and often dispositive because sophisticated consumers may be
expected to exercise greater care.” Electronic Design &
Sales v. Electronic Data Systems, 954 F.2d 713, 21 USPQ2d
1388, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As an example of just how
expensive carbon fiber bicycle wheels are, the exhibits to
Mr. Marcus’ declaration demonstrate that the typical retail
price for just one such wheel is in the range of $300 to
$600.
Given the very high cost of carbon fiber bicycle wheels
in general, we share applicant’s view that before making
such a purchase, these sophisticated consumers would
exercise careful consideration. Again, it should be
Ser No. 74/557929
5
remembered that “there is always less likelihood of
confusion where goods are … purchased after careful
consideration.” Electronic Design, 21 USPQ2d at 1392.
Given the fact that the marks and goods involved are by
no means nearly identical; the fact that the term REV is
highly suggestive when applied to applicant’s goods; and,
perhaps most importantly, given the fact that applicant’s
goods as described in the application are quite expensive
and are purchased only by sophisticated consumers exercising
considerable care, we find that the contemporaneous use of
the two marks for the respective goods is not likely to
result in confusion.
The decision: The refusal to register is reversed.
R. F. Cissel
E. W. Hanak
G. D. Hohein
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board