Tack Cheung Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2000

No. 75478418 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2000)

Paper No. 13
ejs
9/14/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Tack Cheung Corp.
________
Serial No. 75/478,418
_______
Anthony O. Cormier for Tack Cheung Corp.
Glenn Mayerschoff, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
107 (Thomas Lamone, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Seeherman, Wendel and Bucher, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Tack Cheung Corp. has appealed from the final refusal
of the Trademark Examining Attorney to register PATTI'S
PLAYWORLD as a trademark for "dolls, doll houses, doll
accessories, and plastic toy versions of: vehicles,
animals, exercise equipment, cameras, furniture, kitchen
sets, and appliances."1

1 Application Serial No. 75/478,418, filed May 1, 1998, based on
an asserted bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/478,418
2
Registration has been refused pursuant to Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d), on the ground that
applicant's mark so resembles the mark PATTI, registered by
Ty, Inc. for plush toys,2 that, if used on applicant's
identified goods, it would be likely to cause confusion or
mistake or to deceive.
The appeal has been fully briefed, but an oral hearing
was not requested.
We reverse.
Turning first to the marks, it is obvious that PATTI
is, in addition to being the trademark for registrant's
plush toys, the name of the toy, and that the name PATTI in
applicant's mark PATTI'S PLAYWORLD also represents the name
of the doll sold under the mark. Further, applicant points
to two other variations on "PATTI" marks with which the
Examining Attorney initially claimed applicant's mark was
likely to cause confusion: PATTIE for a "stuffed toy doll
with sound chip"3 and PATTY PLAY PAL for dolls.4

2 Registration No. 2,087,838, issued August 12, 1997.
3 Registration No. 2,145,078, issued March 17, 1998.
4 Registration No. 2,226,929, issued March 2, 1999. This
registration had not issued at the time the Examining Attorney
issued his first Office action. The Examining Attorney advised
applicant that it was a prior pending application and that he
might refuse registration under Section 2(d) if it matured into a
registration. Although the Examining Attorney subsequently
stated that he would not cite it as a bar to registration,
applicant has referred to the registration, which did
Ser. No. 75/478,418
3
We agree with applicant that the cited mark, PATTI,
cannot be considered a strong mark for goods such as dolls
and plush toys. In particular, the contemporaneous
registration of these three marks, two of which are for the
identical goods, dolls, indicates that the term PATTI (or
its variants PATTIE and PATTY) is not entitled to a broad
scope of protection. Because dolls are often sold under a
mark which refers to the name of the dolls, and therefore
provides information as to what to call the doll, consumers
are not likely to believe that all dolls and plush toys
sold under marks which contain this relatively common
girl's name emanate from a single source. Thus, although
the term PLAYWORLD in applicant's mark is suggestive of the
doll house and accessories that make up the environment of
Patti the doll, the term PLAYWORLD has greater
differentiating significance than it would have if the
goods and the common elements of the marks were other than
those before us.
The Examining Attorney appears to make the argument
that the third-party registrations, for PATTIE and PATTY
(PLAY PAL) "will have educated consumers to distinguish
their origins by the different spellings and appearances of

subsequently issue, in connection with its argument that PATTI is
a weak mark for the goods at issue.
Ser. No. 75/478,418
4
those names." Brief, p. 3. We disagree that consumers
will note or remember that the other PATTIE/PATTY marks are
spelled differently from PATTI, or that they will
distinguish the marks based on those spellings. If that
were the case, and consumers are not likely to be confused,
for example, between PATTI for plush toys and PATTIE for
stuffed toy dolls with sound chips based solely on whether
one name ends in an "e" and the other does not, then surely
the additional term PLAYWORLD in applicant's mark would be
at least as significant as the final letter "e" in PATTIE.
However, the difference which we find in the marks is
not simply the additional word PLAYWORLD in applicant's
mark, but the general weakness of the shared element,
PATTI, which is a common name for a girl, and will be
regarded as the name of the doll or plush toy.
Also having an impact on our decision is the fact that
applicant's goods--dolls and various doll accessories--are
different from the plush toys identified in the cited
registration. We certainly do not disagree with the fact
that the goods are related: obviously plush toys and dolls
and their accessories are sold in toy stores, and may be
purchased by or for the same class of consumers, i.e.,
adults purchasing items for children or by the children
themselves. The third-party registrations made of record
Ser. No. 75/478,418
5
by the Examining Attorney also show that a particular
company may be the source of both dolls, various doll
accessories, and plush toys. However, it is not as clear
that companies sell both their dolls and plush toys under
the same ordinary girls' names. Several of the third-party
registrations are for merchandising marks, e.g., TOP CAT,
owned by Hanna-Barbera, and the cartoon character;
ANASTASIA, registered by Twentieth Century Fox and the name
of a movie; and SMALL SOLDIERS, owned by Viacom, and also
the name of a movie. The merchandising or house mark
nature of many of the third-party registrations is
reflected by the wide variety of goods for which their
marks are registered, goods ranging from plush toys and
dolls to balloons, ride-on toys, jigsaw puzzles, paper face
masks, skateboards, water-squirting toys, soccer balls,
swim fins and Christmas tree ornaments.5
We should also point out that our determination that
PATTI is a relatively weak term is based on the record
before us. If, for example, in an inter partes proceeding,
evidence were submitted as to the fame or strength of PATTI
as a trademark, we might well find likelihood of confusion.
Applicant itself distinguishes the present situation from
one involving the trademark BARBIE, response filed April 5,

5 Registration No. 2,119,743 for WAKKO.
Ser. No. 75/478,418
6
1999, implying that if there were evidence that suggests
the cited mark or the third-party registered marks were
recognized for the identified goods, the result might be
different.
Decision: The refusal of registration is reversed.
E. J. Seeherman
H. R. Wendel
D. E. Bucher
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board