U. S. Lock Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2001

No. 75717463 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2001)

9/28/01 Paper No. 12
RLS/JMP

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re U.S. Lock Corp.
________

Serial No. 75/717,463
_______

Myron Amer of Myron Amer, P.C. for U.S. Lock Corp.

Richard R. Alves, Jr., Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 104 (Sidney I. Moskowitz, Managing Attorney)
_______

Before Simms, Walters and Rogers, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:

U.S. Lock Corp. (applicant), a New York corporation,
has appealed from the final refusal of the Trademark
Examining Attorney to register the mark SECURITY PRO for
metal mechanical locks.1 The Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 2(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1052(d), on basis of the Registration No. 2,128,252,
issued January 13, 1998, for the mark SECURITY PRO

1 Application Serial No. 75/717,463, filed June 1, 1999, based
upon allegations of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce. Pursuant to request, applicant submitted a disclaimer
of the word “SECURITY.”
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/717,463
2
(“SECURITY” disclaimed) for security alarm systems, namely,
phone programmable hardware or wireless central processing
units and associated radio receivers, hardwire security
modules, digitized communicators, annunciation drivers and
energy conservation modules. Applicant and the Examining
Attorney have submitted briefs but no oral hearing was
requested.
The Examining Attorney argues that the respective
marks are identical and that applicant’s metal locks are
closely related to registrant’s security alarm systems.
The Examining Attorney argues that mechanical locks are
often used with security systems and that the same
companies make both of these goods. In support of this
argument, the Examining Attorney has submitted a number of
use-based third-party registrations covering both
electronic security systems (and alarms) on the one hand
and metal locks on the other. The Examining Attorney also
notes that in one of the registrations the security systems
incorporate metal locks. The Examining Attorney has also
relied upon the following excerpts obtained from the Nexis
computer search system from domestic newspapers and
magazines:

Harrow, a privately held company based in Grand
Rapids, Mich., has annual sales of about $155
Serial No. 75/717,463
3
million, Ingersoll-Rand said. Harrow makes
doors, locks, bath fixtures and electronic
security systems such as hand-geometry scanners.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Finley also sells security systems and
noisemakers that scream, beep and buzz; locks,
pepper sprays, stun guns and whistles; and safety
products such as carbon dioxide monitors, oven
knob covers, auto harnesses for pets and an
inflatable safety man.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yale Security Inc., with worldwide headquarters
in Monroe, manufactures and markets padlocks,
door-locking products, door-closing devices,
electronic locking systems, and other security
systems and devices.

Applicant, on the other hand, argues that the marks,
albeit identical, are laudatorily suggestive. Applicant
maintains that the goods are different and that a person
looking to buy a metal lock would not buy a security alarm
system. Applicant argues that security alarm systems use
electronic parts rather than mechanical parts found in
applicant’s metal locks. Electronics and mechanics are
different trades, and it is unlikely that security systems
and metal locks, which are competitive products, would be
perceived as coming from the same source, applicant argues.
Applicant argues that retailers selling electronic
equipment are not likely to sell mechanical locks and that
Serial No. 75/717,463
4
hardware stores selling locks are not likely to stock
electronic alarm systems.
Upon careful consideration of the arguments of the
attorneys and this record, we agree with the Examining
Attorney that confusion is likely.
The determination of likelihood of confusion is based
on an analysis of all of the facts in evidence that are
relevant to the factors bearing on the issue. In re E. I.
du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA
1973). In any likelihood-of-confusion analysis, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and
the similarities between the goods. Federated Foods, Inc.
v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA
1976).
With respect to the goods, it is not necessary that
the goods be identical or even competitive in nature in
order to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. It
is sufficient that the circumstances surrounding their
marketing be such that they would be likely to be
encountered by the same persons under circumstances that
would give rise, because of the marks used in connection
therewith, to the mistaken belief that the goods originate
from or are in some way associated with the same source.
In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565,
Serial No. 75/717,463
5
223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re International
Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).
First, with respect to the marks, while they may be
considered somewhat suggestive, they are identical. And,
as the Examining Attorney has contended, the respective
goods need not be so closely related in order support a
finding of likelihood of confusion where the marks are
identical.
Second, concerning the goods, while there is no
question but that applicant’s metal locks and registrant’s
electronic security systems are different products, the
evidence of record supports the Examining Attorney’s
argument that the same companies may manufacture and sell
both types of goods. Customers are likely, therefore, to
have become accustomed to seeing both locks and security
systems coming from the same source. Accordingly, we
believe that purchasers, aware of registrant’s SECURITY PRO
electronic security systems who then encounter applicant’s
metal locks offered under the same mark are likely to
believe that these goods come from the same source or are
sponsored or endorsed by the same entity. If there is
doubt about this issue, in accordance with precedent, that
doubt must be resolved in favor of the prior user and
registrant.
Serial No. 75/717,463
6
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.