Universal Trim Supply Co., Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2021

88480628 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2021)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: February 26, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Universal Trim Supply Co., Ltd.
_____

Serial No. 88480628
_____

Nicole B. Rackiewicz, Christopher D. Reaves, and Morton J. Rosenberg of
Rosenberg Klein & Lee, for Universal Trim Supply Co., Ltd.

Anna J. Oakes, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103,
Stacy Wahlberg, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Mermelstein, Goodman and English,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Universal Trim Supply Co., Ltd. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark:

Serial No. 88480628
- 2 -
for the following goods:
electric vacuum food sealers for household purposes;
electric bag sealers in International Class 7;
hand-powered tool used to close re-sealable bags used with
vacuum sealers in International Class 8;
plastic food storage bags for household use; resealable
plastic food storage bags with vacuum sealers for personal
use; plastic vacuum bags for packing; vacuum compression
bags, namely, plastic food storage bags with one-way
valves, in which air is evacuated for personal use in
International Class 16;
resealable garment storage bags with vacuum sealers for
clothing; vacuum compression bags made of high-density
polyethylene plastic for the storage of personal items;
vacuum compression bags and hanging bags, namely,
plastic bags with one-way valves, in which air is evacuated
for storing clothing; resealable high-density polyethylene
plastic bags with vacuum sealers for the storage of
household items in International Class 22.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground of
likelihood of confusion with the registered mark SEAL N’ VAC (in standard

1 Application Serial No. 88480628 was filed on June 19, 2019, based upon Applicant’s
assertion of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).

The application includes a description of the mark which reads as follows: “The mark consists
of the stylized word ‘SEALVAX’ with the letter ‘L’ having a pair of leaf like designs extending
in opposite directions from a vertical section of the letter ‘L’ and an upper section of the letter
‘S’ forming an arcuate bar extending over the letters ‘EALVAX’ with an arcuate bar under
the word ‘SEALVAX’ intersecting with a lower section of the letter ‘X’.” Color is not claimed
as a feature of the mark.

Page references to the application record refer to the online database page numbers of the
USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the briefs
on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.

Serial No. 88480628
- 3 -
characters), subject to two registrations owned by the same entity for the following
goods:
Hand-powered tool used to close re-sealable bags used with
vacuum sealers, comprised of hand-operated hand-held
pumps for removing air from and sealing plastic bags for
food storage for household use in International Class 8.2
Evacuatable resealable storage bag made of nylon and
polyethylene with a valve made of polyethylene and
polypropylene and a closure system made of polyethylene
for household food storage purposes in International Class
16.3
Evacuatable resealable plastic storage containers for
household use; Evacuatable resealable household storage
containers for food; Household storage containers for food
in International Class 21.4
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Evidentiary Issue
Before proceeding to the merits of the refusal, we address the materials attached
to Applicant’s brief as Exhibits A-N which are copies of third-party registrations. The
exhibits are duplicative of exhibits previously submitted with Applicant’s December
23, 2019, Response to Office Action and unnecessary. In re Thor Tech Inc., 85 USPQ2d
1474, 1475 n.3 (TTAB 2007) (attaching evidence from record to briefs is duplicative

2 Registration No. 4808818.
3 Registration No. 4808818.
4 Registration No. 4734887.
Serial No. 88480628
- 4 -
and is unnecessary). Accordingly, we will make our determination based on the
exhibits that are already part of the record on appeal.
II. Likelihood of Confusion
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that so
resembles a registered mark as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the
goods or services of the applicant, to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d). Our determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is based on
an analysis of all probative facts in the record that are relevant to the likelihood of
confusion factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177
USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”). We consider each DuPont factor for which
there is evidence and argument. See, e.g., In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 129
USPQ2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In every Section 2(d) case, two key factors are the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks and the goods or services. Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544
F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by
§ 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of
the goods and differences in the marks.”).
A. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Goods and Trade Channels
We first consider the second and third DuPont factors. The second DuPont factor
“considers ‘[t]he similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as
described in an application or registration,’” while the third DuPont factor considers
“the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.” In
Serial No. 88480628
- 5 -
re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567). Our analysis under these factors is based on the
identifications of goods in the application and the cited registrations. Id.; Stone Lion
Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161-
63 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “It is sufficient for finding a likelihood of confusion if relatedness
is established for any item encompassed by the identification of goods within a
particular class in the application.” In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 n.5
(TTAB 2015) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335,
209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981)).
Applicant’s goods are:
electric vacuum food sealers for household purposes;
electric bag sealers in International Class 7;
hand-powered tool used to close re-sealable bags used with
vacuum sealers in International Class 8;
plastic food storage bags for household use; resealable
plastic food storage bags with vacuum sealers for personal
use; plastic vacuum bags for packing; vacuum compression
bags, namely, plastic food storage bags with one-way
valves, in which air is evacuated for personal use in
International Class 16;
resealable garment storage bags with vacuum sealers for
clothing; vacuum compression bags made of high-density
polyethylene plastic for the storage of personal items;
vacuum compression bags and hanging bags, namely,
plastic bags with one-way valves, in which air is evacuated
for storing clothing; resealable high-density polyethylene
plastic bags with vacuum sealers for the storage of
household items in International Class 22.
Registrant’s goods in Registration No. 4808818 are:
Hand-powered tool used to close re-sealable bags used with
vacuum sealers, comprised of hand-operated hand-held
Serial No. 88480628
- 6 -
pumps for removing air from and sealing plastic bags for
food storage for household use in International Class 8.
Evacuatable resealable storage bag made of nylon and
polyethylene with a valve made of polyethylene and
polypropylene and a closure system made of polyethylene
for household food storage purposes in International Class
16.5
Registrant’s goods in Registration No. 4734887 are
Evacuatable resealable plastic storage containers for
household use; Evacuatable resealable household storage
containers for food; Household storage containers for food
in International Class 21.6
Applicant argues that “the fact that goods are classified differently certainly
confirms that the goods are not in fact identical and therefore that there are
differences between the goods themselves.” Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 13.
Applicant points out that Registration No. 4734887 lists goods in Class 21 while the
goods in Applicant’s application are classified in International Classes 7, 8, 16 and
22. Id. at 13. As to the cited Registration No. 4808818, which lists goods in Classes 8
and 16, Applicant argues that the registration does not include any goods in
International Classes 7 or 22 and “on that basis alone, this registration is not

5 We take judicial notice that polyethylene is “a light, usually thin, soft plastic, often used for
making bags or for keeping things dry or fresh.” Cambridge Dictionary, dictionary.
cambridge.org, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/polyethylene (accessed
February 22, 2021). The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions from online
sources when the definitions themselves are derived from dictionaries that exist in printed
form or have regular fixed editions. See In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB
2006).
6 We take judicial notice that evacuate is defined as “3: to remove something (such as gas or
water) from especially by pumping.” Merriam-Webster dictionary, merriam-webster.com
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evacuate (accessed February 22, 2021).
Serial No. 88480628
- 7 -
appropriate to act as a bar to registration of Applicant’s Mark in relation to goods in
International Classes 7 and 22.” Id. at 14.
However, as noted by the Examining Attorney, the classification of goods by the
USPTO is a purely administrative determination and has no bearing on the issue of
likelihood of confusion. See Jean Patou Inc. v. Theon Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 29 USPQ2d
1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“classification is wholly irrelevant to the issue of
registrability under section 1052(d), which makes no reference to classification”); and
Nat’l Football League v. Jasper Alliance Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212 (TTAB 1990). (The
classification system was established for the convenience of the Office rather than to
indicate that goods in the same class are necessarily related or that classification in
different classes indicates that they are not related). In addition, goods can be
classified in more than one class, so a different classification for a particular good
does not prove that identical goods are unrelated. See In re Int’l Salt Co., 166 USPQ
215, 215-216 (TTAB 1970) (salt can be classified in more than one class due to
different purposes or uses). Thus, the differences in classification of Applicant’s and
Registrant’s goods does not serve as evidence that the goods are somehow unrelated.
The identifications themselves evidence relatedness. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (the
descriptions in the application and registration are evidence of relatedness).
Registrant’s “hand-powered tool used to close resealable bags used with vacuum
sealer” in Registration No. 4808818 is identical to Applicant’s “hand-powered tool
used to close re-sealable bags used with vacuum sealers” and is closely related to
Serial No. 88480628
- 8 -
Applicant’s “electric vacuum food sealers for household purposes” as these are all
vacuum sealing tools used with resealable bags. The “Evacuatable resealable storage
bag made of nylon and polyethylene with a valve” for food storage listed in
Registration No. 4808818 is encompassed by Applicant’s “vacuum compression bags,
namely, plastic food storage bags with one-way valves.” See In re Hughes Furniture
Indus., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1134, 1137 (TTAB 2015) (“Applicant’s broadly worded
identification of ‘furniture’ necessarily encompasses Registrant’s narrowly identified
‘residential and commercial furniture.’”). Registrant’s “Evacuatable resealable plastic
storage containers for household use” are related to Applicant’s “resealable high-
density polyethylene plastic bags with vacuum sealers for the storage of household
items” as both goods are resealable and used for vacuum storage of household items.
In addition, the Examining Attorney submitted website evidence showing that
companies offer, under the same mark, resealable bags for vacuum sealing,
containers for vacuum sealing, and hand held and electric vacuum sealers. September
11, 2019, Office Action at TSDR 2-25; February 7, 2020, Office Action at TSDR 2-7.
The Examining Attorney also submitted evidence showing that companies that offer
resealable plastic bags for food and household storage also offer plastic storage
containers. February 7, 2020, Office Action at TSDR 8-13. The website evidence
demonstrates that goods of the type offered by both Applicant and Registrant are
marketed and sold together under the same marks. See Hewlett-Packard Co., 62
USPQ2d at 1004 (evidence that “a single company sells the goods and services of both
parties, if presented, is relevant to the relatedness analysis”). “We find that
Serial No. 88480628
- 9 -
consumers would readily perceive these types of [goods] as being sufficiently related
as to be offered by a single business.” In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504,
1515 (TTAB 2016).
As to classes of purchasers, because the goods at issue are without any restrictions
or limitations as to classes of consumers, the goods could be offered to all classes of
purchasers, including ordinary consumers. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB
1981) (citing Kalart Co. v. Camera-Mart, Inc., 258 F.2d 956, 119 USPQ 139 (CCPA
1958)). Both Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are offered to the general public, and
the goods would be offered to ordinary consumers for household use.
As to trade channels, to the extent the goods are legally identical, we may presume
that Applicant’s and Registrant’s identical products travel in the same ordinary trade
and distribution channels and will be marketed to the same potential consumers. See
In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (even
though there was no evidence regarding channels of trade and classes of consumers,
the Board was entitled to rely on this legal presumption in determining likelihood of
confusion). As to the related goods, because neither Applicant’s nor Registrant’s
identifications of goods are restricted as to channels of trade or classes of consumers,
we must presume that they travel in all channels appropriate for the goods and are
available to all potential classes of ordinary consumers of such goods. See In re
Elbaum, 211 USPQ at 640. The website evidence discussed above is probative to show
that the trade channels and classes of purchasers overlap for both the legally identical
and related goods.
Serial No. 88480628
- 10 -
We find that the second and third DuPont factors favor a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
B. Strength or Weakness of SEAL-Formative Registered Marks
We now consider the strength or weakness of the word SEAL in Registrant’s mark.
Applicant argues that SEAL is a weak term and that the “dilution of the term
‘SEAL’ is critically important here because the word ‘SEAL’ is the only arguable
similarity between the marks.” Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 19, Applicant’s reply
brief, 9 TTABVUE 5. To show support for its argument that SEAL is a weak term,
Applicant incorporated in its brief the following chart shown below of third-party
registrations for SEAL marks for “various types of resealable bags” (Exhibits A-L)
and two SEAL formative marks for either hand powered pump to seal bags or hand
operated food cutter (Exhibits M-N).7 Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 16. These third-
party registrations were submitted during examination by Applicant. December 23,
2019, Response to Office Action at TSDR 8.
Applicant did not submit any marketplace evidence demonstrating third party use
of SEAL-formative marks on similar goods.

7 Applicant provided a similar chart in its December 23, 2019, Response to Office Action. The
third party registrations, Exhibits A-L, list “various types of resealable bags,” plastic storage
bags, or reclosable or resealable plastic storage bags (for uses that include food storage and
household use), or vacuum sealed bags for household storage or food storage. Exhibit A also
lists “electric pump vacuum sealer” in addition to resealable bags. The food cutter identified
by the registration in Exhibit N is unrelated to the goods at issue here.

Serial No. 88480628
- 11 -

Serial No. 88480628
- 12 -
Third-party registrations are relevant evidence of the inherent or conceptual
strength of a mark or term because they are probative of how terms are used in
connection with the goods identified in the registrations. “Third party registrations
show the sense in which the word is used in ordinary parlance and may show that a
particular term has descriptive significance as applied to certain goods or services.”
See, e.g., Institut National Des Appellations D'Origine v. Vintners Int’l Co., 958 F.2d
1574, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS
Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674-75 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Jack
Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports,
S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Box Solutions
Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006).
Third-party registrations used in this manner are not evidence that customers are
accustomed to seeing the use of other similar marks in the marketplace, but rather
evidence that a term is suggestive or descriptive of the relevant goods or services and
it is less likely to have source identifying significance to purchasers. See Juice
Generation, 115 USPQ2d at 1675 (“Third party registrations are relevant to prove
that some segment of the composite marks which both contesting parties use has a
normally understood and well recognized descriptive or suggestive meaning, leading
to the conclusion that that segment is relatively weak.”) (citation omitted); AMF Inc.
v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (CCPA 1973) (“The
existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place
or that customers are familiar with them.”). The third-party registrations for marks
Serial No. 88480628
- 13 -
that contain SEAL along with other matter for resealable plastic bags reflect some
degree of conceptual weakness of SEAL in this context. Thus we find that SEAL is
highly suggestive in the context of resealable bags and containers in Registrant’s
mark.8
However, the registrations Applicant has submitted are distinguishable in that
they combine SEAL with wording other than VAC and evoke different commercial
impressions. Applicant’s mark is much closer to the mark in the cited registrations
than any of these third-party registrations. Therefore, these third-party registrations
do not support a finding of conceptual weakness as to Registrant’s SEAL N’ VAC
mark as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc. 189 USPQ 355, 356 (TTAB 1975) (third-
party registrations showing frequent adoption of the letter “M” as a portion of
composite mark do not establish that registrant’s mark M-VAC as a whole is weak
and entitled to limited protection).
C. Similarity of the Marks
We turn next to the first DuPont factor, which requires us to determine the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in terms of appearance, sound, connotation
and overall commercial impression. Palm Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The
test under the first DuPont factor is not whether the marks can be distinguished
when subjected to a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are

8 We take judicial notice of the definition of seal which is defined as “c (1): a tight and perfect
closure (as against the passage of gas or water).” Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seal (accessed February 22, 2021).
Serial No. 88480628
- 14 -
sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as
to the source of the goods offered under the respective marks is likely to result. Coach
Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).
In comparing the marks, we consider them in their entireties. In re Nat’l Data
Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is nevertheless
appropriate, for rational reasons, to regard certain features of the marks as being
more dominant or otherwise significant, and therefore to give those features greater
weight. Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1161; In re Nat’l Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 751.
Applicant’s mark is and Registrant’s mark is SEAL N’ VAC.
In Applicant’s mark, the letters “s” and “x” are extended at the top and bottom to
form part of the curved design that frames the words SEALVAX; the letter “l”
incorporates a leaf design.
Applicant argues that “the design elements are the dominant feature” of
Applicant’s mark. Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 10.
In this mark, the words are encircled with arcuate design
elements, and a unique leaf-like design is centrally
disposed above the words. These design elements are
dominant, and at worst, must be considered as integral
features of the mark. Indeed the design elements are
integrated into the literal elements of Applicant’s Mark
and as such, the word portion of the mark can quite
Serial No. 88480628
- 15 -
literally not be separated from the design elements.
Applicant’s brief 6 TTABVUE 9.
Applicant also contends that consumers will separate out the letter “l” leaf design
element from its mark due to its “unique stylization,” separating the terms, and
viewing the mark as “Sea Vax.” 6 TTABVUE 10.
We disagree. Although design elements are incorporated into the letters “s,” “l”
and “x,” consumers are more likely to remember the letters as forming the words
SEALVAX rather than the incorporated design. We find that the design portion of
Applicant’s mark primarily serves to emphasize the word element SEALVAX and
that the letter “l” leaf design and curves formed by the letters “s” and “x” are less
prominent. See In re Viterra Inc., 101 USPQ2d at 1908 (“In the case of a composite
mark containing both words and a design, ‘the verbal portion of the mark is the one
most likely to indicate the origin of the goods to which it is affixed.”’) (quoting CBS
Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Dakin’s
Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 2001) (“words are normally accorded
greater weight because they would be used by purchasers to request the goods”)). See
also In re Sperouleas, 227 USPQ 166, 168 (TTAB 1985) (“Unless a design is so
arbitrary and distinctive as to make a definite and immediate impression in and of
itself, the design merely becomes part of the overall picture. Since few people have
total recall, one can expect the public in most cases to remember the words with only
a general impression as to the design.”). As to the letter “l,” we find it more likely that
consumers will perceive this portion of the mark not simply as a design element, but
as the letter “l.” Especially in view of the suggestiveness of the term “seal” in
Serial No. 88480628
- 16 -
connection with these goods, it is more likely that consumers will perceive the literal
portion of Applicant’s mark as SEALVAX rather than “SEA VAX.”
Applicant submits that in comparing the literal elements of Applicant’s mark to
the cited mark, they are different in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial
impression. Applicant argues that the cited mark is made up of three portions, and
the letter “n” with an apostrophe is a “distinguishing feature” of the cited mark,
creating a pause between “seal” and “vac.” Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 11, 12.
Applicant submits that Registrant’s mark “would be read” as “seal and vacuum.” Id.
Applicant also argues that its mark is “a single fanciful term” and “arbitrary,” that
VAX in its mark is not similar to VAC, that consumers would not interpret VAX as
an alternative abbreviation to VAC, as there is no plural abbreviation for VACS, and
that consumers would pronounce the terms differently and attribute different
meanings to these terms. Id. at 12; Applicant’s reply brief, 9 TTABVUE 4. Applicant
argues that as to appearance and commercial impression, its mark SEALVAX
“creates a sharper visual style and an edgier, more modern impression” which is
“distinct from the impression of SEAL N’ VAC, where the ‘N’’ presents a more folksy
style.” Applicant’s reply brief, 9 TTABVUE 4. Applicant submits that the commercial
impressions of Applicant’s mark and the cited mark are not the same because VAX is
not the same as VAC, and Applicant’s mark includes design elements which
distinguish its mark from the cited mark. Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 12, 19.
Considering the dominant literal portion of Applicant’s mark, SEALVAX, and
Registrant’s mark SEAL N’ VAC, we find they are similar in sound and appearance
Serial No. 88480628
- 17 -
even with their slight differences. The marks both include the term SEAL, and
VAC/VAX are terms that could be viewed as abbreviations for vacuum,9 differing only
by the final consonant (“c” or “x”) but likely pronounced in a very similar manner. See
Flow Tech. Inc. v. Picciano, 18 USPQ2d 1970, 1972 (TTAB 1991) (Omnitrax and
Omnitrak are “practically identical”). Although the cited mark also includes an “N
apostrophe” which acts to join the terms “seal” and “vac” we find this addition is not
sufficient to distinguish the marks in appearance and sound. See e.g., Wenatchee-
Beebe Orchard Co. v. H.W. Butler & Bro., Inc., 126 USPQ 296, 296 (TTAB 1960) (“B
and B” when spoken is substantially similar to Opposer’s mark “BEEBE”). Even if
Registrant’s mark is perceived as “seal and vac” or “seal in vac,” the cited mark is
very similar in appearance and sound to the literal portion of Applicant’s mark
SEALVAX.
As to connotation of the marks, Applicant considers its mark to be a “fanciful” or
“arbitrary,” a “single word,” with no known meaning.10 Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE
12-13. Applicant argues that SEALVAX is a noun while Registrant’s mark suggests
the action of seal and vacuum. Id. However, in the context of Applicant’s and
Registrant’s goods, we find that SEALVAX and SEAL N’ VAC convey similar

9 February 7, 2020, Office Action at TSDR at 14-15. VAX is an abbreviation for vacuum
cleaners. Abbreviations.com. VAC is an abbreviation for vacuum. Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, merriam-webster.com.
10 At least as to the term “seal,” the third-party registration evidence contradicts Applicant’s
claim that “seal” is arbitrary as used in connection with the involved goods.
Serial No. 88480628
- 18 -
meanings, both suggesting vacuum sealing.11 Although Applicant argues that the
differences in sound, appearance and connotation distinguish the marks, the overall
commercial impressions created by the marks are very similar, even with their slight
differences and the addition of the design elements in Applicant’s mark. The
emphasis must be on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains
a general rather than a specific impression of trademarks. See Sealed Air Corp. v.
Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1976).
When we consider the marks in their entireties, we find the marks are more
similar than dissimilar. The first DuPont factor favors a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
III. Conclusion
We have considered all of the arguments and evidence of record, and all relevant
DuPont factors. Because we have found that the marks at issue are similar and that
Applicant’s identified goods are identical in part or related to Registrant’s goods and
that those goods would move in the same or overlapping trade channels and would be
offered to the same classes of purchasers, we conclude that Applicant’s
mark, as used in connection with the goods identified in its
involved application, so resembles the cited mark SEAL N’ VAC as to be likely to

11 We take judicial notice of the term vacuum which is defined as “2:b a space partially
exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (such as an air pump).”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vacuum
(accessed February 22, 2021).
Serial No. 88480628
- 19 -
cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
The third-party registration evidence of record, although one factor to be considered,
does not persuade us of a different result because it does not show that the cited mark
SEAL N’ VAC is conceptually weak.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal to register Applicant’s mark is
affirmed.