Walker Edison Furniture Company LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2021

88327850 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2021)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: February 8, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Walker Edison Furniture Company LLC
_____

Serial No. 88327850
_____

David P. Johnson and Timothy Dell Nichols of Workman Nydegger,
for Walker Edison Furniture Company LLC.
Tiffany Chiang, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113,
Myriah Habeeb, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Zervas, Mermelstein and Kuczma,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Zervas, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Walker Edison Furniture Company LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the standard character mark BANBURY DESIGNS for
“furniture, namely, ready-to-assemble furniture, excluding bathroom furniture and
faucets, shower and tub fixtures, shower and tub valves, shower and tub spouts,
Serial No. 88327850
- 2 -
shower and tub plumbing accessories, liquid dispensers, and toilet tank levers” in
International Class 20.1 Applicant disclaimed the word DESIGNS.
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 that
Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the marks of the following two
registrations:
Registration No. 2907348 (issued on November 30, 2004,
maintained) for the typed mark2 BANBURY for “Faucets,
namely, lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, faucet handles,
faucet valves, shower and tub fixtures, namely, shower
heads, hand-held showers and shower accessory holders;
shower valves, tub/shower valves, spouts, tub plumbing
accessories, namely, aerators, soap dispensers and kitchen
deck sprays; liquid dispensers; and toilet tank levers” in
International Class 11; and
Registration No. 5532821 (issued on August 7, 2018) for the
standard character mark BANBERRY DESIGNS for “LED
electric décor lights for Christmas trees; LED décor
lighting fixtures; electric lanterns; oil lanterns; candle
lanterns; LED candle lanterns; electric night lights; LED
candles; Christmas lights, namely, electric lights for
Christmas trees; fiber optic lamps” in International Class
11.3

1 Application Serial No. 88327850 was filed on March 6, 2019 based on Applicant’s allegation
of an intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051(b).
2 A typed mark is the legal equivalent of a standard character mark. In re Viterra Inc., 671
F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that in 2003 there was a
non-substantive change in nomenclature from a “typed mark” to a “standard character
mark”).
3 The term DESIGNS has been disclaimed.
Serial No. 88327850
- 3 -
1. Analysis
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 or mistake, or to deceive . 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”) (cited in B&B Hardware, Inc.
v. Hargis Ind., Inc., 575 U.S. 138, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015)); see also In re
Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We
have considered each DuPont factor that is relevant or for which there is argument
and evidence of record. See In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 129 USPQ2d 1160,
1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019); M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns., Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78
USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006); ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114
USPQ2d 1232, 1242 (TTAB 2015) (“While we have considered each factor for which
we have evidence, we focus our analysis on those factors we find to be relevant.”).
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and goods or services. See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340,
71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 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.”); see also In re
Serial No. 88327850
- 4 -
i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The
likelihood of confusion analysis considers all DuPont factors for which there is record
evidence but ‘may focus ... on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and
relatedness of the goods.’”) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d
1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Because the BANBURY mark is closer to Applicant’s BANBURY DESIGNS mark
than the BANBERRY DESIGNS mark, we will focus our discussion on the
BANBURY mark. Thus, we need not decide the issue of likelihood of confusion with
respect to the BANBERRY DESΙGNS mark because, to the extent that we determine
there is no confusion with the BANBURY mark, the different spelling of BANBERRY
further distinguishes the marks. On the other hand, if we determine that confusion
is likely with the BANBURY mark, there is no reason to decide whether there is a
likelihood of confusion with another less similar mark. See In re Max Capital Grp.
Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010).
a. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
We consider the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital
Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir.
2014); DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567. “Similarity in any one of these elements may be
sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, 126 USPQ2d
1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)).
Serial No. 88327850
- 5 -
The issue is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-
by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar that
confusion as to the source of the goods offered under the respective marks is likely to
result. In re i.am.symbolic, 123 USPQ2d at 1748; Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph
Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Double Coin
Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Dev., 2019 USPQ2d 377409, *6 (TTAB 2019). The focus is on the
recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than
specific impression of trademarks. Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438
F.2d 1005, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971); Double Coin Holdings, 2019 USPQ2d
377409 at *6. In this case, the average purchaser of both Applicant’s and Registrant’s
goods include members of the general public who own their own homes.
We do not predicate our analysis on a dissection of the involved marks; we consider
the marks in their entireties. Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1160; Franklin Mint Corp.
v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 212 USPQ 233, 234 (CCPA 1981) (“It is axiomatic
that a mark should not be dissected and considered piecemeal; rather, it must be
considered as a whole in determining likelihood of confusion.”). But there is nothing
improper in giving more or less weight to a particular feature of a mark, provided the
ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties. In re
Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985).4

4 Applicant’s brief at p. 6, 7 TTABVUE 7. Citations to the briefs are to TTABVUE, the Board’s
online docketing system. See Turdin v. Trilobite, Ltd., 109 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6 (TTAB
2014). Specifically, the number preceding TTABVUE corresponds to the docket entry
number, and any number(s) following TTABVUE refer to the page number(s) of the docket
entry where the cited materials appear. Page references to the application record are to the
Serial No. 88327850
- 6 -
In comparing Applicant’s BANBURY DESIGNS mark and Registrant’s
BANBURY mark, we first note that Applicant ’s mark incorporates the registered
mark in its entirety. In cases such as this, a likelihood of confusion has frequently
been found. Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419, 422
(CCPA 1977) (CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design is similar the mark
CONCEPT). See also Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556,
188 USPQ 105, 106 (CCPA 1975) (BENGAL LANCER and Bengal Lancer soldier
design is similar to the mark BENGAL); and In re Bissett-Berman Corp., 476 F.2d
640, 177 USPQ 528, 529 (CCPA 1973) (E-CELL is similar to the mark E).
There is no evidence that BANBURY has any meaning in the context of
Applicant’s or Registrant’s identified goods.5 BANBURY hence is arbitrary as applied
to both. As for the disclaimed term DESIGNS in Applicant ’s mark, DESIGNS merely
describes a characteristic of Applicant’s goods and has less weight in determining the
commercial impression of the mark.6 See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d

downloadable .pdf version of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark
Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system.
5 Applicant maintains that “Banbury” is has a geographic connotation, see brief at p. 18 (9
TTABVUE 19), and references its statement in its Request for Reconsideration, “‘Banbury’
alone simply refers to a physical location. Banbury, HISTORIC UK, https://www.historic-
uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/Banbury/ (last 5/272020) (‘Banbury [is] one of the
best-known towns in England’).” There is no evidence that consumers in the United States
would know of an English town named Banbury.
6 The word “design,” as a noun, is defined as “a decorative pattern.” See Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary (accessed February 3, 2021) at https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/design. We take judicial notice of this definition. The Board may take
judicial notice of dictionary definitions, Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food
Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
Serial No. 88327850
- 7 -
943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Nat’l Data, 224 USPQ at
752 (the “descriptive component of a mark may be given little weight in reaching a
conclusion on likelihood of confusion”)). Also, because Applicant disclaimed
DESIGNS pursuant to a requirement by the Examining Attorney, Applicant
conceded that the term is merely descriptive. See In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8
USPQ2d 2012, 2014 n.4 (TTAB 1988) (“By its disclaimer of the word LITE, applicant
has conceded that the term is merely descriptive as used in connection with
applicant’s goods.”) (citing State Oil Ref. Corp. v. Quaker Oil Corp., 161 USPQ 547
(TTAB 1969), aff’d, 453 F.2d 1296, 172 USPQ 361 (CCPA 1972)).
Based upon the foregoing, we find the marks as a whole to be similar in meaning,
appearance, sound and commercial impression.7 We also find that when encountering
Applicant’s BANBURY DESIGNS mark and Registrant’s BANBURY mark in
connection with goods that are related commercially (see discussion infra), consumers
are likely to view the marks as variations of each other, and therefore as indicators
of a single source.
The DuPont factor regarding the similarity of the marks favors a finding of
likelihood of confusion.

including online dictionaries that exist in printed format or regular fixed editions. In re Red
Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (TTAB 2006).
The definition of “design” offered by Applicant is for the verb form of the word. It is
irrelevant because DESIGNS does not function as a verb in Applicant’s mark.
7 Applicant’s argument that DESIGNS “creates a distinct commercial impression in the mind
of a consumer” is without basis and frankly defies logic. Applicant’s brief at p. 18, 9
TTABVUE 19.
Serial No. 88327850
- 8 -
b. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Goods and Trade Channels
The Examining Attorney argues Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are related
because they are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the
same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the goods are
complementary. The Examining Attorney focused her arguments and evidence on the
lavatory and kitchen faucets included within Registrant’s identification of goods, and
hence we do the same.
When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and
relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods in the
application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See Stone
Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1162 (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc.,
918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Furthermore, in the absence
of limitations as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers in the goods in the
registration, the presumption is that the goods move in all trade channels normal for
such goods and are available to all potential classes of ordinary consumers of such
goods. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018); In re Melville Corp.,
18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991).
The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood
of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d
1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894,
1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the
Serial No. 88327850
- 9 -
mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., 101
USPQ2d at 1722 (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB
2007)).8
The record includes use-based, third-party registration evidence. Such
registrations may have some probative value to the extent they suggest the goods of
Applicant and Registrant are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under
a single mark. In re I-Coat, 126 USPQ2d at 1738-39 (citing In re Mucky Duck Mustard
Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988), aff’d per curiam, 864 F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir.
1988); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993)). For
example:
July 9, 2020 Office Action
• Registration No. 6076912 for a design mark for faucets;
cabinets; cabinets being furniture for kitchens; dish
cabinets; furniture; kitchen cabinets; metal cabinets;
prefabricated closet organization systems made of wood.
TSDR 42-44.
• Registration No. 6033970 for the mark “SCHON” for
faucets and kitchen cabinets. TSDR 27-29.
• Registration No. 5676851 for the mark “EISEN” for
faucets; cabinets; outdoor furniture; kitchen cabinets.
TSDR 36-38.
• Registration No. 5650605 for the mark “RUMLAD” for
tap water faucets; shelves; office tables and chairs;
barstools; dining chairs; wooden cabinets; kitchen cabinets;
desks; chairs; wine racks; coffee tables; cabinets and stands
for televisions; storage racks; shoe cabinets; mattresses;

8 For this reason and the reasons detailed later in this opinion, Applicant’s argument at p. 9
of its brief (9 TTABVUE 10) that the goods are “literally distinct because they are not the
same, serve different purposes, have different functions, and are categorized differently by
retailers” is unpersuasive.
Serial No. 88327850
- 10 -
dressing tables; bed headboards; mirrored cabinets. TSDR
33-35.
• Registration No. 4670828 for the mark “RUFINE” for
faucets; cabinets; kitchen cabinets. TSDR 36-38.
• Registration No. 4513883 for the mark “OFFICINE
GULLLO” for faucets; cabinets; outdoor furniture; kitchen
cabinets. TSDR 18-20.
Applicant argues that the registrations submitted by the Examining Attorney are
entitled to little probative value because they include unrelated goods such as coffee
filters, capsules for containing cremation remains, tanning beds, cake decorations,
and Christmas-themed ornaments.9 Because the Examining Attorney did not rely on
such goods in making her refusal, and goods of the kind found in Applicant’s and
Registrant’s identifications of goods are listed in such registrations, the argument has
no relevance. See, e.g., In re I-Coat, 126 USPQ2d at 1738-39.
The Examining Attorney’s evidence also includes webpage printouts showing
third-parties that offer faucets and furniture. For example:
July 9, 2020 Office Action
• Home Depot “All-in-One … Plastic Laundry Sink and
Wood Cabinet in White, with … Faucet.” “Faucet …
included with purchase.” TSDR 6.
• Lowe’s – offering both pre-assembled Project Source
Unfinished Door and Drawer Base Stock Cabinet and
Project Source faucet. TSDR 7.
December 16, 2019 Office Action
• Birch Lane – offering cabinet and faucet on same
webpage. TSDR 10-13, 24-26.

9 Applicant’s brief at pp. 13-14, 9 TTABVUE 14-15.
Serial No. 88327850
- 11 -
• Deltafaucet.com – offering Delta bathroom mirrors and
Delta faucets. TSDR 27-29, 32-34.
• Ikea – offering faucets and furniture. TSDR 35-40, 47-49.
• Moen – offering bathroom mirrors and faucets. TSDR 50-
53, 58, 61.
• Signature Hardware – offering “Console Vanity for
Undermount Sink” and faucets. TSDR 62-66, 71-72.
• Yosemitehomedecor.com – offering faucet and chairs.
TSDR 73-74, 76.
In addition, a webpage from homedepot.com offers a kitchen cabinet with a faucet
for sale.10
Applicant argues that much of the Examining Attorney’s evidence is from online
retailers that sell a multitude of products or sell different types of products under
different brand names. “The mere fact that online retailers offer ready-to-assemble
… furniture and plumbing goods does not mean those goods are sufficiently related
for likelihood of confusion purposes.”11 Applicant adds that retailers “broadly
advertise different goods according to living areas” and the evidence “demonstrate[s]
those retailers partition ‘furniture’ and ‘faucets’ into distinct categories.”12 Applicant
specifically notes how IKEA separates ready-to-assemble furniture and plumbing
products into different departments and categories based on function and purpose.13

10 July 9, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 3.
11 Applicant’s brief at pp. 9-10, 9 TTABVUE 10-11.
12 Id. at 11, 9 TTABVUE 12.
13 Id. at p. 12, 9 TTABVUE 13.
Serial No. 88327850
- 12 -
Applicant’s arguments do not take into account the content of the webpages. The
Home Depot webpage displays an all-in-one sink and faucet, and the Lowe ’s webpages
reflect both a Project Source cabinet and Project Source faucet both in the “Kitchen”
category.14 The evidence from deltafaucets.com demonstrates use of the Delta mark
in connection with both faucets and furniture. Thus, Applicant’s argument is at odds
with the evidence.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Examining Attorney has established that
a commercial relationship exists between Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods.
In addition, the goods described in the identifications are related because they are
complementary in nature. Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have
complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the
same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been
found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are
marketed under the same or similar marks. See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe,
Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese
to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch
complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in
determining a likelihood of confusion”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d
1266, 1272 (TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical
ultrasound devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have
complementary purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel

14 July 9, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 7.
Serial No. 88327850
- 13 -
on the same patients to treat the same disease). The evidence shows that the goods
have complementary uses; see the Home Depot webpage offering an “All-in-One …
Plastic Laundry Sink and Wood Cabinet in White, with … Faucet.”15
Applicant characterizes Registrant’s plumbing goods as used for supplying water
and conveying waste and Applicant’s goods as used for furnishing a home or a
building.16 This characterization does not persuade us that the goods are unrelated.
As noted above, goods may be found related when the circumstances surrounding
their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that the
goods emanate from the same source. Coach Servs., 101 USPQ2d at 1722. Also, the
relevant inquiry is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood
of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods. In re Majestic Distilling,
65 USPQ2d at 1205; In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues that the Examining Attorney must show something more
than the goods being used together or sold by the same retailer, citing to In re St.
Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 113 USPQ2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2014).17 Applicant points to
the different purposes of the goods as rendering them not complementary. Applicant’s
reliance on St. Helena Hosp. is misplaced. “Something more” is only required in the
context of comparing goods versus services, not goods versus goods, and where the

15 July 9, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 6.
16 Applicant’s brief at p. 10, 9 TTABVUE 11.
17 Id. at p. 12, TTABVUE 13.
Serial No. 88327850
- 14 -
relationship between the goods and services is obscure or less evident. See id. As
explained in TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) Section
1207.01(a)(ii) (2020):
when the relatedness of the goods and services is not
evident, well known, or generally recognized, “something
more” than the mere fact that the goods and services are
used together must be shown. In re St. Helena Hosp., 774
F.3d at 754, 113 USPQ2d at 1087 (finding that substantial
evidence did not support relatedness of hospital-based
residential weight and lifestyle program and printed
materials dealing with physical activity and fitness).
Therefore, when comparing services such as “restaurant
services” with less apparently related goods such as “beer,”
or “cooking classes” with “kitchen towels,” “something
more”—beyond the fact that the goods are used in the
provision of the services—must be shown to indicate that
consumers would understand such services and goods to
emanate from the same source.
With regard to the precedent cited by Applicant where confusion was found not to
be likely despite the fact that the goods involved had similar uses or were sold in the
same locations, we note that “[e]ach case must be decided on its own facts and the
differences are often subtle ones.” Indus. Nucleonic’s Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197,
177 USPQ 386, 387 (CCPA 1973). Additionally, the infringement cases cited by
Applicant are inapposite because courts take into account all aspects of the specific
goods and marks as used in the marketplace, and consider factors different than those
considered by the Board. In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB
1986).
Turning to Applicant’s and Registrant’s trade channels, we find that they overlap
as demonstrated by the Examining Attorney’s Internet evidence showing that faucets
Serial No. 88327850
- 15 -
and furniture are offered for sale on the same websites under the same product
categories.18
In view of the foregoing, the DuPont factors regarding the similarity of the goods
and channels of trade favor a finding of likelihood of confusion.
2. Purchaser Sophistication/Care
Applicant argues that plumbing products are relatively expensive and not
frequently purchased by consumers, and that consumers are likely to give careful and
thoughtful consideration when choosing to purchase the products at issue here.19
Applicant points to webpages that show that faucets range from $389 to $1,399.20 We
have found examples in the record of a table for $69, a sink base for $85, a cabinet for
$128 and a faucet for $59.99.21 The standard of care for purchasing the goods is that
of the least sophisticated potential purchaser. In re FCA US LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1214,
1222 (TTAB 2018) (citing Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1163). Based on these prices

18 July 9, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 6; December 16, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 12-13, 27-29,
64.
19 Applicant says nothing about the level of care and pricing of ready-to-assemble furniture.
20 Applicant’s brief at pp. 21-22, TTABVUE 22-23.
21 July 9, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 2, 6 and 7; December 16, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 35,
39-40.
Serial No. 88327850
- 16 -
and the nature of the goods as described in the identifications of goods, we find that
consumers will use ordinary care in making their purchases.
This DuPont factor is neutral in our analysis.
3. Conclusion
We have found that the marks are similar and the goods are related. Further, the
purchasers and trade channels of Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods overlap. There
is no evidence of third-party uses of the same or similar marks. We therefore conclude
that Applicant’s BANBURY DESIGNS mark for its identified goods is likely to be
confused with Registrant’s BANBURY mark for its goods including “faucets.”
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) is affirmed.