6898743 Manitoba Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2020

87951444 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2020)

Mailed: June 11, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re 6898743 Manitoba Ltd.
_____

Serial No. 87951444

_____

Samantha M. Ferguson of Legal Services International, LLC,
for 6898743 Manitoba Ltd.

Keton Hansrajh, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 128,
Travis Wheatley, Managing Attorney.1
_____

Before Zervas, Wolfson, and Coggins,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
6898743 Manitoba Ltd. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark FAT PANDA in standard characters for “Electronic cigarette liquid (e-

1 Trademark Examining Attorney Curtis French represented the USPTO during prosecution
of the application.
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 87951444
- 2 -
liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill
electronic cigarette cartridges” in International Class 34.2
The Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark under
Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on a prior registration of the
mark PHAT PANDA and design (as depicted below) for “Cigarette paper” in
International Class 34.3

After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and filed
a request for reconsideration. When the request for reconsideration was denied, the
appeal resumed. Both Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs. For the
reasons discussed herein, we affirm the refusal to register.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination of the issue of likelihood of confusion is based on an analysis of
all the probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors set forth in In re E. I.
du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”);

2 Serial No. 87951444, filed on June 6, 2018, under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming November 1, 2103 as the date of first use and first use in commerce.
3 Registration No. 5084617, issued November 22, 2016. The description of the mark reads:
“The mark consists of a black and white panda holding a green leaf. The word ‘PHAT’, is in
green, and the word ‘PANDA’ is in black.” The colors black, white, and green are claimed as
features of the mark.
Serial No. 87951444
- 3 -
see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and the similarities between the goods and services. See Federated
Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976); In
re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We
consider the DuPont factors for which arguments and evidence were presented. In re
Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
A. Similarity of the Marks
We initially consider and compare the appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression of the marks in their entireties. Palm Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve
Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692
(Fed. Cir. 2005). “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) (quoting In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)), aff’d mem.,
777 F. App’x 516 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2019). The proper test regarding similarity “is
not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are
sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that persons who
encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”
Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713,
1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Our focus is
on “the recollection of the average customer, who retains a general rather than
Serial No. 87951444
- 4 -
specific impression of marks.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1630
(TTAB 2018) (citations omitted).
There is no dispute that the literal portion of Registrant’s mark, PHAT PANDA,
will be pronounced as FAT PANDA. The letters “ph” are typically pronounced as the
letter “f,” and we take judicial notice of the MERRIAM-WEBSTER online dictionary entry
to which Applicant refers in its brief, 7 TTABVUE 6, which depicts the pronunciation
of “phat” as “\ ‘fat \.”4 Acknowledging the phonetic equivalence, Applicant argues
that the marks “are sufficiently distinguished in all respects other than the identical
sound of the mark’s [sic] names when spoken.” Applicant’s Brief, 7 TTABVUE 6.5
Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are
confusingly similar. Inn at St. John’s, 126 USPQ2d at 1746; see also In re SnoWizard,
Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1001, 1004, n.6 (TTAB 2018) (finding SNOBALLS to be phonetic
equivalent of SNOWBALLS); In re Tapco Int’l Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1369, 1372 (TTAB
2017) (finding KLEER to be phonetic equivalent of CLEAR). Applicant argues that
the application of this principle is misplaced in this instance because the marks vary
greatly in connotation due to the different meanings of “phat” and “fat,” and the
additional design features in Registrant’s mark. 7 TTABVUE 6.

4 At merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phat, accessed June 4, 2020. The Board may take
judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including from online dictionaries that exist in printed
formats. See, e.g., In re Omniome, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 3222, *2 n.17 (TTAB 2019).
5 Page references to the application record are to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the briefs, motions and orders on appeal are to the
Board’s TTABVUE docket system.
Serial No. 87951444
- 5 -
Applicant contends that the connotation of FAT PANDA is that of an overweight
giant panda, whereas Registrant’s mark will be understood as referring to a cannabis-
related product. “The ‘PH’ spelling and the leaf in Registrant’s Mark give the overall
impression of a cannabis related product and the use of the slang word ‘phat’ provides
a connotation of going against social norms.” Id. The MERRIAM-WEBSTER online
dictionary noted above defines “phat” as a slang term that means “highly attractive
or gratifying,” and the design of a giant panda chewing on a green leaf (to the extent
it would be seen as a marijuana leaf rather than a bamboo leaf) will, Applicant argues,
bring to mind the presumed pleasure of smoking marijuana. Applicant concludes that
“the parties’ marks evoke very different images in the minds of relevant consumers
with Registrant’s consumers envisioning using the cigarette paper to smoke
marijuana.” Id. However, the issue is not whether consumers would confuse the goods
themselves, but rather whether they would be confused as to the source of the
goods. See In re Cook Med. Techs. LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1377, 1380 (TTAB 2012); Helene
Curtis Indus. Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1618, 1624 (TTAB 1989); In re
Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984). Despite the possible allusion to cannabis-
related products in Registrant’s mark, both Applicant’s “fat” and Registrant’s “phat”
modify the noun PANDA. The marks are similar in meaning because both marks
share the term “panda” and giant pandas are generally large and heavy mammals.
Nor does the additional design in Registrant’s mark render them dissimilar. “For
rational reasons, the [Board, in comparing the marks] may give more or less weight
to a particular feature of the marks.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281
Serial No. 87951444
- 6 -
F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In composite marks such as the
cited mark, “the words are normally accorded greater weight because they are likely
to make a greater impression upon purchasers, to be remembered by them, and to be
used by them to request the goods.” In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d
1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905,
1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“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.’”) (internal citation omitted)); see also In re Appetito
Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987) (“if one of the marks comprises
both a word and a design, then the word is normally accorded greater weight because
it would be used by purchasers to request the goods or services”).
The design is but a visual representation of the wording “phat panda.” The green
color of the leaf design in the mark matches the green of the word “phat,” thereby
further binding the words together with the design and reinforcing the wording as the
dominant feature in Registrant’s mark. Applicant’s mark, being in standard
characters, could be displayed in green and black letters in a font style comparable to
that of the cited mark. See Trademark Rule 2.52(a); Aquitaine Wine, 126 USPQ2d at
1187 (“a ‘standard character mark’…may be used in ‘any particular font style, size, or
color.’”). It is not improper to give more weight to the words PHAT PANDA as the
dominant portion of Registrant’s mark “provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a
consideration of the marks in their entireties.” Aquitaine Wine, 126 USPQ2d at 1185
(citing In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ2d 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1983));
Serial No. 87951444
- 7 -
Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012). For those who may
not know the slang term “phat,” that word, being the phonetic equivalent of and
similar in appearance to “fat,” will create the same impression as “fat” when used next
to the design of a rotund, eating, giant panda. In their entireties, the marks are
similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
The first DuPont factor supports a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
B. Relatedness of the Goods
We turn next to the second DuPont factor, which requires us to determine the
relatedness of the goods as identified in Applicant’s application and the cited
registration. “[T]he question of registrability of an applicant’s mark must be decided
on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the application.” Stone Lion
Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161-
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Comp. Servs. Inc., 918
F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Hewlett-Packard Co., 62 USPQ2d
at 1001.6 The goods need not be identical or even competitive in order to support a
finding of likelihood of confusion. Rather, it is enough that they are related in some
manner or that circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they would
be likely to be seen by the same persons under circumstances which could give rise,
because of the marks used or intended to be used therewith, to a mistaken belief that
they originate from or are in some way associated with the same producer or that

6 Applicant conflates the “something more” test that applies to restaurant services and
food/beverage products with this case. Suffice it to say, the test does not apply here.
Serial No. 87951444
- 8 -
there is an association between the producers of the parties’ goods. See Coach Servs.,
101 USPQ2d at 1722; On-Line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56
USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re St. Julian Wine Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10595,
*4, (TTAB 2020).
Applicant’s goods are “electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings
in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges.”
Registrant’s goods are “cigarette paper.”
To demonstrate the relatedness of the identified goods, the Examining Attorney
submitted copies of over fifteen third-party, use-based registrations for marks
covering both e-liquid for electronic cigarette cartridges and cigarette paper, in a
single registration.7 For example:
• THE VAPOR FACTORY – Reg. No. 4909234, registered
March 1, 2016, for “electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)
comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic
cigarette cartridges” and “cigarette paper.”
• – Reg. No. 5505780, registered July 3, 2018,
for “electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings
in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic
cigarette cartridges” and “cigarette paper.”
• – Reg. No. 5542691, registered
August 14, 2018, for “electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)
comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils,
used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges” and “cigarette
paper.”

7 October 1, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 5-8 (THE VAPOR FACTORY), 11-14 (SCORPION and
design), 19-21(EFOS); May 1, 2019 Final Office Action, TSDR 43-45 (BOUNDLESS
TECHNOLOGY), 77-80 (BEONI) 81-83 (TREE FACTORY).
Serial No. 87951444
- 9 -
• BOUNDLESS TECHNOLOGY – Reg. No. 5051360, registered
September 27, 2016, for “electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)
comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic
cigarette cartridges” and “cigarette paper.”
• BEONI – Reg. No. 5587962, registered October 16, 2018, for
“Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in
liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic
cigarette cartridges” and “cigarette paper.”
• TREE FACTORY – Reg. No. 5668776, registered February 5,
2019, for “electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of
flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill
electronic cigarette cartridges” and “cigarette paper.”
Third-party registrations based on use in commerce play a role in establishing
that the types of goods at issue are related. “As a general proposition, although use-
based, third-party registrations alone are not evidence that the marks shown therein
are in use or that the public is familiar with them, they nonetheless may have some
probative value to the extent they may serve to suggest that the goods are of a kind
that emanate from a single source.” In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1738 (TTAB
2018) (citing Hewlett-Packard, 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”)).
Applicant argues that “the green marijuana leaf in Registrant’s Mark makes it
clear to the consumer that the cigarette papers are intended for use as papers for
rolling marijuana and smoking it.” 7 TTABVUE 9. That may be one, even prominent,
use to which Registrant’s “cigarette paper” may be put, but because there are no limits
on its intended use in the identification, we must view the identification as
Serial No. 87951444
- 10 -
encompassing cigarette paper for use with tobacco or marijuana. 8 “We have no
authority to read any restrictions or limitations into the registrant’s description of
goods.” I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d at 1739 (quoting In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d
1623, 1638 (TTAB 2009)). Nor may an applicant restrict the scope of the goods covered
in the cited registration by argument or extrinsic evidence. In re Midwest Gaming &
Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1165 (TTAB 2013); In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86
USPQ2d 1645, 1647 (TTAB 2008); In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763,
764 (TTAB 1986). Therefore, Applicant’s allegations concerning the actual use for
which Registrant sells its cigarette paper are irrelevant in the context of this ex parte
proceeding.
Applicant next argues that “assuming that Registrant’s cigarette papers were used
for tobacco rather than for marijuana, the mere fact that plain marijuana-free
cigarette papers are smoked make the product contrary and in direct opposition to
Applicant’s goods” which are heated by a battery to produce vapor. 7 TTABVUE 9. We
disagree. Vaping and smoking are functionally related.9 Applicant concedes that both

8 We recognize that use of a mark in connection with the sale of marijuana may be an
unlawful use, but we make no finding with respect to whether or not Registrant engages in
such practice and disregard Applicant’s arguments regarding same. Evidence and
arguments that constitute a collateral attack on a cited registration, such as that the owner
of the cited mark is engaged in unlawful use of the mark, constitute an impermissible attack
on the registration and are not relevant during ex parte prosecution. See In re Dixie Rests.,
105 F.3d 1405, 1408, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534-35 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Peebles Inc., 23
USPQ2d 1795, 1797 n.5 (TTAB 1992); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv).
9 We take judicial notice of the definitions of “smoke” as an verb: “to inhale and exhale the
smoke of” and as a noun: “the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic
origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon.”
We also notice the definitions of “vapor” as a noun: “diffused matter (such as smoke or fog)
suspended floating in the air and impairing its transparency;” and “vape” as a verb: “to
inhale vapor through the mouth from a usually battery-operated electronic device (such as
Serial No. 87951444
- 11 -
cigarettes and e-cigarettes employ a substance that is inhaled. “Applicant’s Mark is
for electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), which, … is heated by the battery of an
electronic cigarette in order to produce a vapor inhaled by the user.” 7 TTABVUE 10.
Applicant argues that the term “smoker” does not apply to a person who vapes.
Applicant states, “a consumer who buys e-liquids is typically a non-smoker or a
smoker who has ceased smoking and is replacing smoking with e-liquids that contain
nicotine while eventually lessening the amount of nicotine in the e-liquid to nil over
a period of time.” 7 TTABVUE 10. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. A page from
one of the websites submitted by the Examining Attorney shows that the term
“smoking” is used to refer not just to cigarette smoking, but to electronic cigarettes,
and that e-cigarettes are advertised as substitutes for cigarettes containing tobacco.
The website reads:10
Cigarette Smokers?

We sell all cigarette brands …. We also sell all sorts of electronic
cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes are great for indoor smoking as
you exhale only water vapor. There is no more second hand
smoking with these special cigarettes. We are the largest
retailer in town for Electronic Cigarrets, E Liquid and
Vaporizers.
Thus, cigarettes and e-cigarettes are complementary, as they may be bought and
used together, or substituted for each other (as by a cigarette smoker seeking to

an electronic cigarette) that heats up and vaporizes a liquid or solid.” At merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/smoke, and merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vapor[vape], accessed
June 8, 2020.
10 At http://www.brandcigarsnewtown.com, attached to May 1, 2019 Final Office Action at
TSDR 16.
Serial No. 87951444
- 12 -
replace smoking with vaping, permanently or temporarily). See In re Martin’s
Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[T]he
products ‘bread’ and ‘cheese’ are often used in combination. Such complementary use
has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of
confusion.”); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1815 (TTAB 2014); cf. Edward Hines
Lumber Co. v. Birma Prods. Corp., 182 USPQ 61, 62 (TTAB 1974) (finding fiberglass
sheets of insulation material and lumber unrelated, noting that “it does not appear
that opposer’s goods constitute a substitute for the goods of applicant, or vice-
versa”).
Accordingly, “the respective products are related in some manner” and “the
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the
mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source,” Coach Servs., 101 USPQ2d
at 1722 (internal quotation marks omitted), when sold under similar marks. The
second DuPont factor supports a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
C. Channels of Trade and Classes of Purchasers
Turning to the trade channels and classes of consumers, as there are no restrictions
on distribution of the goods in either the cited registration or Applicant’s application,
we must presume that the goods travel through all usual channels of trade and are
offered to all normal potential customers―in this case ordinary adult consumers.11 In

11 The Examining Attorney’s argument that we must presume the goods travel in identical
channels of trade is misplaced. 9 TTABVUE 13. Only where the goods are identical or highly
related do we presume the trade channels are likewise identical. Where, as here, the goods
are not identical, we presume each product travels in its normal or usual trade channel.
Serial No. 87951444
- 13 -
re i.am.symbolic, 123 USPQ2d at 1750; Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group,
Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In this regard, it is
irrelevant whether or not Registrant restricts its actual sales to the state of
Washington as Applicant argues.
The Examining Attorney submitted pages from three third-party websites wherein
cigarette papers and e-liquid are sold. This supports a finding that the trade channels
and classes of consumers are the same for the involved goods.
• UNISHOW ONE STOP VAPE SOURCE – sells cigarette papers and e-
liquid. May 1, 2019 Final Office Action, TSDR 30-34.

• KC SMOKZ – sells cigarette rolling papers, and advertises itself as “the one
stop vape and smoke shop.” Id. at 35-39.

• TLG CANADA – sells “E-Cigarette Flavor Cartridges” and “Token Flavored
Cigarette Papers.” Id. at 87-94.12

The Examining Attorney also submitted several websites showing generally that
e-liquid is sold in stores that also feature cigarettes, cigars, or loose tobacco. These
websites carry some weight to show circumstantially that the trade channels are
related and the goods directed to the same class of consumer.
The third DuPont factor thus favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.

12 The record does not show whether TLG CANADA is located in Canada. Based on its name,
such presumption may be accurate, but the website does not so indicate
(https://tlgcanadawholesale.com) and the prices for goods are listed in U.S. dollars. Even if
TLG Canada is located in Canada, “[i]nformation originating on foreign websites or in
foreign news publications that are accessible to the United States public may be relevant to
discern United States consumer impression of a proposed mark.” In re Well Living Lab Inc.,
122 USPQ2d 1777, 1781 n.10 (TTAB 2017), aff’d per curiam, 749 Fed. Appx. 987 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960 , 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1835 (Fed. Cir.
2007)). Thus, we accord this website probative value to support the overlap in trade channels.
Serial No. 87951444
- 14 -
D. Applicant’s additional arguments
Applicant asserts that its purchasers are sophisticated because its goods are
subject to FDA regulations. This assertion is based solely on argument of counsel,
which is “no substitute for evidence.” In re OEP Enters., Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 309323,
*14 (TTAB 2019) (quoting Cai v. Diamond Hong, 127 USPQ2d at 1799 (internal
quotation omitted)). Since the average purchaser in this case is an adult member of
the general public who purchases smoking or vaping articles, consumers of the
identified goods comprise a large group, including consumers of all levels of
sophistication. “Board precedent requires the decision to be based ‘on the least
sophisticated potential purchasers.’” Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1163. Accordingly,
DuPont factor four is neutral.
Applicant asserts that there has been no actual confusion occurring as a result of
the contemporaneous use of the marks for four years. 7 TTABVUE 14. Again, this
assertion is based entirely on argument. Even assuming Registrant’s sales are
indeed limited to Washington state, the record contains no indication of the level of
sales or advertising by either company. Notably, we have no opportunity to hear from
Registrant about its levels of sales and promotion, or of any incidents of actual
confusion brought to Registrant’s attention. “The fact that an applicant in an ex parte
case is unaware of any instances of actual confusion is generally entitled to little
probative weight in the likelihood of confusion analysis, inasmuch as the Board in
such cases generally has no way to know whether the registrant likewise is unaware
of any instances of actual confusion, nor is it usually possible to determine that there
Serial No. 87951444
- 15 -
has been any significant opportunity for actual confusion to have occurred.” In re
Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (TTAB 2001)” (quoted in Davey Prods., 92
USPQ2d at 1204-05). Applicant’s claim that no instances of actual confusion have
been brought to its attention is not indicative of an absence of a likelihood of
confusion. See Gillette Can. Inc. v. Ranir Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1768, 1774 (TTAB 1992).
In any event, we are mindful of the fact that the test under Section 2(d) of the Act is
likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. DuPont factors seven and eight are
neutral.
II. Balancing the Factors
After considering all of the arguments and evidence of record as they pertain to
the relevant DuPont factors, we find that the marks are substantially similar in sight,
sound, connotation and commercial impression. We further find the goods are related
and that they travel through the same trade channels to the same class of purchasers.
Accordingly, we find that there is a likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark
FAT PANDA and the cited mark for the goods as identified.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed.