Allen Street Owner LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2018

No. 87138386 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2018)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: October 26, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Allen Street Owner LLC
_____

Serial No. 87138386
_____

Anthony F. Lo Cicero of Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP,
for Allen Street Owner LLC
Monica L. Beggs, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105,
Jennifer L. Williston, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Kuczma, Hightower and Goodman,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Allen Street Owner LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark ALLEN HOTEL (in standard characters, with “hotel” disclaimed) for
“hotel accommodation services” in International Class 43.1

1 Application Serial No. 87138386 was filed on August 15, 2016, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act.

Page references herein to the application record refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status &
Document Retrieval (TSDR) system database. References to the briefs on appeal refer to the
Board’s TTABVUE docket system.
Serial No. 87138386
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2), on the basis that Applicant’s mark is
primarily geographically descriptive of Applicant’s services, and under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark so
resembles the registered mark ETHAN ALLEN for “providing facilities for business
meetings” in International Class 35 and “hotel services, namely, inn and motel
services, restaurant services” in International Class 43 as to be likely to cause
confusion, mistake or deceive.2
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 reverse the refusals to register.
I. Preliminary Matter
Applicant attached exhibits to its appeal brief, almost all of which were submitted
during prosecution. The Board discourages the practice of attaching copies of
evidence submitted during examination to appeal briefs. See, e.g., In re Allegiance
Staffing, 115 USPQ2d 1319, 1323 (TTAB 2015); TBMP § 1203.01 (2018).
The Examining Attorney objects to our consideration of Exhibit I, attached to
Applicant’s appeal brief, which consists of a dictionary.com definition for “Allen” that
was not submitted prior to appeal. 4 TTABVUE 66-70. In response to the objection,
Applicant argues that Applicant’s Exhibit I is based on the Random House

2 Reg. No. 2905879 issued November 30, 2004; Section 8 accepted, Section 15 acknowledged;
renewed. The registration includes the following statement: “The name shown in the mark
does not identify a living individual.”
Serial No. 87138386
- 3 -
Unabridged Dictionary (in printed form) and that the Board can take judicial notice
of the material. We take judicial notice of the dictionary.com definition for “Allen”
and deny the Examining Attorney’s objection.
II. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on likelihood of
confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567
(CCPA 1973). See also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201,
1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations
are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods or
services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192
USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976). These factors, and the other relevant du Pont factors now
before us, are discussed below.
A. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services
We first turn to the second du Pont factor relating to the similarity or dissimilarity
of the respective services. The issue of likelihood of confusion must be determined on
the basis of the services as set forth in the application and the cited registration.
Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computs. Servs. Inc.,
918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). In comparing the services, it
is not necessary that they be identical or even competitive in nature in order to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion. The services need only be “related in some
Serial No. 87138386
- 4 -
manner and/or if 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. Inc. v. Triumph Learning, LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)).
The Examining Attorney has focused on Registrant’s Class 43 hotel services and
we do the same. Applicant’s services are “hotel accommodation services.” Registrant’s
services are identified as “hotel services, namely, inn and motel services, restaurant
services.” The Examining Attorney has provided the following definitions:
Inn: “hotel”;3
Motel: “a roadside hotel designed primarily for motorists, typically having the
rooms arranged in a low building with parking directly outside”;4

Hotel: “an establishment providing accommodations, meals, and other services for
travelers and tourists.”5

Based upon the above definitions, we find that Applicant’s services are closely
related, if not legally identical, to Registrant’s “inn and motel services” as both are
concerned with providing lodging, usually temporary, for travelers and other guests.
It is sufficient for finding a likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any
item encompassed by the identification of goods or services within a particular class
in the application or cited registration. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills

3 April 19, 2017 Office Action at 6. American Heritage Dictionary (ahdictionary.com).
4 Id. at 8.
5 November 18, 2016 Office Action at 5. Oxford Dictionary (en.oxford.com).
Serial No. 87138386
- 5 -
Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981). We find the second du
Pont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
B. The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade
channels, classes of purchasers, and the conditions under which and
buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated
purchasing
We next consider the third and fourth du Pont factors. As to channels of trade and
classes of purchasers, neither Applicant’s nor Registrant’s recitation of services
contains any limitations regarding the channels of trade or the classes of purchasers.
Thus, Applicant’s and Registrant’s services are presumed to move in all normal
channels of trade and be offered to all ordinary classes of consumers for the services.
In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981). We find Applicant’s and Registrant’s
channels of trade, if not the same, are overlapping. The third du Pont factor weighs
in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
As to the fourth du Pont factor, “the conditions under which and buyers to whom
sales are made, i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing,” Applicant
contends that the relevant consumers are sophisticated since hotel lodging services
are not inexpensive and could cost hundreds of dollars for a weekend stay. Applicant
also argues that agents or professional event planners often book hotels for clients,
“exercising even greater care.” 6 TTABVUE 11.
Other than Applicant’s argument, there is no evidence that purchasers of any type
of hotel or motel lodging exercise a greater degree of care. The descriptions of services
in the application and cited registration do not contain any limitations pertaining to
the conditions of sale. Therefore, services for both the application and cited
Serial No. 87138386
- 6 -
registration include all types of hotel, motel and temporary lodging service, from
upscale, luxury establishments to economy, budget operations. Also, the average
purchaser of hotel and motel services could vary from the person driving down the
road and deciding on impulse to stop for the day, to the person who planned and made
an advance reservation after careful consideration. Even if purchasers may exercise
a higher degree of care in making hotel or motel reservations, that does not immunize
them from source confusion. See In re Research Trading Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 230
USPQ 49, 50 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Carlisle Chem. Works, Inc. v. Hardman & Holden
Ltd., 434 F.2d 1403, 168 USPQ 110, 112 (CCPA 1970) (“Human memories even of
discriminating purchasers...are not infallible.”). We find the fourth du Pont factor
neutral.
C. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks
We next consider the first du Pont factor, whether ALLEN HOTEL and ETHAN
ALLEN are similar or dissimilar “in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and 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) (quoting du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567). “The proper test 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.” Coach Servs., 101
USPQ2d at 1721 (quoting Leading Jewelers Guild, Inc. v. LJOW Holdings, LLC, 82
USPQ2d 1901, 1905 (TTAB 2007)).
Serial No. 87138386
- 7 -
The Examining Attorney argues that “Allen” is the dominant portion of
Applicant’s mark, due to the disclaimed term “Hotel,” and that “Allen” could be
perceived in both marks as a surname. The Examining Attorney contends that
Applicant’s mark and the registered mark convey the same meaning and create the
same commercial impression.
Applicant, on the other hand, argues that the commonality of “Allen” in the marks
is an insufficient basis upon which to find the marks to be similar. Rather, Applicant
contends that the marks must be considered in their entireties and, when so
considered, the marks differ in connotation and overall commercial impression.
Applicant asserts that ETHAN ALLEN is a well-known furniture company and that
the term ETHAN ALLEN is synonymous with furniture and interior design.
Applicant submits that consumers are likely to view ETHAN ALLEN as indicating a
hotel that “promotes the Ethan Allen lifestyle aesthetic and which features Ethan
Allen furniture.” 4 TTABUVE 9. Applicant also notes that the Ethan Allen Hotel is
located adjacent to Ethan Headquarters in Danbury, Connecticut. As to its mark,
Applicant contends that ALLEN HOTEL simply suggests hotel services.
The record includes the following evidence: “Ethan Allen Global Inc. is an
American furniture chain with almost 300 stores across the United States, Canada
and the United Kingdom,” listing revenues of $1.1 billion in 2015.6 January 31, 2017

6 As shown in Registrant’s registration for furniture, Ethan Allen identifies the name of an
early American patriot. January 31, 2017 Response to Office Action at 15. Ethan Allen was
an “American soldier in the Revolutionary War and leader of the ‘Green Mountain Boys’ of
Vermont.” Dictionary.com, Random House Unabridged Dictionary. 4 TTABVUE 67. As noted
above, we have taken judicial notice of this dictionary entry.
Serial No. 87138386
- 8 -
Response to Office Action at 11, 18. The Ethan Allen Headquarters Complex is located
in Danbury, Connecticut and includes the “Ethan Allen Hotel, corporate
headquarters offices, and an interior design center.” Id. at 12. The Ethan Allen Hotel
is “devoted to the Ethan Allen Furniture Company’s aesthetic of simple livable
luxury. … [T]he hotel’s social areas and 193 rooms and suites showcase the legendary
craftsmanship and interiors that define the Ethan Allen lifestyle” and “boasts Ethan
Allen furniture and design.” September 7, 2017 Request for Reconsideration at 15,
18.
As to the term “Allen,” evidence in the record shows that the term can reference
not only a surname, but also a given name, or one of many geographic locations. June
2, 2017 Response to Office Action at 9-13. (Wikipedia.com).
In considering the marks, they are somewhat similar in sound and appearance
since they share the common word “Allen,” but also dissimilar in sound and
appearance due to the additional term “Ethan” and, to a limited extent, the generic
term “Hotel.” As to connotation and commercial impression, the marks must be
considered in their entireties, and when so compared, ETHAN ALLEN and ALLEN
HOTEL take on different meanings and commercial impressions. In association with
hotel services, ETHAN ALLEN suggests either the widely recognized historical
figure, or a hotel emphasizing the Ethan Allen style aesthetic and containing Ethan
Allen furnishings. Cf. Philip Morris, Inc. v. Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, 14
USPQ2d 1487 (TTAB 1990) (PARK AVENUE represents a certain “upscale, affluent”
imagery and style; mark is used to suggest a sophisticated aura linked to that street
Serial No. 87138386
- 9 -
associated with fashionable living in Manhattan). On the other hand, ALLEN
HOTEL is reminiscent of a surname or a given name associated with a hotel.
Consumers viewing the mark ETHAN ALLEN would see it as having the connotation
of a hotel featuring ETHAN ALLEN furniture and design or associate it with the
historical person. ALLEN HOTEL, on the other hand, would be perceived as the given
name or surname of someone associated with the hotel.
Moreover, there is nothing in the record to support a finding that ALLEN HOTEL
would be perceived as a variant of Registrant’s ETHAN ALLEN mark. We find that
the marks in their entireties convey overall different commercial impressions and
that consumers would be able to differentiate the marks. The differences in
connotation and commercial impression outweigh any similarities in sound and
appearance. See Champagne Louis Roederer S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d
1373, 47 USPQ2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (CRISTAL for champagne held not
confusingly similar to CRYSTAL CREEK for wine); In re Hearst Corp., 982 F.2d 493,
25 USPQ2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (VARGA GIRL for calendars held not confusingly
similar to VARGAS for calendars). This du Pont factor weighs in Applicant’s favor.
D. Conclusion on Likelihood of Confusion
We have considered all of the evidence and arguments relating to the du Pont
factors, including those that have not been discussed, and conclude that in spite of
services that are legally identical in part as well as overlapping channels of trade and
potential purchasers, the marks are too dissimilar to warrant a determination of
likely confusion. We consider the first du Pont factor dispositive in this case. See
Serial No. 87138386
- 10 -
Champagne Louis Roederer, 47 USPQ2d at 1460 (holding that Board did not err in
deciding likelihood of confusion based solely on dissimilarity of marks regardless of
other du Pont factors, that favored a likelihood of confusion, noting that “we have
previously upheld Board determinations that one DuPont factor may be dispositive
in a likelihood of confusion analysis, especially when that single factor is the
dissimilarity of the marks”); Kellogg Co. v. Pack’em Ents., 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d
1142, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (upholding Board decision that “a single duPont factor –
the dissimilarity of the marks – was dispositive of the likelihood of confusion issue,”
observing “we know of no reason why, in a particular case, a single duPont factor may
not be dispositive”).
The refusal to register under Section 2(d) is reversed.
III. Section 2(e)(2) Primarily Geographically Descriptive
We now turn to the Section 2(e)(2) refusal. The Examining Attorney issued this
refusal after Applicant advised, in response to an information request, that services
will be rendered “at the address 139-141 Orchard Street New York, NY 10002,
physically located between Orchard and Allen Streets in New York City.” January
31, 2017 Response to Office Action at 8.
The test for determining whether a term is primarily geographically descriptive
is whether (1) the primary significance of the term in the mark sought to be registered
is the name of a place generally known to the public, (2) the public would make an
association between the goods or services and the place named in the mark, that is,
believe that the goods or services for which the mark is sought to be registered
Serial No. 87138386
- 11 -
originate in that place, and (3) the source of the goods or services is the geographic
region named in the mark. See In re Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 113
USPQ2d 1445, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Societe Generale Des Eaux
Minerales De Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); In re Miracle
Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d 1339, 104 USPQ2d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Jacques
Bernier, Inc., 894 F.2d 389, 213 USPQ 889 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The relevant public in the test is the purchasing public in the United States of the
types of goods or services identified in the application. In re Newbridge Cutlery, 113
USPQ2d at 1449. The refusal applies “only to those marks for which the geographical
meaning is perceived by the relevant public as the primary meaning and ... the
geographical significance of the mark is to be assessed as it is used on or in connection
with the goods [or services].” Id. at 1448.
A. Whether the primary significance of the term in the mark sought to be
registered is the name of a place generally known to the public.
For this prong of the test, the Federal Circuit has explained that evidence “that
the population of the location is sizable and/or that members of the consuming public
have ties to the location ... is evidence that a location is generally known. By contrast,
that the geographic meaning of a location is ‘minor, obscure [or] remote’ indicates
that the location is not generally known. ... Of course, there are many probative
factors to the question of whether a location is generally known.” In re Newbridge
Cutlery, 113 USPQ2d at 1449.
Applicant’s applied-for mark ALLEN HOTEL must be evaluated as a whole. It is
settled, however, that the primarily geographic significance of a term is not overcome
Serial No. 87138386
- 12 -
by the addition of a generic term. In re Cheezwhse.com Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1920
(TTAB 2008) (affirming refusal of NORMANDIE CAMEMBERT for cheese); In re
Carolina Apparel, 48 USPQ2d 1542, 1543 (TTAB 1998) (“CAROLINA APPAREL,
APPAREL being generic and disclaimed by applicant, is geographic.”). In this case,
“hotel” is a generic term for Applicant’s hotel accommodation services. November 28,
2016 Office Action at 5 (en.oxforddictionaries.com), see definition above.
The Examining Attorney’s evidence that ALLEN is a generally known geographic
location consists of a portion of a map that shows “Allen St.” is a street in New York
City and a photograph of a street image of Allen street (both google.com/maps), a
Wikipedia entry (wikipedia.com) for “Allen Street,” an article from ny.curbed.com,
and an article from boweryboogie.com, both of which discuss the “Allen Street Hotel.”
April 19, 2017 Office Action at 2-17.
The Wikipedia article describes “Allen street” as a “street in the New York City
borough of Manhattan that runs north-south through the Lower Manhattan
neighborhood of Chinatown and the Lower East Side. … The street is named after
Brigadier General William Henry Allen, the youngest person to command a Navy
Ship in the War of 1812.” Id. at 9. The entry indicates that “Allen street” was
previously known by other names, and a 1979 New York magazine article described
“Allen street” as an “unbusy area removed from the bustle of Grand Street and the
Bowery.” Id at 9, 11. In the earlier part of the 20th century, the street was populated
by Romanian and Sephardic jews, and in 1903 rival gangs fought a gun battle beneath
the elevated train tracks (since demolished) at Allen and Rivington streets. Id. at 9.
Serial No. 87138386
- 13 -
There was a tenement fire on Allen street in 1905. Id. The article from ny.curbed.com
describes the hotel located “at 139-141 Orchard Street/139 Allen Street” as a “severely
stalled hotel site … originally purchased in 1999 …. Construction began but was
never completed.” Id. at 14. The article at boweryboogie.com describes the hotel
property as being on Orchard and Allen, with the property comprising 139-141
Orchard street. Id. at 13-14.7
Several non-geographic meanings for the term “Allen” are shown on Wikipedia
pages for the entry “Allen” Applicant submitted. June 2, 2017 Response to Office
Action at 9-13. (Wikipedia.com). Allen can refer to both a surname and a given name.
Id. at 12. Allen refers to an American tool company well known for hex keys known
as “Allen keys.” Id. at 11. Allen also identifies schools: Allen University, Allen
Community College and Allen high school; and buildings: Allen Center in Houston,
Texas, Allen Arena in Nashville, Tennessee, and Allen Fieldhouse, in Lawrence,
Kansas. Id. at 11.
While not disputing that Allen Street is a geographic location, Applicant argues
that Allen Street
is neither well known nor is Applicant’s Mark ALLEN
STREET HOTEL—the mark is ALLEN HOTEL. “ALLEN”
standing alone does not hold any independent significance,
geographic or otherwise. And, even if it did hold such
geographic significance, there are at least 25 geographic
locations named “ALLEN” in the United States.

7 The same evidence was submitted with the final office action dated August 15, 2017, which
was unnecessary and duplicative. Applicant also submitted the Wikipedia article relating to
Allen Street in its September 17, 2017 Request for Reconsideration at 37-40, when it could
have simply referenced the evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney to support its
arguments.
Serial No. 87138386
- 14 -
4 TTABVUE 14. Applicant further argues that the record lacks substantial evidence
to support the conclusion that ALLEN is generally known to the relevant public as a
geographic location in New York City. Id. at 15.
The record supports Applicant’s contention that there are numerous geographic
locations named “Allen” in the United States. Places with the name “Allen” include
locations in Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, West
Virginia and Wisconsin. June 2, 2017 Response to Office Action at 9-10. Streets with
the name Allen include Allen Parkway in Houston, “a major street,” as well as Allen
Street in New York City. Id. at 12. The abundance of other geographic locations with
the name “Allen” distinguishes this case from In re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d
764, 226 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1985), in which the record contained only “a few
other uses” of the relevant term, DURANGO, as a geographic name. Nor can we
conclude from the record here that Applicant’s own geographic location is the place
most prominently associated with the name “Allen.” Cf. In re Cambridge Dig. Sys., 1
USPQ2d 1659, 1662 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (affirming refusal to register CAMBRIDGE
DIGITAL where applicant conceded that its location, Cambridge, Mass., “can
generally be considered the most well-known location in this country bearing the
name ‘Cambridge’.”).
Considering the record as a whole, we are unconvinced that “Allen” primarily
identifies a geographic location in New York City that is “known generally to the
American purchasing public.” See Newbridge Cutlery, 113 USPQ2d at 1450. We take
Serial No. 87138386
- 15 -
account of the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Newbridge Cutlery, which reversed a
Section 2(e)(2) refusal for lack of substantial evidence showing that Newbridge,
Ireland was generally known to the relevant American public. Id. According to the
court, although Internet evidence may be relied on to establish that a location is
generally known, “the fact that Newbridge, Ireland, is mentioned on some internet
websites does not show that it is a generally known location. The internet (and
websites such as Wikipedia) contains enormous amounts of information: some of it is
generally known, and some of it is not.” Id. The Court also held that evidence of “other
meanings, both geographical and non-geographical,” rendered it less likely that the
term is generally known as the name of a place. Id. at 1451.
In this case, the record reflects that Allen has non-geographic significance and can
refer to numerous geographic locations. Additionally, the quantity and nature of the
evidence regarding Allen Street in New York City does not establish that it is
generally known to United States consumers. We lack persuasive evidence showing,
for example, that Allen Street has a well-known historical significance, is a popular
tourist destination, or has a widely recognized reputation for some other reason.
Rather, we find a similarity to the situation in Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales,
3 USPQ2d at 1452, where the Court stated, “[t]here can be no doubt that the PTO
has established that Vittel is in fact the name of a small town in the Voges mountain
region of France ... but how many people in this country know that?”
Serial No. 87138386
- 16 -
We find the first prong of the inquiry under Section 2(e)(2), that the primary
significance of the term in the mark sought to be registered is the name of a place
generally known to the public, is not satisfied.
B. Conclusion on primarily geographic descriptiveness
Because the Examining Attorney has failed to prove the first prong of the test for
a primarily geographically descriptive term, the Section 2(e)(2) refusal to register
cannot stand and is reversed.
Decision: The Section 2(d) and Section 2(e)(2) refusals to register Applicant’s
mark ALLEN HOTEL are reversed.