American Green Technology, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

No. 87026774 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: June 28, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re American Green Technology, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 87026774
_____

Terry L. McCutcheon of Matthews Lawson McCutcheon & Joseph PLLC
for American Green Technology, Inc.
Parker Howard, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 117,
Michael Baird, Acting Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Taylor, Lykos and Goodman,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
American Green Technology, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark VIDASHIELD (in standard characters) for
Antimicrobial, UV-lighting fixtures used for medical
purposes to continuously clean exposed surfaces within
occupied and unoccupied rooms; germicidal, UV-lighting
fixtures used for medical purposes to continuously clean
exposed surfaces within occupied and unoccupied rooms in
International Class 10.1

1 Application Serial No. 87026774 was filed on May 5, 2016, based upon Applicant’s allegation
of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark
Serial No. 87026774
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney has 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 so resembles the registered marks VITASHIELD2 (standard
characters) and
,3
both for “Apparatus for the treatment of air, namely, air purifying apparatus, air
filtering apparatus, air humidifying apparatus; air filters for the aforesaid
apparatus” in International Class 11 as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or
deceive.4

Act. An amendment to allege use was filed on February 17, 2017, alleging a date of first use
and use in commerce of June 10, 2016.

Page references herein to the application record refer to the online (non-downloaded) version
of the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the
briefs, motions and orders on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.
2 Reg. No. 4634864 issued November 11, 2014.
3 Reg. No. 4634917 issued November 11, 2014. The description of the mark states: “The mark
consists of the stylized wording “VITASHIELD IPS” below a plain single line circle that has
six unshaded smaller circles to the right, seven shaded smaller circles to the left and two
smaller shaded circles and one smaller unshaded circle in the middle of the plain line circle.”
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
4 The Examining Attorney additionally required Applicant to clarify the nature of the UV –
lighting fixtures (initially classified in Class 11 as were the remaining goods) and, if
necessary, to add and/or change the classification and pay any necessary additional fees.
Applicant satisfied the identification requirement by clarifying the nature of the goods,
deleting some of the goods, and seeking registration of goods in both Classes 10 and 11, for
medical and non-medical purposes, respectively. Applicant later deleted the Class 11 non-
medical goods from the application. February 17, 2016 Response to Office Action, p. 1;
October 2, 2017 Request for Reconsideration, p. 2.
Serial No. 87026774
- 3 -
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. 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. 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. To the extent that any other du Pont factors for which no argument
or evidence was presented may nonetheless be applicable, we treat them as neutral.
In this case, we shall base our Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion findings and
decision on Registration No. 4634864 for the mark VITASHIELD for “Apparatus for
the treatment of air, namely, air purifying apparatus, air filtering apparatus, air
humidifying apparatus; air filters for the aforesaid apparatus.” A finding of likelihood
of confusion between Applicant’s mark and this previously-registered mark suffices
by itself to bar registration of Applicant’s mark under Section 2(d); we need not find
likelihood of confusion as to both of the cited registrations. See In re Max Capital
Serial No. 87026774
- 4 -
Group Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010); In re Davey Products Pty Ltd., 92
USPQ2d 1198, 1201 (TTAB 2009).
A. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks
We analyze “the marks 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. Inc. v. Triumph Learning,
LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Leading
Jewelers Guild, Inc. v. LJOW Holdings, LLC, 82 USPQ2d 1901, 1905 (TTAB 2007)).
The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a
general rather than a specific impression of trademarks. See Johann Maria Farina
Gegenuber Dem Julichs-Platz v. Chesebrough-Pond, Inc., 470 F.2d 1385, 176 USPQ
199, 200 (CCPA 1972); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1740
(TTAB 2014); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975).
Applicant’s mark is VIDASHIELD and the cited mark is VITASHIELD. The
marks are substantially similar in appearance, both consisting of a compound term
beginning with the letters “VI” and “DA” or “TA”, respectively, and ending with the
word “SHIELD.” The marks differ by only one letter, the consonant “D” or “T,” which
may not even be noticed given its placement in the middle of each mark. The marks
Serial No. 87026774
- 5 -
are very similar in sound as the consonants “D” and “T” in the “VIDA” and “VITA”
portion of the marks are pronounced in similar ways and the “SHIELD” portion of
both marks is pronounced the same. In terms of connotation, we find that the marks
are similar to the extent that the term “SHIELD” means the same thing in both
marks, to protect or defend, and to the extent that the “VIDA/VITA” portion of these
marks has any meaning at all, consumers may attribute the same meaning given the
similar appearance of the terms. We find the marks project an overall similar
commercial impression.
We find that the marks are similar in their entireties as to their appearance,
sound, connotation and commercial impression. This du Pont factor favors a finding
of likelihood of confusion.
B. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods
We turn next to the du Pont factor regarding the similarity or dissimilarity of the
respective goods. The issue of likelihood of confusion must be determined on the basis
of the goods as set forth in the application and the cited registration. Octocom Sys.
Inc. v. Hous. Computs. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir.
1990). In comparing the goods, it is not necessary that they be identical or even
competitive in nature in order to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. The
goods need only be “related in some 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., 101 USPQ2d at 1722 (quoting 7-Eleven
Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)). The question is not whether
Serial No. 87026774
- 6 -
purchasers can differentiate the goods themselves, but rather whether purchasers
are likely to confuse the source of the goods. Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer Inc., 71
USPQ2d 1301, 1305 (TTAB 2004). In determining the similarity or dissimilarity of
the goods, we note that the more similar the marks at issue, the less similar the goods
need to be for the Board to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d
120, 426 USPQ2d 1687, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d
1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001). When the marks are extremely similar, as they are here, it
is only necessary that there be a viable relationship between the goods to support a
finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ
355, 356 (TTAB 1983).
Applicant’s goods are “[a]ntimicrobial, UV-lighting fixtures used for medical
purposes to continuously clean exposed surfaces within occupied and unoccupied
rooms; germicidal, UV-lighting fixtures used for medical purposes to continuously
clean exposed surfaces within occupied and unoccupied rooms.” Registrant’s goods
are “[a]pparatus for the treatment of air, namely, air purifying apparatus, air
filtering apparatus, air humidifying apparatus; air filters for the aforesaid
apparatus.” The Examining Attorney has focused on Registrant’s “air purifying
apparatus,” and we do the same.
Applicant argues that the respective goods are distinctly different, do not
encompass each other in any way, and are totally non-competitive, while the
Examining Attorney argues that the goods are related or complementary goods.
Serial No. 87026774
- 7 -
The Examining Attorney has provided evidence that air purifying apparatus may
include a germicidal ultraviolet (UV) lamp which is installed in-duct or mounted onto
the air coil of an HVAC system with the purpose to kill microorganisms–including
mold, viruses and bacteria on air coils, surfaces and in the airstream.5 These units
are available for use in residential, commercial, institutional, medical and military
installations.
“UV has been proven under numerous studies for its ability
to destroy the DNA of germs: viruses, mold, spores, fungi
and bacteria. … In the commercial world, i.e., hospitals,
clean rooms and food processing plants, the objective would
be to have instantaneous kill [rate]. … In residential
applications, the objective is to create a cost effective and
continuous method of cleaning the air. … American-
Lights® UV Air Cleaner is extremely effective against
virtually any airborne microbes including rhinoviruses
(colds), influenza, bacteria, mold, mold spores and viruses.”
americanairanwater.com, August 17, 2016 Office Action, p.
10.
“In-Duct & Stand-Alone Sanuvox [UV Air and Coil
Sterilization] systems are used around the world in
residential, commercial, institutional, medical and
military installations and … widely accepted to be one of
the most effective air sterilization systems available.”
sanuvox.com, August 17, 2016 Office Action p. 11.
Lumalier offers commercial HVAC In-Duct Airstream
Disinfection Systems, Residential HVAC ventilation
systems for whole house/building air cleaning.
lumalier.com, October 23, 2017 Office Action, pp. 12-13.
“[A]n Abatement Technologies® CAP500 Series UV
Germicidal Air Purification Device [installed] into your

5 The band of UV light that is germicidal is UVC. August 17, 2016 Office Action, p. 10.
In the August 17, 2016 Office Action, the webpages were missing the URL and dates. The
Examining Attorney did not include the specific links in the body of the Office Action, but
included the general website address. Because Applicant did not object, we have considered
the evidence. In re Mueller Sports Medicine, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1586 (TTAB 2018).
Serial No. 87026774
- 8 -
home’s central HVAC system can help control the
formation of mold, bacteria and other health-threatening
microbes and unpleasant odors. … CAP500 UV Lamp
Systems are sold and installed by professional contractors
into the central air handler of the HVAC system.”
www.abatement.com, March 30, 2017 Office Action, p.3.
“The FRESH-AIRE UV® Purity Whole House System
offers the ultimate enhancement to indoor air quality. …
Germicidal UV Light ... is a proven technology that kills
germs on surfaces and in the air as they pass by. The
Fresh-Aire UV light in Purity works with the filter media
for maximum effect.” freshaireuv.com, March 30, 2017
Office Action, p. 19.
“The UVMatrix SI-Series uses UVC light to disinfect
HVAC coils in large air handlers. … THE UV-C light
generated by the SI Series kills microorganisms on coils,
surfaces and airstream – including mold, flu viruses and
bacteria.” The identified applications for this product are
large air handlers, commercial, medical and public.
Installation is by an Ultravation or local commercial HVAC
contractor. commercial.ultravation.com, March 30, 2017
Office Action, p. 26.

The Examining Attorney provided information regarding UV surface cleaners
which disinfect and sanitize:
Titan-UV Rapid handheld surface sanitizer applications
include “residential and commercial surface sanitizing,”
“surface decontamination in hospitals, clinics, and nursing
homes.” mrsa-uv.com, October 23, 2017 Office Action, p. 21.
The Environmental Surface Disinfection System (ESDS)
from Fresh-Aire UV® Commercial can be used in
healthcare settings and addresses the need of surface
disinfection in spaces that are prone to biological
contamination or where biohazards must be kept to an
absolute minimum. ESDS uses germicidal light to disinfect
room surfaces when the area is unoccupied.
freshaireuv.com, March 30, 2017 Office Action, p. 21.
Serial No. 87026774
- 9 -
The Examining Attorney also provided evidence that shows that some UV
sterilization products sanitize both surfaces and the air.
“The Environmental Surface Disinfection System (ESDS)
from Fresh-Aire UV® Commercial … uses germicidal light
to disinfect room surfaces when the area is unoccupied.” It
also “kills airborne germs as they pass by.” The ESDS may
be used “for healthcare and related applications.”
freshaireuv.com, March 30, 2017 Office Action, pp. 21-22.
“[T]he ARTZ (Automatically Reliably Targeting Zero)
Mobile Room Germicidal UVC Solution. . . [for] terminal
cleaning of patient rooms or surgical suites, or in any areas
of your facilities where harmful pathogens may be present.
… Delivers balanced and uniform UVC flux to surfaces and
air; automatically delivers the dose needed to reduce
pathogens.” americanultraviolet.com, October 23, 2017
Office Action, p. 4.
“Helix 450 XL Mobile UV Room Sanitizer is designed to
erradicate bacteria, viruses, and mold, in the air and on
hard surfaces . . . ideal for sanitizing … anywhere there are
concerns about surface and air contamination by harmful
pathogens.” It can be used in hospitals and medical
settings. www.mrsa-uv.com, October 23, 2017 Office
Action, p. 18.
Lumalier provides lab, biotech & clean room products for
high levels of air and surface disinfection. lumalier.com,
October 23, 2017 Office Action, pp. 12-13.
“With the advent of the high efficiency UV lamp systems,
it is now possible for In-Duct, Coil Mount and Stand-alone
systems to destroy high levels of airborne and surface bio-
contaminants.” sanuvox.com, October 23, 2017 Office
Action, p. 25.
American Air and Water provides in-duct UVC air cleaners
and in room UVC fixtures for upper air disinfection, air and
surface sterilization systems for operating rooms, and
mobile UVC room sterilizers for unoccupied rooms in
hospitals. The rooms are sterilized by two overlapping
processes: first irradiation with direct UVC fixtures that
sterilize all surfaces exposed to UV rays and then
Serial No. 87026774
- 10 -
irradiation with indirect germicidal fixtures to ensure
sterile environment and stop the transfer of pathogenic or
toxic microorganisms through the air. American-
airandwater.com, October 23, 2017 Office Action, p. 14.
In addition, the Examining Attorney provided evidence that the same entity may
provide UV air purifiers as well as UV surface cleaners for both residential and
commercial use.6
Ultraviolet.com (American Ultraviolet Corporation) offers
portable area air sanitizers, germicidal ultraviolet fixtures,
and ultraviolet air and surface equipment for residential,
commercial and industrial applications. ultraviolet.com,
October 23, 2017 Office Action, pp. 6-11.
Lumalier provides upper air disinfection products to
reduce airbone contagion to very low levels, lab, biotech &
clean room products for the high levels of air and surface
disinfection, commercial HVAC in-duct airstream
disinfection systems, residential HVAC ventilation
systems for whole house/building air cleaning. The
products are offered for “emergency medical” use and for
use in “clinics and wards.” lumalier.com, October 23, 2017
Office Action, pp. 12-13.
Fresh-Aire UV offers a whole house system which includes
an optional germicidal UV light for killing germs on
surfaces and in the air, and an environmental surface
disinfection system for commercial use (including
healthcare) that disinfects room surfaces. freshaireuv.com,
March 30, 2017 Office Action pp. 19-21.
The Examining Attorney also provided a webpage from Applicant’s website which
describes its product as reducing “the level of fungi and bacteria in treated air and

6 Applicant does not dispute that air purification devices and surface cleaning devices can be
offered by the same company. 11 TTABVUE 4. Evidence that a single company sells the goods
of both parties, “if presented, is relevant to the relatedness analysis.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Serial No. 87026774
- 11 -
reduc[ing] the settling of viable bacteria and fungi on surfaces.” October 23, 2017
Office Action p. 27.
Applicant argues that the third-party website evidence is not probative. Applicant
submits that none of these companies provide the same product as Applicant and
there are distinct differences in its patented product, which is sold in a specific
commercial market and requires professional installation. Applicant asserts that its
product is for infection control (to continuously clean and sterilize room and
equipment surfaces, while the room is occupied by medical professionals and
patients) and operates 24 hours a day in occupied spaces. Applicant contends that the
third-party products are for biological decontamination, are hand-held or portable,
require operation in unoccupied rooms only for a specified period of time, or are
products which only clean air, not surfaces, and cannot be used for the same infection
control purposes or provide the same level of infection control as Applicant’s
products.7 Applicant also asserts that the purpose of the UV products which are
installed in HVAC systems is coil cleaning to improve air-flow.
While the UV devices in the submitted website evidence may differ somewhat
from or may not operate in the exact manner as Applicant’s UV-lighting fixtures,
many are clearly intended for, or may be used in, medical facilities for germicidal
control, disinfection, and for cleaning the air and surfaces of microorganisms. These
products have similar characteristics and are similar in their general purpose and

7 Applicant acknowledges that some of these goods could be used in medical facilities. 8
TTABVUE 16.
Serial No. 87026774
- 12 -
overall application to those of Applicant. Accordingly, we find this evidence probative
of the relatedness of Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods.
Applicant also argues that the Registrant’s identified products do not provide
infection control. However, an aspect of infection control is controlling germs, and we
find that Registrant’s broadly worded “air purifying apparatus” includes germicidal
UV air purifying devices which could be used for the purpose of reducing or destroying
microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, mold and fungi in both medical and non-
medical settings.
Applicant further asserts that the goods are not related because they are different,
as Registrant’s goods are only an air treatment device while Applicant’s goods treat
exposed surfaces; the Examining Attorney submits that Applicant’s and Registrant’s
goods are complementary in terms of purpose or function.8
Where the goods at issue have complementary uses, and therefore 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,
e.g., In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290

8 In differentiating the goods, Applicant states that the only products offered and sold by
Registrant are air humidifiers and air filters, which are sold as household products to
consumers in the general consumer market. 11 TTABVUE 2. That statement, however, is
attempting to differentiate Registrant’s goods based on extrinsic evidence. As stated,
“[l]ikelihood of confusion must be resolved on the basis of the goods named in the registration
and, in the absence of specific limitations in the registration, on the basis of all normal and
usual channels of trade and methods of distribution.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315,
123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal punctuation omitted).

Serial No. 87026774
- 13 -
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used
in combination, and stating: “Such complementary use has long been recognized as a
relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion.”); American Drill
Bushing Co. v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 342 F.2d 1019, 145 USPQ 144, 146 (CCPA 1965)
(drill press and drill bushings/drill bushing liners are complementary products); In
re Sela Products, LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1580, 1587 (TTAB 2013) (surge protectors, wall
mounts and brackets complementary goods because purchasers are likely to
encounter both during course of purchasing a television, audio or home theater
system); Polo Fashions, Inc. v. La Loren, Inc., 224 USPQ 509, 511 (TTAB 1984)
(finding bath sponges and personal products such as bath oil and soap to be closely
related because they are complementary goods that are likely to be purchased and
used together by the same purchasers).
In this case, the evidence shows that UV air purifying devices and UV surface
cleaners are often used together, especially in medical settings, and that the purpose
of these goods is sanitizing/cleaning, disinfection and germ control. We find that
Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are complementary, if not closely related. This du
Pont factor weighs in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.
C. Channels of Trade
For both Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods, we must presume that the goods
move through all normal channels of trade for such products and that the goods are
available for purchase by all the usual purchasers. See Octocom, 16 USPQ2d at 1787
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Applicant’s goods are limited to use in the medical field, while
Serial No. 87026774
- 14 -
Registrant’s air purifying apparatus is without any limitation as to kind or the field
of use.
The Examining Attorney contends that Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods move
through the same trade channels, while Applicant submits that the respective goods
are totally non-competitive, sold to different purchasers, and in differing channels of
trade. Applicant characterizes Registrant’s goods as household goods for the general
consumer market, referencing advertisements and other materials related to
Registrant’s goods. February 16, 2017 Response to Office Action, pp. 7-13. Applicant
asserts that there are significant differences in the purchasers of Applicant’s and
Registrant’s goods. Applicant submits that its goods are used in a medical setting and
are sold directly to purchasers in hospital and commercial markets “who possesses a
particular knowledge and sophistication in the areas of ventilation and disease
control, infection control, and/or epidemiology, is employed in the medical industry,
and is contacting Applicant to purchase the patented product for a particular medical
use,” while Registrant’s purchasers are the average consumer for household items. 8
TTABUVE 19. However, this claimed marketplace and purchaser difference is not
reflected in Registrant’s unrestricted identification of “air purifying apparatus,” and
this du Pont factor must be based upon the identifications of the respective goods as
listed in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual
use. See, e.g., Coach Servs., 101 USPQ2d at 1722; Octocom, 16 USPQ2d at 1787.
Because Registrant’s “air purifying apparatus” is without limitation, we must
assume that Registrant’s air purifying apparatus encompasses all such types,
Serial No. 87026774
- 15 -
including those which may be intended for medical or commercial use, and is
available to all purchasers for goods of this type. The evidence shows that UV air
purifying apparatus and UV apparatus for surface cleaning are sold for residential,
commercial and medical applications. We find that the channels of trade and
potential purchasers of Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods overlap. This du Pont
factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
D. The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made
As to the level of sophistication of consumers, Applicant relies heavily on the
assumption that consumers of Registrant’s goods are relatively unsophisticated vis-
a-vis those of Applicant. Applicant contends that “the purchasers of Registrant’s
goods are average consumers looking for household items,”9 8 TTABVUE 18, while
its purchasers are sophisticated and knowledgeable “in the specific areas of:
ventilation and disease control, infection control, epidemiology, facilities structures
and codes, and engineering for correctly installing the UV-lighting fixtures to achieve
the desired and continuous germicidal and/or antimicrobial results.” Id. Applicant
also states that its goods are high priced items ranging from $1,900 to $4,000 and are
priced “based on the needs of the facility.” 8 TTABVUE 18, 20; February 16, 2017
Office Action p. 1.
However, the fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a
particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or

9 We have no evidence of the cost of Registrant’s goods, although Applicant states the price
ranges from $100 to $500 dollars. 8 TTABVUE 18.
Serial No. 87026774
- 16 -
knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion. See, e.g.,
Imagineering Inc. v. Van Klassens Inc., 53 F.3d 1260, 1265, 34 USPQ2d 1526, 1530
(Fed. Cir. 1995). We find this du Pont factor is neutral.
II. Conclusion
Because the marks are, but for a single letter, substantially similar, and the goods
closely related or complementary and travel through the same trade channels to the
same prospective consumers, we find that Applicant’s mark VIDASHIELD is likely
to cause confusion with the registered mark VITASHIELD when used in connection
with the identified goods.

Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal to register Applicant’s mark VIDASHIELD
for “Antimicrobial, UV-lighting fixtures used for medical purposes to continuously
clean exposed surfaces within occupied and unoccupied rooms; germicidal, UV-
lighting fixtures used for medical purposes to continuously clean exposed surfaces
within occupied and unoccupied rooms” in International Class 10 is affirmed.