Beachbody LLCDownload PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2014No. 85779130 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014) Copy Citation 85779111 THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Hearing: Mailed: September 26, 2013 March 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ In re Beachbody LLC _____ Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 _____ Camille M. Miller and J. Trevor Cloak of Cozen O’Connor, P. C. Samuel Paquin1, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101 (Ronald R. Sussman, Managing Attorney). _____ Before Zervas, Taylor and Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Taylor, Administrative Trademark Judge: Beachbody LLC has filed applications to register on the Principal Register the marks BEACHBODY PRO TEAM2 (Serial No. 85779111) and P90X PRO TEAM3 (Serial No. 85779130) both for the following International Class 41 services: 1 Samuel Paquin represented the Office at the oral hearing and Colleen Dombrow is the Examining Attorney who was responsible for the application during prosecution and briefing. 2 Application Serial No. 85779111, filed November 14, 2012, and asserting a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C § 1051(b). Applicant claimed ownership of Registration Nos. 2862904 and 3450708 both for the mark BEACHBODY and Registration No. 2873866 for the mark . THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 2 Educational services, namely, providing web-based, classroom and other training in the field of exercise equipment, physical fitness, diet and nutritional programs for certification of and continuing education for instructors and distribution of training material in connection therewith; educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, conferences, workshops, and field trips in the field of exercise equipment, diet and nutritional programs, and sales techniques and distribution of training material in connection therewith; membership club services, namely, providing training to members in the field of exercise equipment, diet and nutritional programs, and sales techniques; educational services, namely, offering of assessments and surveys in the field of educator training and performance for the purpose of improving teaching procedures; physical fitness training services and consultancy; providing information in the field of exercise training. The trademark examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s marks give rise to a likelihood of confusion with the three registered marks owned by two different entities set forth below. A. Mike Gueringer’s Registration: Registration No. 2770165 for the mark (Fitness disclaimed) for “providing fitness and exercise facilities” in International Class 41.4 3 Application Serial No. 85779130 filed November 14, 2012 and asserting a bona fide intent to use the mark under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C § 1051(b). Applicant claimed ownership of Registration Nos. 2843063 and 3444723 both for the mark P90X and Registration No. 2973356 for the mark . 4 Issued September 30, 2003; Section 8 Affidavit accepted. We note that although this registration has not been cancelled by the Office, the registration records do not reflect the Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 3 B. Athletic Dealers, LLC’s Registrations: Registration No. 3701056 for the mark Registration No. 3701057 for the mark PROTEAM (standard characters), both for, inter alia, “fitness and weight training equipment, namely, weight benches, and exercise weights” in International Class 28;5 When the refusal in each application was made final, applicant appealed and requested reconsideration, which was denied in each proceeding on March 27, 2014. Both proceedings were subsequently resumed. The appeals have been fully briefed. In addition, applicant requested an oral hearing in each case. Because both proceedings involve similar issues of law and fact and nearly identical records, the appeals were heard in a single hearing, attended by both applicant’s attorney and the examining attorney, and are being decided in this single decision.6 We affirm the refusals to register in view of Registration No. 3701057. 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 filing of a renewal by registrant. In any event, we have not relied on this registration in reaching our decision. 5 Both registrations issued on October 27, 2009. 6 We also note that the evidence and briefs in each application are virtually identical. Accordingly, unless otherwise stated, specific arguments and evidence are taken from the record of application Serial No. 85779111. Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 4 1973). See also, In re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 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). See also, In re Dixie Rests Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In analyzing likelihood of confusion, we limit our discussion to Athletic Dealers, LLC’s Registration No. 3701057 for the standard character mark PROTEAM and for the goods identified therein as “fitness and weight training equipment, namely, weight benches, and exercise weights,” as this is the mark and these are the goods that are closest to applicant’s marks and recited services. Notably, with regard to the cited ‘057 registration, both applicant and the examining attorney focused their arguments regarding the relatedness of the respective goods and services on the fitness and weight training equipment recited in that cited registration. We also point out that to the extent that there would be confusion with the ‘057 registration, it would serve little purpose to consider the other registrations. And if there is no likelihood of confusion with the ‘057 registration, there would similarly be no likelihood of confusion with the other registrations. See In re Max Capital Group Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010). The Goods and Services, Trade Channels and Purchasers Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 5 We turn first to the relationship between applicant’s services and registrant’s goods, keeping in mind that the question of likelihood of confusion must be determined based on an analysis of the services recited in applicant’s applications vis-à-vis the goods identified in the cited ‘057 registration. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is a general rule that a registrant’s goods and an applicant’s services need not be identical or even competitive in order to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. Rather, it is enough that the goods and services are related in some manner or that some circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they would be likely to be seen by the same persons under circumstances which would give rise, because of the marks used therewith, to a mistaken belief that they originate from or are in some way associated with the same producer or that there is an association between the producers of applicant’s services and the registrant’s goods. In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991), and the cases cited therein. As identified, applicant’s services are educational services, namely, providing web-based, classroom and other training in the field of exercise equipment, physical fitness, diet and nutritional programs for certification of and continuing education for instructors and distribution of training material in connection therewith; educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, conferences, workshops, and field trips in the field of exercise equipment, diet and nutritional programs, and sales techniques and distribution of training material in connection therewith; membership club services, namely, providing training to members in the field of exercise equipment, diet and nutritional programs, and sales techniques; educational services, namely, offering of assessments and surveys in the field of educator training and performance for the purpose of improving teaching Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 6 procedures; physical fitness training services and consultancy; providing information in the field of exercise training. The goods identified in the cited registration are “fitness and weight training equipment, namely, weight benches, and exercise weights.” Applicant and the examining attorney focused their discussion on registrant’s physical fitness training services and consultancy and the providing [of] information in the field of exercise training and we will do likewise. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981) (likelihood of confusion must be found if there is likely to be confusion with respect to any items that come within the identification of goods [or services] in the application). The examining attorney maintains that applicant’s services are related to registrant’s goods because weight equipment and physical fitness training are offered by fitness companies and fitness facilities and, thus, these types of goods and services travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. In support of her position, the examining attorney has made of record web pages from the following websites:7 (www.jillianmichaels.com/fit/ultimate-fitness) shows that Jillian Michaels Ultimate Fitness offers both fitness instruction and sells exercise weights; (www.ballyfitness.com) and (www.amazon.com) show that Bally Total Fitness offers physical fitness training services and consultancy and classes in exercise equipment and also sells weights under the same name; (www.poundfit.com) shows that Pound offers training in the field of exercise equipment and physical fitness certification of and 7 Exhibits to the examining attorney’s office action issued January 17, 2013, and Final Office Action issued March 5, 2013. Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 7 continuing education for instructors, and also sells exercise weights; (www.goldsgym.com) shows that Gold’s Gym offers physical fitness training services and consultancy, and also sells exercise weights; and (shop.cathe.com) shows that Shop Cathe offers information in the field of exercise training and exercise weights. In addition, the examining attorney submitted with her Final Office Action, copies of various use-based, third-party registrations showing, in each instance, that the same mark has been registered for both “exercise weights and/or benches” and “fitness instruction and/or training in the field of exercise equipment and/or information in the field of exercise training and/or physical fitness training8.” These third-party registrations include: Registration No. 2794177 (A and design) for, inter alia, “exercise weights” and “educational services, namely conducting seminars in the field of exercise instruction and physical fitness instruction”; Registration No. 3722877 (EXPECT DIFFERENT) for, inter alia, “Exercise equipment, namely free weights, barbells, dumbbells, weight benches” and “Physical health and fitness instruction; training in the use and operation of fitness equipment”; Registration No. 3861300 (SMARTBELLS) for, inter alia, “Exercise weights, namely, free weights” and “Physical fitness instruction”; Registration No. 3668620 (INVEST) for, inter alia, “Exercise weights, namely, weighted vests, weighted belts, hand weights, wrist and ankle weights, shoe and leg weights” and “Providing information, exercises and training methods to individuals, and their trainers to help them improve their physical fitness … through the use of weighted vests and other weight equipment”; 8 We consider the fitness instruction, training in the field of exercise equipment, information in the field of exercise training, and physical fitness training services identified in the third-party registrations to include training and information services directed to physical fitness instructors. Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 8 Registration No. 3894445 (misc. design of a stylized picture of an individual exercising) for, inter alia, “exercise equipment and props, namely, … exercise benches … [and] exercise weights” and “Health club services, namely, providing instruction and/or equipment in the field of physical exercise … [and] physical fitness consultation to individuals to help them make physical fitness … and exercise improvement in their daily lives”; Registration No. 4154521 (PREVA) for “Exercise equipment, namely … exercise benches” and “Providing fitness training”; Registration No. 3945996 (KAIA F.I.T.) for, inter alia, “Exercise weights” and “Physical fitness instruction; Physical fitness training services”; Registration No. 3402918 (LES MILLS) for, inter alia, “Exercise equipment in the nature of dumbbells, barbells” and “educational services, namely, classes, seminars, programs, courses, workshops and conferences in the field[ ] of … physical fitness”; Registration No. 3336738 (THE NO GYM, NO EXCUSES COMPANY) for, inter alia, “Exercise equipment, namely … weight benches [and] dumbbells” and “live and on-line fitness lectures, classes and seminars in the field of physical fitness”; Registration No. 3469820 (SATORI ACADEMY) for, inter alia, “weight lifting benches … and exercise weights in the nature of weight plates, barbells, [and] dumbbells for weight lifting” and “physical fitness instruction and consultation”; and Registration No. 4185409 (MAKE YOUR MOVE) for, inter alia, “weight benches … [and] weight lifting equipment and accessories, namely, barbells, … dumbbells [and] kettlebells” and “Providing consultation, advice, instruction and information in the fields of physical fitness and exercise.” Third-party registrations that individually cover different items and that are based on use in commerce serve to suggest that the listed goods and services are of a type that may emanate from a single source. See Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988) (Although third-party registrations are “not evidence that the marks shown therein are in use on a commercial scale or that the public is familiar with them, [they] may nonetheless have some probative value to Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 9 the extent that they may serve to suggest that such goods or services are of a type which may emanate from a single source”). See also In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (TTAB 1993). We first find that based on the identifications alone applicant’s “physical fitness training and consultancy services” and its “providing [of] information in the field of exercise training” are complementary and/or closely related to registrant’s “fitness and weight training equipment, namely weights and weight benches,” as weights and weight benches would be used while rendering physical fitness training and consultancy and providing information in the field of exercise training services. It frequently has been found that consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks, as discussed infra, on or in connection with goods and services featuring or related to those goods. See e.g., In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir, 1988) (holding BIGG’S for retail grocery and general merchandise store services likely to be confused with BIGGS for furniture); In re Service Distributors, Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (holding design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids likely to be confused with design for skin cream); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (holding STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories). In addition, based on the internet materials introduced by the examining attorney, we find that the examining attorney has established that physical fitness Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 10 training and instruction may involve training and instruction on or with exercise equipment, including weights, and based on the third-party registrations and internet materials that these types of goods and services often emanate from the same source under a common mark. Notably, a printout from applicant’s website9 shows that applicant also offers for sale fitness equipment, including weights, and confirms our findings. As previously indicated, we need not consider applicant’s remaining services because the fact that some of the services listed in applicant’s recitation of services are related to the goods recited in the cited ‘057 registration is sufficient to support a finding that there is a likelihood of confusion for that International Class. Tuxedo Monopoly v. General Mills 209 USPQ at 988. We thus find that applicant’s services and registrant’s goods are related for purposes of our likelihood of confusion analysis and, accordingly, this du Pont factor favors affirmance. We are not persuaded by applicant’s contention that there is no “overlap” between its services and registrant’s goods because it “does not intend to offer weight benches and weights under its marks.” As stated, the test is not whether the goods and services are the same; it is whether they are sufficiently similar or related that prospective consumers would expect them to emanate from a common source. See Albert Trostel & Sons Co., supra. 9 www.beachbody.com/category/fitness. The printout was submitted by the examining attorney as an exhibit to the Office Action issued January 13, 2013. Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 11 Further, as regards the channels of trade and classes of purchasers, there are no channels of trade and purchaser limitations in the identifications of the applications and the cited ‘057 registration, at least with respect to the physical fitness training and consultancy services and the provision [of] information in the field of exercise training in applicant’s applications and the weights and weight benches. We presume, as we must, that applicant’s fitness training and consultation services as well as registrant’s weights and weight benches will move in all usual channels of trade. The evidence of record, demonstrates that such trade channels include the personal fitness industry (which includes fitness training, body building and martial arts). Purchasers of these goods and services include both fitness professionals (such as personal trainers, aerobics instructors and gym owners) and member of the general public seeking fitness training and who are buying weights for their own use, either in a class or at home. Thus, at a minimum, the channels of trade and classes of purchasers overlap. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981). In view thereof, the du Pont factor of the relatedness of the channels of trade and classes of purchasers favor a finding of likelihood of confusion. Conditions of Sale The du Pont factor of the conditions under which applicant’s services and registrant’s goods would be purchased was first addressed in applicant’s reply brief and hence is untimely. The purpose of a reply brief is to offer an opportunity to the plaintiff to respond to the arguments made by the defendant, not to allow plaintiff Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 12 to make new arguments that come to mind after the filing of the main brief and to which the defendant cannot respond. However, since both the examining attorney and applicant argued the issue at oral hearing, we will address this factor for the completeness of the decision. Applicant essentially argues that the fitness professionals and enthusiasts to whom applicant’s services and registrant’s services are intended are sophisticated and, as such, will not be confused into believing that applicant’s “educational and training-related services” are affiliated or associated with registrant’s exercise equipment, or into believing that registrant’s exercise equipment is affiliated or associated with applicant. App. br. p. 8. The problem with this argument is that it is only attorney argument without evidentiary support. See Refreshment Machinery Inc. v. Reed Industries, Inc., 196 USPQ 840, 843 (TTAB 1977) (selling to a sophisticated purchaser does not automatically eliminate the likelihood of confusion because “[i]t must also be shown how the purchasers react to trademarks, how observant and discriminating they are in practice, or that the decision to purchase involves such careful consideration over a long period of time that even subtle differences are likely to result in recognition that different marks are involved”). Moreover, as just noted, neither the recitations in applicant’s applications nor the identification in the cited registration limits applicant’s physical fitness training and consultancy services and its provision of information in the field of exercise training, or registrant’s exercise equipment to sophisticated purchasers. However, even assuming arguendo that the purchasers of both applicant’s fitness services and Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 13 registrant’s exercise equipment use some degree of care in their purchasing decisions, they can still be confused as to source, where, as here, very similar marks (as more fully discussed, infra) are used in connection with closely related goods and services. See In re Research Trading Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 230 USPQ 49, 50 (Fed. Cir. 1986) citing Carlisle Chemical 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."). Accordingly, the du Pont factor regarding the condition of sale, including the sophistication of the purchasers and degree of care, is neutral. The Marks, the Strength of the Registered Mark, and the Number and Nature of Similar Marks in Use in Connection with Similar Goods and Services We turn then to a comparison of applicant’s marks and the mark in the cited ‘057 registration, keeping in mind that in determining the similarity or dissimilarity thereof, we must consider the marks in their entireties in terms of sound, appearance, meaning and commercial impression. See Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The test is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by- side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the services offered under the respective marks is likely to result. The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a general, rather than a specific impression of trademarks. See Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975). Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 14 Comparing the marks in this case, applicant’s BEACHBODY PRO TEAM and P90X PRO TEAM marks comprise registrant’s mark, PROTEAM, plus applicant’s assertedly “famous house mark” BEACHBODY and assertedly “famous and distinctive” P90X mark, respectively.10 In short, both of applicant’s marks encompass the registered mark in its entirety. Likelihood of confusion has been found where the entirety of one mark is incorporated within another. See The Wella Corp, v. California Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (CCPA 1977) 10 The record is devoid of any evidence to support applicant’s contention that its house mark BEACHBODY is famous. Also, while applicant has included some evidence (e.g., a screenshot taken from the YouTube website showing that the P90X commercial has over 200,000 views and a screenshot taken from applicant’s Facebook fan page showing 600,000 likes), to support its position that its P90X mark is famous, the evidence falls far short of establishing fame. In any event, even if applicant had demonstrated that its BEACHBODY and P90X marks are famous, such fame would exacerbate, rather than obviate, the likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark and the cited registered mark. See e.g., In re Hill-Behan Lumber Company, 201 USPQ 245, 249-250 (TTAB 1978) (HILL- BEHAN’S LUMBER JACK for hardware and lumber yard services confusingly similar to LUMBERJACK for finished lumber products). See also, In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In Shell, the court made clear that “[t]he trademark law not only protects the consumer from likelihood of confusion as to commercial sources and relationships, but also protects the registrant and senior user from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer,” and further described the possible impact as “reverse confusion” explaining: The term “reverse confusion” has been used to describe the situation where a significantly larger or prominent newcomer “saturates the market” with a trademark that is confusingly similar to that of a smaller, senior registrant for related goods or services. The junior user does not seek to benefit from the goodwill of the senior user; however, the senior user may experience diminution or even loss of its mark's identity and goodwill due to extensive use of a confusingly similar mark by the junior user. The avoidance of confusion between users of disparate size is not a new concept; however, the weighing of the relevant factors must take into account the confusion that may flow from extensive promotion of a similar or identical mark by a junior user. In considering likelihood of confusion as to the source of services that are not identical, or likelihood of confusion as to whether there is a relation between the source of the services, the extent of the registrant's and the newcomer's activities relating to the mark must be given weight appropriate to the circumstances. (Citations omitted.) Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 15 (CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design for men’s cologne, hair spray, conditioner and shampoo is likely to cause confusion with the mark CONCEPT for cold permanent wave lotion and neutralizer); Johnson Publishing Co. v. International Development Ltd., 221 USPQ 155, 156 (TTAB 1982) (applicant’s mark EBONY DRUM for hairdressing and conditioner is likely to cause confusion with EBONY for cosmetics). Applicant’s marks and the cited mark differ in that there is a space between PRO and TEAM in applicant’s marks and the additions of BEACHBODY to applicant’s BEACHBODY PRO TEAM mark and P90X to applicant’s P90X PRO TEAM mark. The deletion of the space between the terms “pro” and “team” in applicant’s marks does not serve to distinguish them from the cited mark. With regard to the additional matter, as a general rule, the addition of a house mark or other such matter to one of two otherwise confusingly similar marks will not serve to avoid a likelihood of confusion. See, generally, In re Dennison Mfg. Co., 229 USPQ 141, 144 (TTAB 1986) (GLUE STIC for general purpose adhesive in stick form likely to be confused with UHU GLU STIC for adhesives for paper and stationary); Key West Fragrance & Cosmetic Factory, Inc. v. Mennen Co., 216 USPQ 168 (TTAB 1982) (MENNEN SKIN SAVERS for hand and body lotion confusingly similar to SKIN SAVERS for face and throat lotion). We recognize, however, that there are exceptions to this general principle. For example, the additional matter may be sufficient to distinguish the mark in situations where the appropriated matter is highly suggestive or merely descriptive Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 16 of the identified goods or services (e.g., In re Hartz Hotel Services, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1150, 1155 (TTAB 2012) (Because of the highly suggestive nature of the mark “GRAND HOTEL,” the proliferation of registered “Grand Hotel” marks and the unregistered uses of “Grand Hotel” marks, the Board found that the mark “Grand Hotel,” itself, is entitled to only a very narrow scope of protection or exclusivity of use and concluded that consumers are able to distinguish between different GRAND HOTEL marks based on small differences in the marks); see also Knight Textile Corp. v. Jones Investment Co., 75 USPQ 1313 (TTAB 2005) (NORTON MCNAUGHTON ESSENTIALS not confusingly similar to ESSENTIALS for identical clothing where evidence established that ESSENTIALS is highly suggestive for clothing); or where the mark (or a portion thereof) is diluted or weak (e.g., Hartz Hotel Services, supra; In re Broadway Chicken Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1559, 1565-66 (TTAB 1996) (BROADWAY weak for restaurant services based on evidence that hundreds of restaurants and eating establishments use that word such that “purchasers have been conditioned to look to other elements of the marks as a means of distinguishing the source of goods or services in the field.”)). It is applicant’s position that these exceptions are applicable here. Accordingly to applicant, “the ‘PRO TEAM’ [PROTEAM] portion of the cited marks is weak and diluted, as it is highly suggestive of the goods and/or services associated with each registration and has been diluted via numerous third party uses of similar marks in connection with similar goods and services.” App. br. p. 1. For those reasons, applicant contends that PRO TEAM is inherently weak and entitled Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 17 to a narrow scope of protection such that the additions of BEACHBODY and PX90 to PRO TEAM in its BEACHBODY PROTEAM and P90X PROTEAM marks are sufficient to alleviate any “potential” likelihood of confusion with the cited mark. As support for its position that “PRO TEAM” is highly suggestive of registrant’s identified weights and weight benches, applicant, with its February 11, 2013 response to the first Office action, made the following of record: 1. Definitions of the abbreviation/words “pro,” “professional” and “team”: i. Pro – “professional” 11 ii. Professional – “of or relating to, or characteristic of a profession” …“following a line of conduct as though it were a profession” 12 iii. Team – “a number of persons associated together in work or activity: as … a group on one side (as in football or a debate)” 13 2. Screenshots from various websites purportedly showing that ‘“pro team’ members appear to engage in fitness training and use fitness facilities and, presumably, exercise and sporting equipment.” App. br. p. 7. 14 Applicant contends that this evidence demonstrates that “given that ‘pro teams’ are comprised of professional athletes, who, by the nature of their professions, engage in frequent exercise, likely use exercise-related facilities and similarly use various sports equipment, the term [“pro team”] is highly suggestive of 11 Abbreviations (www.abbreviations.com/PRO), App’s Response, Exh. B. 12 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/professional), App’s Response, Exh. B. 13 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teaml), App’s Response, Exh. B. 14 Exh. B to the February 11, 2013 office action response and Exh. A. to the March 7 2013 request for reconsideration. Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 18 the various sports and exercise equipment identified in connection with the … ‘057 Registration.” Id. Applicant particularly contends that “PRO TEAM describes or is suggestive of the fact the registrant’s exercise equipment and/or fitness facilities are of such quality as to be suitable for “pro teams” or are items or facilities that are used by “pro teams” or professional teams. We agree with applicant that “pro team” is an abbreviation for “professional team” and, as defined above, is a group of persons associated together in an activity, and who follow that activity as if it were a profession.” However applicant has not established that “pro team” is highly suggestive of the quality of fitness facilities and/or exercise equipment. Stated simply, it does not follow, and the evidence does not show, that because members of professional teams may engage in frequent exercise and may use exercise-related facilities and equipment, use of the wording “pro team” to describe them would also suggest that the exercise equipment or facilities that they may use is of a higher or professional quality. Applicant’s evidence clearly demonstrates the descriptive use of “pro team” in referring to groups of fitness professionals but, for the reasons discussed below, it does not show that “pro team” imparts a highly suggestive meaning in relation to the quality of the fitness facilities or exercise equipment they may or may not be used by the subject fitness professionals, which include personal trainers. For example, the screenshots from the websites http://mri-performance.com/pro-team/, www.alliancegym.com/ric-delfierro-head-coach-of-alliance-mma-pro-team-mixed- martial-arts-training/ and www.youtube.com/watch?v=4–g23hjiyZc, shown below, Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 19 demonstrate use of “pro team” in a descriptive manner to refer to groups of fitness professionals who, in the screenshots, are engaged in fitness activities. While the evidence appears to demonstrate descriptive use of the term “pro team” as the recognized abbreviation for professional team and as referring to certain individuals who appear to be members of a professional team in their respective professions or sports, e.g., body building and mixed martial arts, it does not demonstrate, or give rise to a presumption, that “pro team” is suggestive of “professional” or superior quality exercise equipment and, in particular, weights and weight benches. Aside from perhaps the MRI website, which shows in shadow, a male working with what appears to be a weighted ball, these screenshots are not probative of any suggestive quality of the term “pro team” in relation to weights. Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 20 Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 21 The screenshot from www.coretransformer.con.blog.team, etc. only shows the term “pro team” in the header of the web page, i.e., AB Core Transformer Pro Team Presenting At EMPOWER! Chicago Fitness Convention 2012 – Windows Internet Explorer and it appears only to identify a group of professional trainers who will demonstrate a new fitness program offered by Core Transformer. A screenshot from the website www.lifefitness.com/blog.html?label_ Athletic%20Training of a blog post entitled “HAMMER STRENGTH CLINIC RECAP: THROUGH AN ENGINEER’S EYES” states that the fitness facilities at Noblesville High School “rivals some of the pro team’s training centers.” Contrary to applicant’s contention, this use of “pro team” does not show highly suggestive use of “pro team” for exercise facilities or equipment that is of a higher quality or grade. Indeed, it does not in any way demonstrate the use of the term “pro team” in connection with weights or weight benches. Instead, “pro team” is used merely as the standard abbreviation for “professional team.” Accordingly, we read the statement to merely indicate that the Noblesville High School facility has fitness equipment that is on par with the equipment used by those of professional teams, and to make no allusions as to the quality of the particular equipment in the Noblesville facility. On the website http://uofmma.com/2012/mma-gyms/gym-of-the-month-team- quest/, the term “pro team” is used as follows: “‘The pro team trains at the same time as the amateur team. So when we have a fight coming up, we go through a training camp with the pros,’ said Richardson.” Again, the term “professional team” Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 22 has been abbreviated to “pro team” and is used solely to refer to a group of individuals and not to any equipment that they may use. The screenshot from the website of Gold’s Gym’s15 features trainer bios, and states in the bio that the featured trainer was “Most Outstanding Free Agent for Pro Team (Denver Broncos)” and [participated in] “Several Pro Team tryouts.” Here again, “pro team” is used as the recognized abbreviation “for professional team” and solely references professional sports; in no way does it suggests exercise facilities or equipment. The screenshot from the website of Rivera Athletic Center (www.riveraathleticcenter.com/pro-team) shows the term “pro team” being used as a caption to a paragraph discussing the “experienced coaching staff” that can be found at athletic center. As so used, “pro team” does not suggest that any of its exercise equipment is of professional quality. Last, a screenshot of a press release on the website PRLOG (www.prlog.org/12018160) announces that the brand USA Pro launched a “Pro Team.” The press release states, in part, that “[t]he USA Pro Team will be the point of contact for women seeking advice on all matters of health and fitness including training, nutrition, fit kit, weight loss and styling.” As used in the release, the term “Pro Team” describes the fitness professionals who will provide expertise and is not 15 (www.goldsgym.com/gyms/california/vacabille/680/trainer-bio/8550). Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 23 suggestive of the quality of any fitness or exercise equipment that may be used by these professionals.16 In sum, applicant’s evidence fails to demonstrate that the term “pro team” has a recognized meaning in the field of exercise equipment or facilities. Accordingly, applicant has failed to demonstrate that the registered PROTEAM mark is highly suggestive such that it is entitled to only a narrow scope of protection, as it maintains. As regards applicant’s position that the designation “pro team” is diluted in the field of physical fitness, applicant has made of record website screenshots purportedly showing multiple third-party uses of PRO TEAM (or similar variations thereof) in connection with exercise and sports-related goods and services.17 The apparent purpose of this evidence is to show “that customers have become so conditioned by a plethora of such similar marks that customers ‘have been educated to distinguish between different [such] marks on the bases of minute distinctions.’’’ Palm Bay, 73 USPQ2d at 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). See also In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 Fed.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The third party uses are as follows: PRO TEAM APPAREL for cycling apparel by Art’s Cyclery (www.artscyclery.com/...); 16 Applicant also submitted a screen shot from the website of MMAXOUT in which the term PRO TEAM is used to caption of YouTube video. Although it appears to reference fitness professionals, we cannot be certain. Accordingly, the reference has not been considered in this decision. 17 App’s Response, Exh. C. Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 24 MEN’S PRO TEAM CYCLING APPAREL by Colorado Cyclist (www.coloradicyclist.com/product/display/40250); PROTEAM and design for items with the insignia of various professional sports teams (www.proteam.com); PRO-TEAM PRODUCTS for third-party paintball-related sporting goods (www.proteamproducts.com); ALL PRO TEAM SPORTS for sports equipment and related goods (www.allproteamsports.com); AP ALL PRO TEAM SPORTS for custom team sports apparel (www.allproteamspors.com); PRO TEAM by Lookcycle.com for cycling gear (www.lookcycle.com/en/us/textile/pro-team.html) features a “PRO TEAM JACKET”; CARBON PRO TEAM SHOES for cycling shoes (www.louisgarneau.com/.../CARBON_PRO- _TEAM_SHOES for a professional grade cycling shoe ALL STAR PRO TEAM EQUIPMENT BAG by Cheapbats.com (illegible) for equipment bags; PRO TEAM PLAYER DELUX EQUIPMENT BASEBALL BAG by Pro Team (www.amazon.com/) for equipment bags; PRO TEAM BENCH CART (myaaeworld.com) for a portable baseball bleacher); GOOSE’S PRO TEAM SPORTS for professional hockey locker room supplier and distributor (www.gooseproteamsports.com); KATTUS PRO-TEAM SPORTS COLUMBUS LLC for a sporting goods store (www.yelp.com/...illegible); PRO TEAM SPORTS INC. for a sporting goods store (www.manta.com/c/...pro-team-sports-inc); [appears to offer particular fishing team apparel] MERCURY PRO TEAM for sports apparel (www.mercuryproteamgear.com/...); Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 25 TKO TKO Pro Team MMA Training Gloves for training gloves presumably for mixed martial arts (www.sears.com); and Pro Gym Pro Team 16 Weight Training Equipment, 10- Wte-3033 for weight training equipment (www.dillardgovernmentsales.com).18 With regard to the website evidence, we note first that the web pages from www.artscyclery.com; www.proteam.com; and www.proteamproducts.com do not show use the term “pro team” as a source indicator. Instead “pro team” is used to identify the type of sports apparel featuring professional team insignia or third- party products. Similarly, on the website, www.gooseproteamsports.com, “pro team” is used to denote distributorship of apparel for professional teams. On one website, the use is AP ALL PRO [space] TEAM SPORTS and not “pro team” as a single term. Because PRO TEAM is not used as a source indicator on these websites, they have little probative value. With regard to the remaining websites, two appear to use “pro team” in connection with other matter to identify the source of sporting goods stores, seven use “pro team” (“pro-team”) to identify sports-related apparel and shoes and five use “pro-team” to identify sports or fitness-related equipment. While this evidence shows third-party use of “pro team” (“pro-team”) for fitness-related goods and services, it is of limited probative value. That is because applicant presented no 18 Applicant also submitted screenshots from the SUUNTO website (www.suunto.com) offering for sale a “SUUNTO PRO TEAM PACK” for a monitor and software for displaying workout date in real time. The web page indicates, however, that: “THIS PRODUCT IS NO LONGER IN PRODUCTION.”’ An illegible website offers for sale a “REEBOK PRO TEAM 36” Equipment Bag.” The screen shot indicated that the webpage covering these goods “cannot be found.” Accordingly, these postings have no probative value. Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 26 evidence concerning the extent to which these third-party identifiers are used in commerce. As a result, the record simply does not establish that PRO TEAM has been diluted in the field of exercise and fitness-related goods and services. Ten websites are simply insufficient to establish that PRO TEAM is highly suggestive for exercise equipment. While the Board has, in likelihood of confusion cases, given weight to evidence of widespread and significant use by third parties of marks containing elements in common with the involved marks to demonstrate that confusion is not likely to occur,19 in this case, there is insufficient evidence of such third-party use that would establish that “PRO TEAM” has been diluted in the field of physical fitness products and services. Moreover, applicant has not established that PRO TEAM is highly suggestive and otherwise weak for exercise equipment, such that applicant may incorporate registrant’s entire distinctive mark and overcome confusion by adding BEACHBODY and P90X, respectively. As such, this is not a situation where the addition of a house mark, or other matter, to one of two otherwise similar marks would avoid likelihood of confusion between them. In making our findings we have not ignored the “coexistence” of the FITNESS PRO TEAM and design registration, owned by one owner, and the PROTEAM/PROTEAM and design registrations, owned by a different owner. The Board is not bound by the prior decisions of examining attorneys in allowing marks for registration. It has been noted many times that each case must be decided on its 19 See e.g., Miles Laboratories Inc. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1445, 1462 (TTAB 1987). Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 27 own facts. See In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to [applicant’s] application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind the Board or this court.”); In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We are not privy to the record of those prior proceedings and, as just stated, are obligated to assess the registrability of each of applicant’s marks on its own merits and not simply based on the existence of other registrations. See In re Brown-Forman Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1284, 1286 n.3 (TTAB 2006); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1047, 1048 n.2 (TTAB 2002). With further regard to its position that its marks and the cited mark can coexist, applicant submitted copies of eight third-party registrations purportedly “showing that sports-related goods and services and exercise-related goods and services often originate from the same source.”20 The fact that these third-party marks can coexist with each other, applicant argues, strongly suggests that applicant’s mark is able to coexist with the cited registrations. While each of these third-party registrations covers a variety of goods and services, many of which are identical to or related to some of the goods and services in the other registrations, none of the marks – considered in their entireties – in those registrations are 20 The registrations are for the following marks: CONVERSION TRAINING (Reg. No. 4298753); JUST POLE (Reg. No. 4298704); TOPJSEN (Reg. No. 4292230); IRONBODY (Reg. No. 4287977); ALICE in stylized form (Reg. No. 4295155); PRACTICE PLAY WIN (Reg. No. 4141857); UP in stylized form (Reg. No. 4248944); and BRASS (Reg. No. 4240043). Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 28 similar to one another. Accordingly, their coexistence has no probative value to this decision. In any case, as just stated, each case must be determined on its own merits. Nett Designs, supra. Because the identical term PRO TEAM is registrant’s entire distinctive mark and forms a significant portion of applicant’s mark, we find the marks as a whole are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. Contrary to applicant’s contention, the additions of BEACHBODY and P90X to applicant’s marks do not significantly alter the commercial impression of the mark. That is, purchasers familiar with registrant’s mark PRO TEAM as used in connection with the identified exercise equipment, namely weights and weight benches, are likely to assume that the house mark BEACHBODY simply identifies what had previously been an anonymous source for those goods, see In re Fiesta Palms LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1360 (TTAB 2007) (“When, as in this case, the common part of the marks is identical, purchasers familiar with the registrant’s mark are likely to assume that the house mark simply identifies what had previously been an anonymous source”), and that PX90 PRO TEAM is a variant mark identifying a new line of goods. The du Pont factor of similarity of the marks thus favors a finding of likelihood of confusion, while the factor of the number and nature of similar marks in use in connection with similar goods and service is neutral. Conclusion Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 29 We have carefully considered all of applicant’s arguments and evidence, even if not specifically discussed herein, but have not found them persuasive. Based on all of the evidence of record bearing on the relevant du Pont factors, we conclude that applicant’s marks BEACHBODY PRO TEAM and P90X PRO TEAM for their identified services are likely to cause confusion with the cited registration for PRO TEAM. We conclude so principally due to the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods and services, and the overlapping trade channels and purchasers. Moreover, applicant has not established that the common portions of the marks are diluted or inherently weak. In view of our finding regarding the cited PRO TEAM registration, we need not discuss the other cited registrations. To the extent that any of applicant's points raises a doubt about likelihood of confusion, we resolve that doubt, as we must, in favor of the prior registrant. Hyper Shoppes, 6 USPQ2d at 1026. Decision: The refusals to register under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act issued in application Serial Nos. 85779111 and 85779130 are affirmed. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation