Best Jewelry Mfg. Co., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 1998

No. 75119935 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 1998)

Paper No. 8
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB NOV 16, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Best Jewelry Manufacturing Co., Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/119,935
_______
Robert B. Kennedy of Kennedy & Kennedy for Best Jewelry
Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Andrew Roppel, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108
(David Shallant, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Chapman and Bucher, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Best Jewelry
Manufacturing Co., Inc. to register the mark shown below
Ser No. 75/119,935
2
for watches.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the
ground that applicant’s mark, if applied to the identified
goods, would so resemble the following registered marks,
all owned by the same entity, as to be likely to cause
confusion:
for charm bracelets, charms, necklaces, bracelets,
earrings, jewelry clips, brooches, lockets, pearl
bracelets, pearl necklaces, pearl earrings, pearl brooches,
pearl lockets, pearl jewelry clips, pearl charms and the
following goods made in whole or in part of precious metals
or plated with the same: beads, pins, and jewelry initials;2
VENDOME for jewelry;3 and PLACE VENDOME for jewelry.4
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but
no oral hearing was requested.

1 Application Serial No. 75/119,935 filed June 17, 1996; alleging
a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
2 Registration No. 659,311 issued March 11, 1958; second renewal.
3 Registration No. 961,483 issued June 19, 1973; renewed.
Ser No. 75/119,935
3
Turning first to the goods, applicant contends that
watches and jewelry are not related goods because “there is
a public perception that watches originate from mass
production manufacturers and not from jewelers who often
craft jewelry as individual artistic pieces.” Applicant,
however, offered no evidence to support this contention.
The Examining Attorney, on the other hand, made of record a
number of third-party registrations which indicate that
entities have registered a single mark for watches on the
one hand, and jewelry on the other. Such registrations
serve to suggest that goods of the type involved in this
appeal may emanate from a single source under the same
mark. In re Mucky Duck Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB
1988). Also, watches and jewelry travel in the same
channels of trade, i.e., jewelry stores and department
stores, and are purchased by the same class of purchasers,
i.e., ordinary consumers. We note that the Examining
Attorney has pointed to several cases wherein the Board has
found that watches and jewelry are related goods. See
e.g., In re Leonard S.A., 2 USPQ2d 1800 (TTAB 1987); and
Monocraft, Inc. v. Leading Jewelers Guild, 173 USPQ 506
(TTAB 1972). We find, therefore, that the respective goods
are sufficiently related that, if sold under the same or

4 Registration No. 1,801,518 issued October 26, 1993.
Ser No. 75/119,935
4
similar marks, confusion as to the source or sponsorship
thereof would be likely to occur.
Turning then to a consideration of the marks, we find
that there is a strong similarity between the respective
marks. The dominant portion of applicant’s mark, VENDÔM,
is substantially similar in sound, appearance and
commercial impression to the registered marks VENDOME,
VENDÔME and design, and PLACE VENDOME. The overlapping
triangles design in applicant’s mark is relatively
insignificant and insufficient to distinguish its mark from
the registered marks. Similarly, we view the presence of
the word PLACE in one of the registered marks as
insufficient to distinguish this mark from applicant’s mark
when applied to related goods. Although applicant argues
that the marks have different connotations, i.e., the
registered marks connote Place Vendome in Paris, France,
applicant has presented no evidence showing that Place
Vendome would be known beyond a small segment of the
American public. To most Americans, the registered marks,
as well as applicant’s mark, would be viewed as arbitrary.
With respect to applicant’s contention that the VENDOM(E)
portion of the marks would be pronounced differently, it
has been repeatedly stated that there is no correct
pronunciation of a trademark. Yamaha International Corp.
Ser No. 75/119,935
5
v. Stevenson, 196 USPQ 701 (TTAB 1977) and cases cited
therein. Further, contrary to applicant’s argument, its
mark and registrant’s VENDÔME and design mark are likely to
be pronounced in a similar manner inasmuch as the same
diacritical mark is used over the letter “Ô” in the marks.
In finding that the marks herein are similar, we have kept
in mind the normal fallibility of human memory over time
and the fact that the average consumer retains a general
rather than a specific impression of trademarks encountered
in the marketplace.
In sum, we conclude that consumers familiar with
registrant’s jewelry sold under the marks VENDOME, VENDÔME
and design, and PLACE VENDOME would be likely to believe,
upon encountering applicant’s mark VENDOM and design for
watches, that the goods originated with or were somehow
associated with or sponsored by the same entity.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act is affirmed.
Ser No. 75/119,935
6
P. T. Hairston
B. A. Chapman
D. E. Bucher
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/119,935
7