CA Links, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2008

No. 76633890 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2008)

Mailed:
June 24, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re CA Links, Inc.
________

Serial No. 76633890
_______

Thomas W. Cook, Esq. for CA Links, Inc.

Dominic J. Ferraiuolo, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 102 (Karen M. Strzyz, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Walters and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

CA Links, Inc. (“applicant”) filed a use based
application to register the mark 6 TIME ZONE, in standard
character form, for “watches, watch cases, watch backs,
watch bands and watch clasps; jewelry and accessories,
namely, charms, pendants, chains, and bracelets,” in Class
14. During the prosecution of the application, applicant
amended the application to the Supplemental Register.
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.
§1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s mark 6 TIME ZONE,
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 76633890
2
for the goods set forth in the application, is likely to
cause confusion with the mark TIME ZONE and design, shown
below, for “electronic watches and electronic clocks,” in
Class 14.1

Our determination of likelihood of confusion 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 the issue of 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 Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201,
1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, two key considerations are the similarities or
dissimilarities between the marks and the similarities or
dissimilarities between the goods and/or services. See
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry
mandated by §2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of

1 Registration No. 1227379, issued February 15, 1983. Section 8
and 15 affidavits accepted and acknowledged; renewed. The
registrant disclaimed the exclusive right to use the word “time.”
Serial No. 76633890
3
differences in the essential characteristics of the goods
and differences in the marks”).
A. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the
goods.

In an ex parte appeal, likelihood of confusion is
determined on the basis of the goods as they are identified
in the application and the goods as they are recited in the
registration. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981);
In re William Hodges & Co., Inc., 190 USPQ 47, 48 (TTAB
1976). See also Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computers
Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (“The authority is legion that the question of
registrability of an applicant’s mark must be decided on
the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the
application regardless of what the record may reveal as to
the particular nature of an applicant’s goods, the
particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to
which the sales of goods are directed”); Tuxedo Monopoly,
Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 209
USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981) (the Board cannot consider any
restrictions or limitations to the applicant’s goods unless
the restrictions or limitations appear in the application).
As indicated above, applicant is seeking to register
its mark for “watches, watch cases, watch backs, watch
Serial No. 76633890
4
bands and watch clasps; jewelry and accessories, namely,
charms, pendants, chains, and bracelets.” The registrant
has registered its mark for “electronic watches and
electronic clocks.” The watches identified in applicant’s
description of goods are broad enough to incorporate the
electronic watches in the cited registration.
The fact that some of applicant’s goods are either
identical or closely related to the registrant’s goods is
sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.
See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.,
209 USPQ at 988 (likelihood of confusion must be found if
there is likely to be confusion with respect to any item
that comes within the identification of goods in the
application).
In view of the foregoing, we find that the goods of
the applicant and the goods of the registrant are closely
related.
B. The similarity or dissimilarity of established,
likely-to-continue trade channels and classes of
consumers.

Because the issue of likelihood of confusion must be
decided on the basis of the goods as they are identified in
the application and the cited registration, “where the
goods in a cited registration are broadly described and
there are no limitations in the identification of goods as
Serial No. 76633890
5
to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of
purchasers, it is presumed that the scope of the
registration encompasses all goods of the nature and type
described, that the identified goods move in all channels
of trade that would be normal for such goods, and that the
goods would be purchased by all potential customers.” In
re Elbaum, 211 USPQ at 640. There are no limitations or
restrictions in the applicant’s description of goods or the
registrant’s description of goods. Accordingly, it must be
presumed that applicant’s watches and the registrant’s
electronic watches and electronic clocks could be sold in
the same channels of trade and purchased by the same
classes of consumers. If the same purchasers were to
encounter the highly related products of the applicant and
the registrant in the same retail outlets, it would not be
unreasonable for them to assume, mistakenly, that they
originated from the same source.
C. The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales
are made (i.e., impulse vs. careful, sophisticated
purchasing).

Applicant contends that because watches may be
considered jewelry, consumers exercise a high degree of
consumer care.2

2 Applicant’s Brief, pp. 6-7.
Serial No. 76633890
6
Both the Applicant’s and the
Registrant’s goods are watches.
Purchasers of goods designed for the
purpose of personal adornment, or to
give as special gifts, such as watches,
are particularly mindful of the
products they buy. Applicant believes
that such purchasers are generally
acutely aware of minor differences, and
of the look, feel, and design of such
products. They are unusually sensitive
to such factors because jewelry and
watches are considered a direct
reflection of the wearer. Such
awareness and interest, and the
resultant focus on products and brand
differences, makes consumers of such
goods “sophisticated” purchasers, who
are not likely to confuse the
Registrant’s goods with the Applicant’s
goods merely because the descriptive
phrase “time zone” appears in both
marks.

The problem with this argument is that applicant is
attempting to restrict the definition of “watches” to
watches that are personal decoration (“personal adornment”)
that consumers consider jewelry and gifts to the exclusion
of inexpensive, simple, utilitarian time pieces. As
indicated above, the question of likelihood of confusion
must be determined by an analysis of the marks as applied
to the goods identified in the application and the
registration, rather than what extrinsic evidence shows the
goods to be. Accordingly, the argument that the products
at issue are designed for personal adornment or as gifts
can be given no consideration because there is no
Serial No. 76633890
7
restriction in the application or the registration limiting
the watches to items of personal adornment or gifts. The
determination of likelihood of confusion must be made on a
comparison of the marks as they are used in connection with
all watches and all electronic watches and electronic
clocks. This includes not only watches for personal
adornment and gifts but also more simple, utilitarian and
inexpensive watches.
Also, we note that applicant provides only argument.
It does not provide any evidence regarding the decision
making process used by these purportedly careful and
sophisticated purchasers, the role trademarks play in their
decision making process, or how observant and
discriminating they are in practice. See In re Vsesoyuzny
Ordena Trudovogo Krasnogo Znameni, 219 USPQ 60, 70 (TTAB
1983) (“Unfortunately we have no evidence of record to this
effect and assertions in briefs are normally not recognized
as evidence”).
Thus, applicant’s contention that the relevant
purchasers are sophisticated is not supported by the
record.
D. The strength of the registered mark.
Applicant contends that the registered mark TIME ZONE
and design is a weak mark, entitled to a narrow scope of
Serial No. 76633890
8
protection or exclusivity of use. According to applicant,
the term “time zone” describes watches that maintain time
in multiple time zones.3 To show that the term “time zone”
is commonly used by others in the field of watches,
applicant submitted the following evidence in its September
27, 2007 Request for Reconsideration:
1. An excerpt from the TimeZone.com website, “the
world’s watch information source”;
2. A reference to a retail store in Bountiful, Utah
named “The Time Zone”;
3. Excerpts from the Dual-Time Watches.com,
Amazon.com, eBay, J&R.com, Bladeart.com,
DaddyThePimp.com and NexTag.com websites
advertising “dual time zone,” “2 time zone,” or
“3 time zone” watches;
4. An excerpt from the TIMEZONEWATCHES.com website
that appears to provide links to other websites
that sell “time zone watches”;
5. An excerpt from the TimeZone Watch School website
(timezonewatchschool.com) that appears to be a
website regarding watch repair;
6. An excerpt from the BahrainiHotels.com website
advertising a multiple time zone watch;

3 Applicant’s Brief, p. 2.
Serial No. 76633890
9
7. An excerpt from the eBay website advertising an
ARMANI brand “two time zone men (sic) watch”;
8. An excerpt from the Dexigner.com website
advertising a line of “Five Time Zone” luxury
watches for men and women;
9. An excerpt from the eBay website advertising a
“Bernouli Eternal Automatic 6 Time Zone Watch”;
and,
10. The Jacob & Co. category on the ClickToWear.com
website advertising watches that feature 5 time
zones.
In its April 28, 2006 Response, applicant submitted
excerpts from the Shopzilla.com and BizRate.com websites
advertising dual time zone watches.4
The record supports applicant’s contention that the
term “time zone” describes a feature of a watch that keeps
time for multiple time zones. Thus, in the likelihood of
confusion analysis, a descriptive term such as “time zone”
is entitled to less weight than if the registered mark were
an arbitrary term. Exxon Corp. v. U.S. Industries, Inc.,
213 USPQ 393, 395 (TTAB 1982); Plak-Shack, Inc. v.

4 Applicant also submitted copies of applications and
registrations for marks consisting, in part, of the word “zone”
for watches. Because the relevant marks at issue are TIME ZONE
and design and 6 TIME ZONE, the applications and registrations
submitted by applicant have little probative value.
Serial No. 76633890
10
Continental Studios of Georgia, Inc., 204 USPQ 242, 248
(TTAB 1979). Nevertheless, the registered mark TIME ZONE
and design has the presumption of validity. Section 7(b)
of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), provides
that “[a] certificate of registration of a mark upon the
principal register provided by this chapter shall be prima
facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark, of
the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of the
registrant’s exclusive right to use the registered mark in
commerce on or in connection with the goods or services
specified in the certificate.” Therefore, in an ex parte
appeal proceeding, the registered mark must be protected
from another confusingly similar mark. Even though the
registered mark may be weak, it is still entitled to be
protected sufficiently to prevent confusion as to source
from arising. Vita-Pak Citrus Products Co. v. Cerro, 195
USPQ 78, 81 (TTAB 1977); Maybelline Company v. Matney, 194
USPQ 438, 440 (TTAB 1977).
E. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their
entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression.

We now turn to the du Pont likelihood of confusion
factor focusing on the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. du Pont
Serial No. 76633890
11
De Nemours & Co., supra. In a particular case, any one of
these means of comparison may be critical in finding the
marks to be similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 9 USPQ2d 1534,
1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1042
(TTAB 1988). In comparing the marks, we are mindful that
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 so that confusion as to the
source of the goods offered under the respective marks is
likely to result. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD
Electronics Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3
(CCPA 1977); Spoons Restaurants Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23
USPQ 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d unpublished, No. 92-1086
(Fed. Cir. June 5, 1992). The proper focus is on the
recollection of the average customer, who retains a general
rather than specific impression of the marks. Winnebago
Industries, Inc. v. Oliver & Winston, Inc., 207 USPQ 335,
344 (TTAB 1980); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190
USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975).
The marks are similar in appearance because
applicant’s mark, 6 TIME ZONE, incorporates the entire word
Serial No. 76633890
12
portion of the registered mark, TIME ZONE and design.5
Likelihood of confusion is often found where the entirety
of one mark is incorporated within another. Coca-Cola
Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d
556, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (CCPA 1975) (BENGAL LANCER and
BENGAL are similar); Johnson Publishing Company, Inc. v.
International Development Ltd., Inc., 221 USPQ 155, 156
(TTAB 1982) (“likelihood of confusion has frequently been
found where contested marks used on related products
involve one mark which consists of a single word and
another which is comprised of that same word followed by a
second term”). Moreover, because the number “6” has
descriptive significance (i.e., indicating that applicant’s
watches can monitor time in six time zones), the addition
of the number “6” to applicant’s mark does not provide a
sufficient basis upon which to distinguish it from the
registered mark. See In re Xerox Corp., 194 USPQ 449, 449
(TTAB 1977) (6500 and 6500 LINE, with “line” disclaimed,
are “substantially alike”); Yasutomo & Co. v. Commercial
Ball Pen Co., Inc., 184 USPQ 60, 62 (TTAB 1974)
(“applicant’s mark ‘UNI-GRAPHIC’ is nothing more than

5 The term “time zone” is the dominant portion of the registered
mark because the design elements of the mark are insignificant.
Serial No. 76633890
13
opposer’s mark ‘UNI’ with the addition of a non-distinctive
term”).
The marks are aurally similar and have a similar
connotation to the extent that they share the term “time
zone.”
The term “time zone” in the marks when used in
connection with watches engender similar, if not identical,
commercial impressions relating to the various longitudinal
divisions of the Earth’s surface by which time is kept.6
Applicant’s addition of the descriptive number “6” to its
mark is likely to create the impression that applicant’s 6
TIME ZONE watches are a variation of the registrant’s TIME
ZONE and design electronic watches.
In view of the foregoing we find that the similarities
of the marks outweigh their differences and, therefore the
marks are similar.
F. Balancing the factors.
We are cognizant that we must consider the marks in
their entireties and that the registered mark TIME ZONE and
design is weak mark entitled to a narrow scope of
protection or exclusivity of use. However, because both

6 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th
ed. 2000) (www.Bartleby.com) attached to the February 7, 2007
Office Action; Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
attached to applicant’s April 28, 2006 Response.
Serial No. 76633890
14
marks feature the term “time zone” and “time zone” is the
dominant portion of the registered mark, and in view of the
close similarity of the products and the identity of the
trade channels, consumers encountering applicant’s mark who
are familiar with the registered mark are likely to believe
that applicant’s watches are somehow associated or
affiliated with registrant’s electronic watches and
electronic clocks. Accordingly, we find that applicant’s
mark 6 TIME ZONE for “watches, watch cases, watch backs,
watch bands and watch clasps; jewelry and accessories,
namely, charms, pendants, chains, and bracelets” is likely
to cause confusion with the registered mark TIME ZONE and
design for “electronic watches and electronic clocks.”
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.