Cards Against Humanity, LLCv.Vampire Squid Cards, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

OPP (T.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Oral Hearing: October 9, 2018 Mailed: February 28, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Cards Against Humanity, LLC
v.
Vampire Squid Cards, LLC
_____

Opposition No. 91225576
_____

Eleanor M. Lackman and Marissa B. Lewis of Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams &
Sheppard, LLP
for Cards Against Humanity, LLC.

Thomas E. Moore, III of Royse Law Firm, PC
for Vampire Squid Cards, LLC.
_____

Before Wellington, Wolfson, and Kuczma,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Vampire Squid Cards, LLC (“Applicant”), seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the standard character word mark CRABS ADJUST HUMIDITY1 and the
following word and design composite mark:

1 Application Serial No. 86620191 was filed on May 5, 2015 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), on the basis of Applicant’s claim of first use of the mark
and first use in commerce at least as early as July 1, 2013.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 2 -
,2 both marks for “Card games; Game cards” in International Class 28.
Cards Against Humanity, LLC (“Opposer”) has opposed registration of Applicant’s
marks on the grounds of priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on, inter alia, pleaded
registrations for the standard character marks CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY and
CAH, as well as a product packaging configuration mark (depicted below), and alleged
prior common law use of these marks.3 Opposer also opposes registration of
Applicant’s marks on the grounds that they are likely to dilute Opposer’s purported
famous word mark CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY, under Section 43(c) of the Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and that they may falsely suggest a connection to Opposer under
Section 2(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
Applicant filed an answer wherein it made certain admissions, but otherwise
denied the salient allegations of likelihood of confusion, dilution, and false suggestion

2 Application Serial No. 86622129 was filed on May 7, 2015 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), on the basis of Applicant’s claim of first use of the mark
and first use in commerce at least as early as July 1, 2013.
3 Pursuant to a Board order (26 TTABVUE), Opposer was given leave to file an amended
notice of opposition, which it did on September 20, 2017 (27 TTABVUE). Applicant filed an
amended answer thereto (28 TTABVUE). These are the operative pleadings.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 3 -
of a connection.4 Applicant also sets forth various “affirmative defenses” in its answer,
including estoppel (by consent and acquiescence) and unclean hands.
Opposer and Applicant submitted trial evidence and have fully briefed the
opposition. Both parties were represented by counsel at an oral hearing held before
the Board on October 9, 2018.5
I. Evidentiary Record
The record consists of the following.
1. The pleadings, as amended;
2. The file histories of Applicant’s applications, by operation of Trademark
Rule 2.122(b)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b)(1).

3. Opposer’s 1st Notice of Reliance on copies of its pleaded registrations, each
for “Card games; Game cards” in International Class 28:6

(a) Registration No. 4304905 for the mark CARDS AGAINST
HUMANITY;7

(a) Registration No. 4623613 for the mark ;8 and

4 28 TTABVUE (amended answer).
5 65 TTABVUE (oral hearing appearance record).
6 29 TTABVUE.
7 Issued on March 19, 2013; Section 8 and 15 affidavits accepted.
8 Issued on October 21, 2014. The mark is described in the registration as: “consist[ing] of a
three-dimensional black rectangular product packaging featuring the words CARDS
AGAINST HUMANITY in white letters located in the upper left-hand corner of the
rectangular design, with the phrase A PARTY GAME FOR HORRIBLE PEOPLE in white
letters directly below. The dotted lines along the perimeter of the rectangular product
packaging show the mark’s position on the goods and are not a feature of the mark.”
Opposition No. 91225576
- 4 -

(b) Registration No. 3354769 for the mark CAH.9

4. Opposer’s 2nd Notice of Reliance on a copy of its application (Serial No.
87428307) for .10

5. Opposer’s 3rd Notice of Reliance on responses from Applicant to certain
interrogatories and admission requests propounded by Opposer.11

6. Opposer’s 4th Notice of Reliance on:12
(a) printouts from Opposer’s and Applicant’s websites;
(b) copies of print and online articles involving Opposer’s goods;
(c) screenshots from various websites involving Opposer’s goods;
(d) screenshots of archived Amazon website pages involving Opposer’s
goods;

(e) screenshots from Amazon’s U.S., Canadian and U.K. websites involving
Opposer’s goods, including customer review pages.

7. Opposer’s 5th Notice of Reliance on documents produced by Applicant in
response to Opposer’s discovery requests for production and authenticated
by way of an admission by Applicant.13

9 Issued on July 18, 2017.
10 30 TTABVUE. The application, filed on April 27, 2017, matured into a registration (Reg.
No. 5473183) on May 22, 2018.
11 31 TTABVUE.
12 32 TTABVUE.
13 33 TTABVUE.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 5 -
8. Opposer’s 6th and 7th Notices of Reliance on portions of the transcript of the
deposition of Michael Kohler, one of founders, taken pursuant to Fed. Rule
Civ. P. 30(b)(6).14

9. Opposer’s submission of the testimony declaration or testimonial deposition
transcript, with exhibits, for the following individuals:

(a) Jon G. Rygh, a self-proclaimed “expert in the field of branding and
marketing”;15 and

(b) Jenn Bane, Community Manager for Opposer.16

10. Opposer’s (rebuttal) 8th Notice of Reliance on Applicant’s responses to
Opposer’s interrogatories nos. 9-11 and 14.17

11. Opposer’s (rebuttal) 9th Notice of Reliance on Internet printouts concerning
Opposer’s CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY goods.18

12. Opposer’s (rebuttal) 10th Notice of Reliance on documents produced by
Applicant during discovery and authenticated by Applicant’s admissions.19

13. Applicant’s submission of the following testimony:

(a) Declaration (upon written questions pursuant to stipulation of the
parties) of Ben Hantoot, one of Opposer’s founders, with exhibits;20

(b) Testimonial deposition transcript, with exhibits, of Michael Kohler;21

(c) Testimonial deposition transcript, with exhibits, of Shari Spiro, founder
and CEO of Ad Magic Incorporated, a third party;22 and

14 34 TTBVUE; 40 TTABVUE (filed during Opposer’s rebuttal testimony period) and
confidential material submitted at 44 TTABVUE.
15 35 TTABVUE.
16 36 TTABVUE; testimony and exhibits designated “confidential” at 37 TTABVUE.
17 41 TTABVUE and confidential material submitted at 44 TTABVUE.
18 42 TTABVUE.
19 43 TTABVUE and confidential material submitted at 44 TTABVUE.
20 45-46 TTABVUE (designated confidential).
21 47 TTABVUE and 48 TTABVUE (confidential copy).
22 49 TTABVUE.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 6 -
(d) Testimonial deposition (second, taken on January 18, 2018) transcript
of Mr. Rygh.23

Applicant has moved to strike the “expert report” attached as an exhibit to the
declaration of Mr. Rygh, as submitted by Opposer.24 Specifically, Applicant objects
because “Mr. Rygh’s opinion [whether there is a likelihood of confusion] is not helpful
to the trier of fact because he has relied on less evidence than the Board has before
it.”25 Applicant also contends that Mr. Rygh does not have “specialized knowledge on
the issue of what is and is not parody and does not qualify to render an expert opinion
on the subject.”26 Opposer has contested Applicant’s motion to strike Mr. Rygh’s
report.
We decline to strike the “expert report” attached to Mr. Rygh’s declaration.
However, we accord the report only the weight it is entitled to and, in this regard, we
have considered Applicant’s reasons for striking the report and why Mr. Rygh’s
opinions have little, or no, value. To be clear, we do not allow Mr. Rygh’s opinion to
serve as a substitute for our own judgment in this opposition. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.
v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 124 USPQ2d 1184, 1190 (TTAB 2017). See also Yamaha
Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see
also Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Vigilanz Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1399, 1401-1402
(TTAB 2010) (“[T]he Board is responsible for determining whether the marks are

23 50 TTABVUE.
24 55 TTABVUE (Applicant’s statement of objections).
25 Id. at p. 2-3.
26 Id. at p. 3.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 7 -
similar, and we will not substitute the opinion of a witness, even an expert witness,
for our evaluation of the facts.”) (citing The Mennen Co. v. Yamnouchi Pharma. Co.,
Ltd., 203 USPQ 302, 305 (TTAB 1979) (holding the “opinions of witnesses, including
those qualified as expert witnesses, on the question of likelihood of confusion are
entitled to little if any weight and should not be substituted for the opinion of the
tribunal charged with the responsibility for the ultimate opinion of the question.”)).
II. Background
In 2010, Opposer began marketing a game called CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY
as a Kickstarter (crowd-source funded) project.27 The game, itself, is described as “a
party game for horrible people” and is played by “one player ask[ing] a question from
a black card and everyone else answer[ing] with their funniest white card.”28 The
game encourages irreverent or risqué answers that are humorous, with a variety of
“specialty” packs of cards.
Since 2010, Opposer has engaged in unconventional marketing schemes and its
CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY game has gained some notoriety. Opposer has also
been active promoting the game through its website and social media accounts on
Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Tumblr, with a significant number of followers and
activity. It has received unsolicited attention in the media, including “CNN, MSNBC,
Fox News, Ad Week, Time, Bustle, [and] Teen Vogue.”29 In various articles from 2012
to 2015, the game has been regarded as very successful and growing in popularity –

27 36 TTABVUE 9.
28 32 TTABVUE 18.
29 36 TTABVUE 11.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 8 -
being described in terms such as “taking the world by storm”30 or “a smashing
success”31 or “the breakout party game of this decade.”32 Various celebrities have also
given unprompted mention on their social media of their like of the game, e.g., Kim
Kardashian West tweeting “Playing ‘Cards Against Humanity’ with the crew!”33 The
game was also played by the cast of Glee (TV show) on The Ellen (DeGeneres) Show
television program.34
In terms of sales and commercial success, sales of Opposer’s CARDS AGAINST
HUMANITY game have grown dramatically since between 2011 up to 2016 and are
impressive.35 The online retailer Amazon.com has consistently listed the game as a
“best seller” since 2010.36
Applicant, whose members are the husband and wife team of Michael and Amber
Kohler, describes itself as “founded on the idea that it could create a set of cards with
an even more off-beat sense of humor that could add to and complement the original
[Opposer’s] Cards Against Humanity game.”37 Indeed, Applicant’s game cards are
considered an “expansion pack” to Opposer’s card game and are used in conjunction
with Opposer’s card game. Mr. Kohler testified that in early 2013 he was very familiar

30 32 TTABVUE (Exhibit 28).
31 Id. (Exhibit 30).
32 Id. (Exhibit 29).
33 36 TTABVUE (Bane Exhibit 1).
34 Id.
35 The figures for sales for products and number of promotional items distributed have been
designated “confidential.” 37 TTABVUE; Bane Ex. 3.
36 36 TTABVUE (Bane 11:2-5).
37 58 TTABVUE 11.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 9 -
with Opposer’s game and wanted to create “a series of cards that could be added to
the Cards Against Humanity game that would give a different or enhanced, expanded
experience.”38 In deciding on a mark for its expansion pack of cards to Opposer’s
game, Mr. Kohler “wanted a phrase that would evoke [CARDS AGAINST
HUMANITY] by rhyming with it, but in an absurdist and surreal way.”39
On or about July 1, 2013, Applicant began using CRABS ADJUST HUMIDITY
with an expansion game card pack and launched a website.40 At about the same time,
Mr. Kohler contacted Opposer via email regarding Applicant’s plans for the expansion
pack of game cards. Also, at or around the same time, Applicant contacted a printer,
AdMagic, which was the same printing company that Opposer used for its game
cards.
The parties’ 2013 email communications and the testimony regarding them have
mostly been designated “confidential.”41 Thus, without divulging any of the specific
content of the testimony and exhibits, we make some generalized factual findings
based on the testimony and exhibits. The communications began with Applicant’s
principal, Mr. Kohler, sending an email to Opposer on July 23, 2013.42 In the email,
Mr. Kohler expressed Applicant’s interest to use its CRAB ADJUST HUMIDITY
mark without violating Opposer’s intellectual property rights. On the same day, Max

38 47 TTABVUE (Kohler 7:8-10).
39 Id. 8:14-16.
40 Id. 10:19-23.
41 48 TTABVUE (Kohler “confidential” testimony and exhibits).
42 Id. (Kohler Exhibit 1).
Opposition No. 91225576
- 10 -
Temkin, one of Opposer’s principals, responded to Mr. Kohler by email, mentioning a
possible licensing agreement that would include a provision prohibiting the sale of
any confusingly similar game; Mr. Temkin further suggested in the same email that,
as an alternative to the licensing agreement, Opposer would consider a re-design of
Applicant’s marks and packaging whereby Applicant could sell its game cards
without violating Opposer’s rights.43
On August 14, 2013, Mr. Kohler sent Mr. Temkin an email with an attachment
showing re-designed game card designs containing the CRABS ADJUST HUMIDITY
mark.44 On the same day, Mr. Temkin responded by email stating, albeit in a single
sentence and somewhat informally, that Applicant’s re-design was acceptable to
Opposer.45
In September 2013, Applicant placed an order with AdMagic to have 10,000 of its
game cards printed for $22,700.46 Prior to accepting the order from Applicant,
AdMagic’s principal, Ms. Spiro, confirmed with Opposer that it had given permission
to Applicant to have the cards printed.47 Specifically, Ms. Spiro testified:48
So my understanding is that the guys from Cards Against Humanity were
giving Michael [Applicant] permission to sell this game on his website in a
specific channel of trade, for lack of a better definition. That was my
understanding. He had approval to run this run and sell the cards in the
Crabs Adjust Humidity website.

43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 49 TTABVUE (Spiro Exhibit 1).
47 Id.; Spiro 8:14-10:23.
48 Id.; Spiro 10:12-20.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 11 -

When Applicant placed its first order with AdMagic to print its game cards,
Applicant’s primary trade channel was through its own website.49 Later in 2013 and
into 2014, Applicant experienced “explosive growth” in sales that peaked during
Christmas 2014,50 and Applicant began selling through the large online retailer
Amazon.com, as well as other online retailers and smaller retail hobby stores.51
On two separate occasions, Applicant attempted to sell its cards through Target,
a chain of large retail department stores. First, in late 2014,52 Applicant was close to
placing an order with the printer, AdMagic, for game cards to be sold to Target.
However, AdMagic’s principal, Ms. Spiro, contacted Applicant and said she was
uncomfortable printing Applicant’s cards “without signoff” from Opposer.53 Applicant
contacted Opposer who ultimately did not approve Applicant’s sale of cards to Target
in late 2014.54 On the second occasion, in 2015, Applicant’s distributor was
approached by Target regarding the sale of Applicant’s game cards in the Target
stores.55 Applicant again contacted Opposer to get its approval of Applicant’s sale of
cards to Target; however, the parties were unable to reach an agreement and
Applicant ultimately did not sell any of its cards through to Target.

49 47 TTABVUE (Kohler 22:19-20).
50 Id.; Kohler 82:18-23.
51 Id.; Kohler 23:1-21.
52 Id.; Kohler 27:9-25.
53 Id.
54 Id.; Kohler 28:2-3.
55 Id.; Kohler 28-18-22.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 12 -
The involved applications were filed in May, 2015, published for opposition on
November 3, 2015, and Opposer timely filed the instant opposition on December 30,
2015.56 During this time and at least up to January 2016, the parties continued their
negotiations regarding a possible written agreement regarding Applicant’s use of its
marks.
III. Applicant’s Affirmative Defenses
A. Estoppel by acquiescence and express consent
In its brief, Applicant relies upon from the aforementioned email correspondence
in 2013 between Applicant’s principal, Mr. Kohler, and Max Temkin, a principal of
Opposer. Applicant asserts that, based on that correspondence, it “received Opposer’s
consent to proceed to market Applicant’s game” and that it “did so for two years
without any complaint from Opposer.” Applicant argues that it received Opposer’s
“express, not implied,” consent to “market” its game.57 Applicant further argues that
this consent was “followed by Applicant’s detrimental reliance [and] creates the
defense of estoppel.”58 Applicant also contends that “an express consent to use
necessarily includes a consent to register,” citing Richdel, Inc. v. Mathews Co., 190
USPQ 37, 42 (TTAB 1976) and MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
§ 32:106 (5th ed. 2018 update).

56 Opposer filed a request for an extension of time to oppose (on December 3, 2015) which was
granted by the Board on the same day, allowing Opposer until January 2, 2016 to file a notice
of opposition.
57 58 TTABVUE 45.
58 Id.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 13 -
Opposer, on the other hand, admits that it “had given Applicant a limited
permission to use the name Crabs Adjust Humidity as part of an overall design back
in 2013.”59 However, Opposer contends that such consent “only extended to a small
print run for a one-off expansion pack to be sold on Applicant’s website with a specific
design,” asserting that “at that time, [Applicant’s website] was the only place the
‘Crabs Adjust Humidity’ game was available….”60
Applicant’s defense, as articulated in its brief, is essentially estoppel by
acquiescence. “Acquiescence is a type of estoppel that is based upon the plaintiff’s
conduct that expressly or by clear implication consents to, encourages, or furthers the
activities of the defendant, that is not objected to.” Christian Broadcasting Network
Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, 84 USPQ2d 1560, 1573 (TTAB 2007). Acquiescence
requires proof of three elements: (1) that plaintiff actively represented that it would
not assert a right or a claim; (2) that the delay between the active representation and
assertion of the right or claim was not excusable; and (3) that the delay caused
defendant undue prejudice. Coach House Restaurant Inc. v. Coach and Six
Restaurants, Inc., 934 F.2d 1551, 19 USPQ2d 1401, 1409 (11th Cir. 1991)
(acquiescence requires active consent). See also Hitachi Metals International, Ltd. v.
Yamakyu Chain Kabushiki Kaisha, 209 USPQ 1057 (TTAB 1981).
Acquiescence is generally unavailable in opposition proceedings because the start
date for which Opposer can be charged with inexcusable delay begins to run from the

59 59 TTABVUE 9.
60 Id.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 14 -
date the mark is published for opposition. Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH
& Co. KG, 87 USPQ2d 1526, 1531 (TTAB 2008) (“Conduct which occurs prior to the
publication of the application for opposition generally cannot support a finding of
equitable estoppel.”); see also Krause v. Krause Publications Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904
(TTAB 2005). Here, Opposer timely filed its notice of opposition (see Note 56) and
thus we cannot find any unreasonable delay. Without a showing of non-excusable
delay on Opposer’s part in asserting its rights, we necessarily do not find acquiescence
is applicable.
To the extent that Applicant is asserting estoppel by express consent, such a
defense is also unavailing given the circumstances. Specifically, although Opposer’s
principal Mr. Temkin informally conveyed Opposer’s approval of Applicant’s use of
its marks in an email, there is considerable ambiguity as to the extent of this consent.
As demonstrated by Applicant’s unsuccessful efforts to obtain approval from Opposer
to sell its game cards through the retailer Target, Applicant itself evidently did not
believe it could pursue any sale without Opposer’s consent. Indeed, the facts herein
are quite different from those in the Board decision, Richdel, Inc. v. Mathews Co.,
upon which Applicant seeks to rely in asserting estoppel. In Richdel, there was no
such ambiguity and the Board found “there can be no question but that the agreement
between the parties including the payment to opposer of two thousand dollars and
applicant’s cessation of use of [a logo] in return constituted acquiescence by opposer
to applicant’s use of [applicant’s mark].” Richdel, Inc. v. Mathews Co., 190 USPQ 42.
Moreover, the Board noted that the opposer in that case indicated an
Opposition No. 91225576
- 15 -
acknowledgement of the involved goods being unrelated because it filed an
application with a declaration that “can only be accepted as true if it is deemed that
opposer did not believe that the contemporaneous use of [the marks on the different
respective goods, i.e., mowers versus sprinkler controls and valves] was not conducive
to confusion or mistake in trade as to source.” Id. Here, in contrast, there is no dispute
that Applicant’s game cards are identical to Opposer’s game cards, and they are
specifically designed to be played as an accessory pack to Opposer’s card game.
Even if we were to construe Mr. Temkin’s email as clearly representing that
Opposer was unconditionally consenting to Applicant’s use of its marks, there is no
evidence showing Opposer had no objection to Applicant’s registration of these
marks. In making this distinction, we keep in mind the Eleventh Circuit’s admonition
to the Board:
“... We conclude that the TTAB abused its discretion by failing to observe
the distinction in this case between acquiescence as to use and
acquiescence as to registration. Although petitioner actively represented
that the registrant could use its logo, petitioner did not represent or imply
that it would allow registrant to register the petitioner’s service mark on
the federal Principal Register. Therefore, no period of delay could have
begun running as to registration, until petitioner had notice that registrant
was doing something that would generate a claim or right of petitioner.”

Coach House, 19 USPQ2d at 1404.
For the aforementioned reasons, Applicant’s assertions of estoppel by
acquiescence or express consent fail.
B. Unclean Hands
Applicant argues that the affirmative defense of “unclean hands” is applicable to
this case because Opposer is attempting to “use of its senior mark as a means of
Opposition No. 91225576
- 16 -
restraining trade and bolstering pricing, as opposed to any legitimate concern about
mitigating any likelihood of confusion between the two marks.”61 Applicant also
argues that “Opposer’s attempt to engage Applicant in an unlawful restraint of trade
speaks directly to this Board’s jurisdiction to make a determination of the likelihood
of confusion between the two marks.”62
We disagree. Because Applicant’s defense is predicated on making a
determination as to what constitutes unlawful trade practices, including restraints
on trade, we find the basis for this defense is beyond the Board’s jurisdiction.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Board’s decision in Winnebago Industries, Inc.
v. Oliver & Winston, Inc., 207 USPQ 335 (TTAB 1980) is relevant because it also
involved alleged inappropriate restraints on trade and, as the Board noted, we “do[]
not have jurisdiction to consider issues involving [unfair trade] violations.” Id. at 342.
Accordingly, the unclean hands defense presented by Applicant is unavailing in this
proceeding.
IV. Board’s Partial Summary Judgment Grant – Standing and Priority
On September 19, 2017, the Board granted partial summary judgment in
Opposer’s favor deciding, inter alia, that Opposer has standing in this opposition.63
The Board also decided that Opposer has priority of use with respect to its
Registration No. 4304905 for the mark CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY for game

61 58 TTABVUE 48.
62 Id. at 50.
63 26 TTABVUE 21.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 17 -
cards.64 The Board’s summary judgment decision regarding standing and priority are
incorporated into this decision.
V. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination of the issue of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is
based on an analysis of all 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, 567
(CCPA 1973). In every likelihood of confusion analysis, two key factors are the
similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods or services.
See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29
(CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative
effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the
marks.”).
We focus our likelihood of confusion determination on Opposer’s standard
character mark CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY in Registration No. 4304905 for
“card games; game cards,” in International Class 28. If we find a likelihood of
confusion as to this mark and those goods (vis-à-vis Applicant’s marks), we need not
find it as to Opposer’s other marks; conversely, if we do not find a likelihood of
confusion based on this registered mark, we would not find it as to Opposer’s other
marks. See, e.g., In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010).

64 Id.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 18 -
A. Identity of the Goods, Trade Channels, Conditions of
Purchase, and Classes of Consumers
With regard to the parties’ goods, channels of trade, conditions of purchase, and
classes of consumers, we must make our determinations under these factors based on
the goods as they are identified in the application and cited registration. See In re
Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also
Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d
1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261,
62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc.,
918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “This factor considers whether
‘the consuming public may perceive [the respective goods or services of the parties]
as related enough to cause confusion about the source or origin of the goods and
services.’” In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1086 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (quoting Hewlett-Packard, 62 USPQ2d at 1004).
In this case, Opposer’s and Applicant’s goods are identified in the pleaded
registration and opposed applications exactly the same, namely, “game cards; card
games.” Indeed, as already discussed, the parties’ games are identical to the extent
that they are played in the same manner and Applicant’s game was admittedly
designed as an expansion set of cards to be played with Opposer’s original game.
Because the goods are identical, we must presume that the channels of trade and
classes of purchasers for these goods are also the same. See In re Viterra Inc., 671
F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In any event, the identity of
trade channels is established by the evidence – both Opposer and Applicant sell their
Opposition No. 91225576
- 19 -
game cards through the online retailer Amazon.com, and Applicant has sought on
more than one occasion to sell through the retail chain Target stores where Opposer’s
game cards can be purchased.65
The parties’ game cards are relatively inexpensive and this lends them to being
purchased on impulse. Opposer’s game cards can be purchased for $5-29 and
Applicant’s game cards were initially being sold for approximately $15.66 The game
cards may be sold to an individual member of the general public, who is not a
sophisticated purchaser. The subject matter of these card games is somewhat
whimsical and they are for casual amusement. With these factors in mind, we find
the parties’ game cards are likely to be the subject of impulse purchasing rather than
made after careful deliberation.
Accordingly, the du Pont factors regarding the identity of the goods, channels of
trade and consumers weigh heavily in favor of likelihood of confusion. In addition,
the goods are highly susceptible to being purchased on impulse and this too makes
confusion more likely.
B. Similarity of the Marks
This du Pont factor considers “‘the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their
entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.’” Palm
Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369,
73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567).

65 36 TTABVUE (Bane Exhibit 11); 47 TTABVUE (Kohler 33:1-34:7).
66 47 TTABVUE (Kohler 11:13-19); 32 TTABVUE (Exhibit 10).
Opposition No. 91225576
- 20 -
“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks
confusingly similar.” In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re
White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)). “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) (quotation omitted). “The proper focus is on the recollection of the average
customer, who retains a general rather than specific impression of the marks.” In re
Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018).
We also keep in mind that when marks appear on identical goods, as they do here,
the degree of similarity between the marks necessary to support a finding of likely
confusion declines. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1797,
1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 101 USPQ2d at 1908); Century 21
Real Estate v. Century Life, 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, we find the marks are overall quite similar. Applicant’s marks CRABS
ADJUST HUMIDITY (with and without the design element) and Opposer’s CARDS
AGAINST HUMANITY each have three words, employ the same syntax, and, as
Opposer points out in its brief, the words in each mark are arranged as follows:67
the first being a monosyllabic word with five letters, four of which are the
same, beginning with “C” and ending in “S;” the second being a two-syllable
word beginning with the letter “A” and ending in “ST;” and the last being

67 51 TTABVUE.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 21 -
a three-syllable word with eight letters, beginning with “HUM” and ending
in “ITY.”

By Applicant’s own admission, this similarity is no coincidence as one of the factors
going into Applicant’s thought process in adopting its mark was that the mark “would
evoke [Opposer’s mark] by rhyming with it.”68 Applicant describes its mark as an
“homage” to Opposer’s mark and Applicant stated that its mark “enhanced the
pseudo-anonymity of the gameplay,” given that Applicant’s cards could be played
with Opposer’s cards.69
As the Board has noted before, there is “the penchant of consumers
to shorten marks,” In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1961 (TTAB
2016), and the evidence shows that this is true with respect to the parties’ marks.
Here, most likely due to the length of the wording in the marks, the record shows that
consumers often abbreviate the parties’ marks to the same initial letters, CAH.70
Applicant has acknowledged this abbreviation of the marks in addressing a consumer
and describing itself as “the ‘other’ CAH.”71 Another example is from Applicant’s
website in a customer review that includes the following, “Love CAH and I also love
CAH. I’ll leave it to you to sort out which is which.”72

68 47 TTABVUE (Kohler 8:14-15).
69 Id.; Kohler 39:23-40:8.
70 The record is replete with “CAH” references made by the parties and third parties as an
abbreviation of the parties’ marks. See, e.g., 34 TTABVUE (Notice of Reliance Exhibits 10,
14, and 30).
71 Id.; Exhibit 10 (Applicant responding on the Reddit website (www.reddit.com) to an
individual who stated “If CAH was a stupid idea, I’d love to see a good one.”).
72 Id.; Exhibit 30.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 22 -
To be clear, our comparison is of the marks as they appear in the involved
applications and the pleaded registration. Nevertheless, the demonstrated ability of
each of the parties’ marks to be shortened to the letters CAH by consumers is a
relevant factor in comparing the similarity of the marks. That is, we must consider
this common attribute, namely that the public is likely to abbreviate the marks in the
same manner, in determining whether the marks are similar. See also Big M. Inc. v.
U.S. Shoe Corp., 228 USPQ 614, 616 (TTAB 1985) (“[W]e cannot ignore the propensity
of consumers to often shorten trademarks....”).
In its brief, Applicant argues that CRABS ADJUST HUMIDITY “necessarily calls
[Opposer’s mark] to mind,” but asserts that this is because it is a “parody.”73 Applicant
likens this case to the decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog,
LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 84 USPQ2d 1969 (4th Cir. 2007), a case applying the parody
defense to use of the mark “Chewy Vuiton” for dog toys, which the plaintiff alleged
diluted its LOUIS VUITTON mark for luxury goods. However, we have long held that
parody is a viable defense in a likelihood of confusion analysis only if the involved
marks are otherwise not found confusingly similar. Here, as already discussed, we
find the marks are similar. See Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88
USPQ2d 1581, 1592 (TTAB 2008) (“Parody is not a defense if the marks would
otherwise be considered confusingly similar.”); see also McCarthy, supra § 31.153 (“a
successful parody [means] the ordinary observer can perceive that the defendant is
not connected in any way with the owner of the target trademark.”). Moreover, as

73 58 TTABVUE 32.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 23 -
Professor McCarthy noted with respect to the Louis Vuitton decision, one key reason
for finding a parody in the defendant’s mark was the fact that it “is highly unlikely
to mistakenly think that famous high-fashion houses [like the plaintiff] are making
or authorizing the dog accessories [like the defendant]” and such parody based on this
difference would “amuse, not confuse.” Id. In this case, the parties’ goods are identical
and the marks are similar in their overall commercial impressions due to the shared
elements in each. For these reasons, Applicant’s argument that its applied-for marks
constitute a parody are unavailing.
We do not ignore the design of a crab claw turning a dial, presumably a
humidistat, in Applicant’s composite mark. Suffice to say, this is an element not
present in Opposer’s mark. However, as we have long held, a design element
generally is accorded less weight in determining whether the marks are similar when
it is combined with a literal element because the latter is more likely to be impressed
upon a customer’s memory and used by customers to request or reference the involved
goods, here, game cards. CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 218 USPQ at 200; In re Kysela Pere et
Fils Ltd., 98 USPQ2d 1261, 1267-68 (TTAB 2011); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59
USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999). Applicant’s composite mark falls within this
generalization. As the record demonstrates, consumers are accustomed to referencing
Applicant’s goods as CRABS ADJUST HUMIDITY or abbreviating them to CAH.
Thus, although we note the design element in Applicant’s mark is a point of
difference, it does not play such a significant role to overcome the aforementioned
similarities of the respective word portions.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 24 -
Ultimately, we agree with Applicant when it states that its marks are “sufficiently
imitative of [Opposer’s mark] to create an association” between the marks; however,
we disagree with Applicant’s assessment that the “absurdity level” and “humorous”
nature of its marks create a “separation.”74 Applicant’s marks CRABS ADJUST
HUMIDITY, with and without the design element, and Opposer’s CARDS AGAINST
HUMANITY mark are each somewhat absurd. Taking the words literally in each of
these mark creates nonsensical expressions. Opposer’s mark will likely be understood
as an irreverent play on the more serious subject “crimes against humanity,” but
suggests that game cards are being used against humanity. Applicant’s CRABS
ADJUST HUMIDITY wording may be interpreted as being more nonsensical in that
crustaceans do not adjust the humidity level; however the differences in the literal
connotations of the marks do not overcome their similarities in appearance,
pronunciation and overall commercial impression.
In sum, Applicant’s CRABS ADJUST HUMIDITY marks, with and without the
crab design element, are overall quite similar in appearance and sound with
Opposer’s CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY mark. While the literal meaning of the
words in Applicant’s mark is different from that of Opposer’s mark, they share a
whimsical or nonsensical nature. Applicant admits its mark “necessarily calls … to
mind” Opposer’s mark. Accordingly, this du Pont factor also supports a finding of a
likelihood of confusion.

74 58 TTABVUE 36.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 25 -
C. The Fame of the CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY Mark
The fifth du Pont factor involves the fame of the prior mark. “[L]ikelihood of
confusion fame ‘varies along a spectrum from very strong to very weak.”’ Joseph
Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmount Holdings, LLC, 857 F.3d 1323, 122 USPQ2d
1733, 1734 (Fed Cir. 2017) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
Maison Fondee en 1772, 73 USPQ2d at 1694 (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co., 343
F.3d 1340, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2003))).
Fame may be measured indirectly by the volume of sales and advertising
expenditures for the goods and services identified by the marks at issue, “the length
of time those indicia of commercial awareness have been evident,” widespread critical
assessments and through notice, by independent sources, of the products identified
by the marks, as well as the general reputation of the products and services. Bose
Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc., 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1305-06, 1309 (Fed. Cir.
2002); Weider Publ'ns, LLC v. D&D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1354 (TTAB
2014). Raw sales and advertising numbers alone may be misleading, however, and
some context in which to place the numbers may be necessary. See Omaha Steaks
Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 128 USPQ2d 1686, 1690
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Bose, 63 USPQ2d at 1309).
Finally, because of the extreme deference that we accord a famous mark in terms
of the wide latitude of legal protection it receives, and the dominant role fame plays
in the likelihood of confusion analysis, it is the duty of the party asserting that its
mark is famous to clearly prove it. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101
Opposition No. 91225576
- 26 -
USPQ2d at 1720, citing Leading Jewelers Guild Inc. v. LJOW Holdings LLC, 82
USPQ2d 1901, 1904 (TTAB 2007).
Based on the record as a whole, we find that Opposer’s CARDS AGAINST
HUMANITY mark is very strong and has received significant publicity. Although the
numbers for units sold and distributed for promotion have been designated as
“confidential,” we find them particularly impressive for the years 2013 to date.75
Opposer has also publicized its game under the mark through non-conventional
advertisement events that have received attention.76 Opposer is also active in social
media, with over 100,000 Twitter followers77 and a Facebook page with nearly
700,000 “likes.”78
Perhaps most telling with respect to the degree of renown of Opposer’s CARDS
AGAINST HUMANITY game is the amount and type of unsolicited publicity it has
received in the media and mentions by celebrities (as already discussed supra in the
“background”).79 For example, the New York Times online (www.nytimes.com)
featured the game in August 2014, describing it as “ha[ving] become hugely popular
over the last three years, popping up at birthdays and bachelorette parties, happy
hours and Hamptons gatherings” and acknowledging how it is often “sold out” on

75 37 TTABVUE (Bane Declaration Exhibit 3).
76 36 TTABVUE
77 Id.; Bane 84:18-85:4.
78 Id.; In its answer, as amended, Applicant admits that Opposer has “more than 640,000
Facebook users that follow Opposer’s page and Opposer has more than 93,100 Twitter
followers.” 28 TTABVUE 3 (Answer ¶ 6).
79 32 TTABVUE (Fourth Notice of Reliance).
Opposition No. 91225576
- 27 -
Amazon.com because it is “has been consistently been the No. 1 best-selling toy or
game on Amazon since it debuted there in 2011, ahead of Jenga, Legos and Disney’s
‘Frozen’ dolls.”80 While we cannot, and do not, take the statements made in the
articles for their truth, the amount and type of press coverage for Opposer’s CARDS
AGAINST HUMANITY game establishes an elevated degree of public recognition.
Without being prompted or paid, well-known persons, such as Kim Kardashian West,
Lance Armstrong, Jessica Biel and others, expressed their like of the game to their
followers via Twitter.81
Applicant, in its answer, has also made the following admissions to Opposer’s
allegations that involve public exposure to Opposer’s Cards Against Humanity game:
• “Some of the cast members of Glee and Keeping up with the Kardashians have
played Opposer’s game on television.”82

• Members of Congress played Opposer’s game after President Obama’s State of
the Union address in January 2015 (clip available here:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/01/21/...).83

• [T]he New York Times published one article on August 13, 2014 titled “For a
Well-Played Hand, Far From P.C.” written by Shiela Marikar that references
Opposer’s game as “hugely popular,” that the New York Times Magazine
published one article on October 7, 2016 titled “Letter of Complaint: Cards Against
Humanity” written by Dan Brooks that states “[Opposer’s game] has become a
mainstay in the households of young urban professionals,” and that CNN
published one article on January 25, 2017 titled “Cards Against Humanity seeks
new CEO (who sounds an awful lot like our last President)” written by Brenna
Williams that states, “Cards Against Humanity is usually described as a filthy
version of Apple to Apples. And if you haven’t heard of either of those games, you

80 Id.; Exhibit 34.
81 36 TTABVUE (Bane Declaration Exhibit 1); Bane 15:13-16.
82 28 TTABVUE (Answer ¶ 7).
83 Id. at ¶ 8.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 28 -
haven’t been to a party at someone’s house in the last decade and I can’t help
you.”84

Taken in its entirety, the record persuades us that Opposer’s mark CARDS
AGAINST HUMANITY enjoys a high degree of recognition in the relevant United
States market. This renown increases the likelihood that consumers would perceive
a similar mark as being associated with Opposer.
Accordingly, the du Pont fame factor supports a finding of a likelihood of
confusion. Joseph Phelps Vineyards, 122 USPQ2d at 1734-35; Tao Licensing, LLC v.
Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1056 (TTAB 2017).
D. Instances of Actual Confusion
Finally, we address the seventh du Pont factor, the nature and extent of
any actual confusion. A showing of actual confusion may be highly probative, if not
conclusive, of a likelihood of confusion. Majestic Distilling, 65 USPQ2d at
1205. Evidence of actual confusion is difficult to obtain, however, and is not necessary
to show a likelihood of confusion. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 123
USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Weiss Assocs. Inc. v. HRL Assocs. Inc., 902 F.2d
1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Lebanon Seaboard Corp. v. R&R Turf
Supply Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1826, 1834 (TTAB 2012).
Opposer argues that there is “substantial evidence of actual consumer confusion
between the parties’ marks.”85 Specifically, in its brief, Opposer points to:
1. Printout of a message from Amazon.com notifying Applicant that an
authorization for a return has been issued to a buyer with the following

84 Id. at ¶ 13.
85 51 TTABVUE 36.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 29 -
information – “Return reason: Accidental order … Buyer comments: Wanted
Cards Against Humanity, not Crabs Against [sic].”86

2. Printouts of two different customer reviews of Applicant’s game cards on the
Amazon.com website that include the following messages:
a. “When I bought [the Crabs Game], I misread it and thought it said Cards
Against Humanity . . .”87
b. “Crappy copy of the real game, I wasn’t paying attention and got taken!
Don’t let it happen to you . . .”88

Opposer also relies on the testimony, with exhibits, of its Community Manager,
Ms. Bane. She testified that Opposer’s customer service team has received
communications since 2013 indicating a level of confusion amongst consumers
indicating that they believe there is a relationship between the parties.89 She
testified that this “confusion happens all the time … over email, on social media,
and it also happens in person.”90 Copies of several emails indicating this type of
confusion were attached to Ms. Bane’s deposition as exhibits.
In its brief, Applicant acknowledges that the “comments from the Amazon
website [ ] indicate that a customer purchased the Applicant’s game when they
intended to buy the Opposer’s game.”91 However, Applicant argues that this was
a case of “inattention” and that “Opposer has not submitted any declarations from
customers explaining the context that might show actual confusion rather than a

86 34 TTABVUE (4th Notice of Reliance, Kohler Exhibit 26).
87 35 TTABVUE (6th Notice of Reliance, Exhibit 79).
88 Id.
89 36 TTABVUE; Bane 29:10-30:16.
90 Id. ; Bane 64:22-65:9.
91 58 TTABVUE 39.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 30 -
simple mistake.”92 Applicant further argues that “the instances of accidental
purchases put before the Board is no more than a half dozen” and that “the scale
of Opposer’s evidence of actual confusion is microscopic when compared to the
number of Opposer’s games and Applicant’s games that have been sold and the
number of communications that each company has received.”93
Although Applicant takes issue with the number of “instances of accidental
purchases,” we find the evidence of consumer confusion to be probative in our
likelihood of confusion analysis. Indeed, the amount and type of evidence of
confusion is substantial and cannot be classified as de minimis or insignificant.
Cf. Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. v. James River Petroleum, Inc., 130 F.3d 88, 44
USPQ2d 1921, 1927 (4th Cir. 1997) (“In light of its huge volume of commerce,
[plaintiff’s] meager evidence of actual confusion is at best de minimis.”); National
Rural Elec. Coop. Ass’n v. Suzlon Wind Energy Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1881, (TTAB
2006), aff’d, 214 Fed. Appx. 987 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (One instance of an e-mail asking
if the defendant’s mark might be an infringement was not sufficient evidence of a
likelihood of confusion. “We are not persuaded that this single instance of alleged
actual confusion is significant.”)
Even were we to consider the known instances of actual confusion and
accidental purchases as being few in number when compared to the number of
sales of the parties’ game cards, we find them to be at least “illustrative of how

92 Id. at 39-40.
93 Id. at 40.
Opposition No. 91225576
- 31 -
and why confusion is likely.” Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469,471
(TTAB 1975) (internal citation omitted) (involving “a single instance of actual
confusion, albeit there is testimony which indicates that there have been more
instances of actual confusion.”) The record demonstrates that, because Applicant’s
game cards are designed to be an accessory pack to Opposer’s card game, many, if
not all, consumers of Applicant’s goods are already aware of Opposer’s CARDS
AGAINST HUMANITY card game and game cards. Moreover, the confusion
evidence indicates possible consumer inattention as to the differences in the
respective composite words of the marks and an ability to confuse the wording
CRABS ADJUST HUMIDITY with CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY making
accidental purchases more likely.
In sum, the evidence of actual confusion before us has clear probative value
and helps show that confusion among consumers is likely, and the du Pont factor
is weighed accordingly.
E. Bad Faith
Opposer argues in its brief that “Applicant’s bad-faith intent is yet another factor
that favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.”94 Opposer points to circumstances of
Applicant’s adoption of its mark, including Mr. Kohler’s acknowledgement that
Applicant deliberately sought a mark that would “evoke” Opposer’s CARDS
AGAINST HUMANITY mark “by rhyming with it.”95

94 51 TTABVUE 44.
95 47 TTABVUE (Kohler 8:14-15).
Opposition No. 91225576
- 32 -
Bad faith, or intent to confuse, falls under the thirteenth du Pont factor regarding
“any other established fact probative of the effect of use.” L.C. Licensing Inc. v.
Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883, 1890 (TTAB 2008) (“[A] party which knowingly adopts a
mark similar to one used by another for related goods should not be surprised to find
scrutiny of the filer’s motive.”). A finding of bad faith must be supported by evidence
of an intent to confuse, rather than mere knowledge of another’s mark or even
an intent to copy. See, e.g., Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d
97, 92 USPQ2d 1769, 1782 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he ‘only relevant intent is intent to
confuse. There is a considerable difference between an intent to copy and an intent to
deceive.”’ (quoting McCarthy, § 23:113)). See also J & J Snack Foods Corp. v.
McDonald’s Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1889, 1891 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Whether there is
evidence of intent to trade on the goodwill of another is a factor to be considered, but
the absence of such evidence does not avoid a ruling of likelihood of confusion.”).
Here, while there is evidence Applicant clearly had prior knowledge of Opposer’s
CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY game, we do not find this record supports, by a
preponderance of the evidence, a conclusion of bad faith adoption. Particularly, we
note that Applicant did make efforts to obtain Opposer’s approval to use the CRABS
ADJUST HUMIDITY mark and the evidence shows that Applicant had reason to
believe it received Opposer’s approval to adopt the mark. We therefore find the du
Pont factor regarding bad faith adoption to be neutral.
F. Conclusion
All of the du Pont factors for which there is evidence either support a finding of a
likelihood of confusion or are neutral. The parties’ goods are identical and are sold in
Opposition No. 91225576
- 33 -
the same channels of trade to the same classes of customers. Applicant’s game cards
are designed to be played as an addition to Opposer’s card games. These goods are
relatively inexpensive and may be purchased on impulse. Opposer’s CARDS
AGAINST HUMANITY mark is very strong and, although it is comprised of different
words than those found in Applicant’s marks, the marks are overall similar to one
another for the reasons mentioned herein.
Opposer has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Applicant’s use of its
marks for game cards is likely to cause consumers of those goods to believe mistakenly
that they originate with, or are licensed, sponsored, or authorized by, Opposer. “The
intention of [A]pplicant was to get as close to [O]pposer’s mark as possible and it is
our opinion that it has succeeded to the extent that there is a likelihood of confusion.”
Molenaar, 188 USPQ 471.
Decision: The opposition is sustained on the ground of likelihood of confusion.96

96 In view of our likelihood of confusion decision, we need not reach Opposer’s dilution and
false suggestion of a connection claims. “Like the federal courts, the Board has generally used
its discretion to decide only those claims necessary to enter judgment and dispose of the case.
. . . [T]he Board’s determination of registrability does not require, in every instance, decision
on every pleaded claim.” Multisorb Tech., Inc. v. Pactiv Corp., 109 USPQ2d 1170, 1171 (TTAB
2013) (citations omitted).