CHG Alternative Education, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

No. 86795013 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: September 22, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re CHG Alternative Educ., Inc.
_____

Serial No. 86795013
_____

Kevin R. Casey and Elizabeth M. O’Donoghue, Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young
LLP, for CHG Alternative Education, Inc.

Christopher Buongiorno, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102,
Mitchell Front, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Kuhlke, Adlin, and Larkin,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
CHG Alternative Education, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark shown below

(EDUCATION disclaimed) for the following services (as amended):
Serial No. 86795013
- 2 -
Educational services, namely, conducting full day
kindergarten through twelfth grade classroom remedial
academic instruction, and conducting full day kindergarten
through twelfth grade classroom instruction for students
who are having behavioral, emotional or developmental
needs, excluding before and after school lessons;
Educational consulting services, namely, providing peer to
peer professional development coaching services in the
fields of alternative and special education; Educational
counseling services to assist students with behavioral,
emotional, or developmental needs in planning and
preparing to transition from kindergarten through high
school to college, in International Class 41.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of the mark under
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that it so
resembles the mark CAMELOT LEARNING (LEARNING disclaimed) in typed form
(Registration No. 2398280),2 for “educational services, namely, designing,
implementing, teaching, and training others to teach, before and after school lessons
and hands-on activities to supplement and enrich course curricula at the elementary
and middle school levels,” in International Class 41, as to be likely, when used in
connection with Applicant’s services, to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. After
the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration, which was denied. Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed
briefs. We affirm the refusal to register.

1 Application Serial No. 86795013 was filed on October 21, 2015 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), on the basis of Applicant’s claimed first use of the mark
and first use of the mark in commerce on January 31, 2014.
2 The cited registration issued to Link to Learning LLC (“Registrant”) on October 24, 2000
and was renewed in 2010.
Serial No. 86795013
- 3 -
Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark that so
resembles a registered mark as to be likely, when used in connection with the
applicant’s goods or services, to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d). Our determination of likelihood of confusion under § 2(d) is based upon an
analysis of all probative facts in the record that are relevant to the likelihood of
confusion factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177
USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). We consider each du Pont factor for which there is
evidence. See, e.g., M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78
USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006); ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114
USPQ2d 1232, 1242 (TTAB 2015). In every case under Section 2(d), two key
considerations 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”).
A. Similarity of the Marks
This du Pont factor focuses on “‘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). “The
proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the
Serial No. 86795013
- 4 -
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).
“[L]ikelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark, that is, on
only part of a mark. On the other hand, in articulating reasons for reaching a
conclusion on the issue of confusion, there is nothing improper in stating that, for
rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark,
provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their
entireties.” In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the cited mark CAMELOT LEARNING, “it is often the first part
of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and
remembered.” Presto Prods. Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB
1988); see also Palm Bay, 73 USPQ2d at 1692; In re Integrated Embedded, 120
USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016). This principle is particularly applicable to the cited
mark because the word LEARNING that follows CAMELOT has been disclaimed for
lack of source-identifying capacity for educational services. See, e.g., In re Binion, 93
USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (TTAB 2009) (first word BINION’S in mark BINION’S
ROADHOUSE was dominant portion of mark where ROADHOUSE was disclaimed).
CAMELOT dominates the cited mark because it is the portion that would “make an
impression upon purchasers that would be remembered and relied upon to identify
the [services] . . . .” In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987).
Serial No. 86795013
- 5 -
Applicant’s mark is reproduced below:

“In the case of a composite mark containing both words and a design, ‘the verbal
portion of the mark is the one most likely to indicate the origin of the goods [or
services] to which it is affixed.’” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905,
1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198,
200 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The word CAMELOT is the most distinctive and prominent
feature of the verbal portion of Applicant’s mark, and the dominant portion of the
mark as a whole, for several reasons.
First, the word CAMELOT appears in bolded capital letters and in the largest
typeface, and it is the first part of Applicant’s mark when it is viewed or spoken.
Applicant acknowledges “the emphasis given the word ‘Camelot’ as part of applicant’s
slogan by its text size and by the design component . . . .” 10 TTABVUE 11. The
smaller and not bolded word EDUCATION, which is displayed beneath, and
verbalized after, the word CAMELOT, is obviously generic for educational services,
and has been disclaimed. See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531,
1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The non-distinctive slogan “Your Future Starts Here”
located at the bottom of the mark between two parallel horizontal lines has very little,
if any, source-identifying capacity because of its aspirational nature and because the
Serial No. 86795013
- 6 -
record shows that the identical phrase has been used by multiple third parties in
connection with educational services.3 Applicant concedes as much when it refers to
“the well-known quality of the phrase portion ‘Your Future Starts Here’ . . . .” 10
TTABVUE 12. A representative example of a third-party educator’s claim that “Your
Future Starts Here” is reproduced below:4

Second, the dominance of the word CAMELOT in Applicant’s mark is corroborated
by the record to the extent that the word CAMELOT in Applicant’s mark “likely will
appear alone when used in text and will be spoken when requested by consumers.”
Viterra, 101 USPQ2d at 1911. Indeed, Applicant frequently uses CAMELOT in that

3 August 17, 2016 Office Action at 68-80; February 21, 2017 Denial of Request for
Reconsideration at 2-4, 19-29, 34-40. One article in the record, entitled “Your Future Starts
Here. Or Here. Or Here.,” begins as follows: “To sell themselves, colleges try to stand out. But
often, their marketing efforts look practically identical.” August 17, 2016 Office Action at 69.
4 February 21, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at 19.
Serial No. 86795013
- 7 -
manner to identify itself and its services. On the webpages reproduced immediately
below, Applicant urges visitors to FIND A CAMELOT SCHOOL NEAR YOU,
provides the “LATEST CAMELOT NEWS & UPDATES,” refers to the “CAMELOT
FACEBOOK FEED,” and states that “AT CAMELOT WE ARE: TRANSFORMING
LIVES, BUILDING COMMUNITIES, SAVING TAX DOLLARS.”

February 21, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at 30.
Serial No. 86795013
- 8 -

February 21, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at 33.

Serial No. 86795013
- 9 -
February 16, 2017 Request for Reconsideration at 14.5 Applicant similarly used
CAMELOT alone in its specimen of use, portions of which are reproduced below:

We agree with the Examining Attorney that the “disclaimer and evidentiary record
provide rational grounds for the Board to find that the term CAMELOT in applicant’s
mark is the most dominant element.” 12 TTABVUE 9.

5 Applicant made similar uses of CAMELOT alone on pages from its website announcing its
partnerships with various schools. February 21, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration
at 41-46.
Serial No. 86795013
- 10 -
We turn now to the comparison of the marks in their entireties in terms of their
appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, giving more weight in
that comparison to the dominant shared word CAMELOT than to the other elements
of the marks. “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)
(citations omitted), and “[i]n a particular case, any one of these means of comparison
may be critical in finding the marks to be similar.” M.C.I. Foods, Inc. v. Bunte, 96
USPQ2d 1544, 1550 (TTAB 2010).
With respect to connotation and commercial impression, the dominant shared
word “Camelot” means “the site of King Arthur’s palace and court” or “a time, place,
or atmosphere of idyllic happiness.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (merriam-
webster.com, accessed on September 19, 2017).6 Applicant claims that “Camelot” in
the cited mark has the latter meaning, as it “invokes images, if any, of learning in a
time, place, or atmosphere of idyllic happiness.” 10 TTABVUE 14.7 But Applicant
does not attribute this (or any other) meaning to “Camelot” as used in its own mark,
which it argues “conjures images of a student beginning his or her path toward a
bright future through education.” 10 TTABVUE 14. Applicant instead vaguely claims

6 The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v.
J.C. Gourmet Food Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ
505 (Fed. Cir. 1983), including online dictionaries that exist in printed form or regular fixed
editions. In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (TTAB 2006).
7 Registrant conflates the two meanings of “Camelot”: “Camelot is a land that was founded
on the principle that knowledge is power. King Arthur and his knights created an ideal
kingdom, where everyone was treated fairly and could be successful. . . Camelot Learning is
designed to make learning magical and transforming for all students.” February 16, 2017
Request for Reconsideration at 12.
Serial No. 86795013
- 11 -
that “the design component of the CAMELOT portion of the applicant’s mark . . . ties
the word CAMELOT to the words YOUR FUTURE STARTS HERE . . . .” 10
TTABVUE 14. Applicant does not explain, however, how “Camelot” takes on a specific
dictionary meaning when it is used in the cited mark for educational services, but has
no specific meaning when it is used in Applicant’s mark for educational services.8 We
find that the idyllic meaning of “Camelot” that Applicant attributes to the word in
the cited mark applies equally to the same word in Applicant’s mark.
The other elements of the marks do not affect this meaning of “Camelot” in the
marks, or otherwise distinguish them in connotation or commercial impression. To
the contrary, the words “education” and “learning” that immediately follow “Camelot”
in the respective marks are synonyms. THESAURUS.COM (thesaurus.com, accessed
September 19, 2017). As discussed and shown above, the phrase “Your Future Starts

8 Applicant argues that “the meaning or connotation of a mark must be determined in relation
to the named goods or services” and suggests that the marks differ in commercial impression
in the context of the identified educational services. 10 TTABVUE 13. The cases relied upon
by Applicant in support of this claim are distinguishable because they all involved situations
where identical marks took on different meanings when used with different goods. See In re
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2 USPQ2d 1312, 1314 (TTAB 1987) (CROSS-OVER for bras and
CROSSOVER for ladies’ sportswear differed in meaning because CROSS-OVER was
suggestive of the construction of bras, while CROSSOVER for sportswear was “likely to be
perceived by purchasers either as an entirely arbitrary designation, or as being suggestive of
sportswear which ‘crosses over’ the line between informal and more formal wear . . . or the
line between two seasons"); In re British Bulldog, Ltd., 224 USPQ 854, 856 (TTAB 1984)
(PLAYERS for men’s underwear and PLAYERS for shoes differed in meaning because
PLAYERS implied a fit, style, color, and durability suitable for outdoor activities when
applied to shoes, but “‘implie[d] something else, primarily indoors in nature’” when applied
to men’s underwear); In re Sydel Lingerie Co., 197 USPQ 629, 630 (TTAB 1977) (BOTTOMS
UP for ladies’ and children’s underwear and BOTTOMS UP for men’s clothing differed in
meaning because the wording connoted the drinking phrase “Drink Up” when applied to
men’s clothing, but not when applied to ladies’ and children’s underwear).
Serial No. 86795013
- 12 -
Here” is not distinctive in the field of education.9 We agree with the Examining
Attorney that “the wording YOUR FUTURE STARTS HERE in applicant’s mark does
not possess the level of distinctiveness whereby it could be relied on to serve as
additional matter that would lessen the likelihood of confusion.” 12 TTABVUE 6.
In the context of the educational services identified in the application and cited
registration, the combination of the dominant first word CAMELOT with the merely
descriptive or generic synonyms EDUCATION and LEARNING imbues both marks
with the same connotation and commercial impression of the acquisition of knowledge
in an atmosphere of idyllic happiness, as in the legendary time of King Arthur. The
marks are thus very similar in connotation and commercial impression. The record
does not show that the shared word CAMELOT has been weakened as a source
identifier for educational services by third-party use or registration of CAMELOT-
formative marks for those services.10

9 Applicant argues that the ubiquity of the phrase “actually refutes, rather than supports,
any likelihood of confusion,” 10 TTABVUE 12, likening “Your Future Starts Here” to the
phrase “Putting on the Ritz” that comprised one of the marks at issue in Shen Mfg. Co. v.
Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The two phrases are not
comparable in terms of their ability to identify source because in Shen, there was no evidence
of any third-party use of “Putting on the Ritz,” and the Federal Circuit found that the phrase
“convey[ed] a strong commercial impression” of “comfort, sophistication and wealth” when
used for shower curtains. 73 USPQ2d at 1354. Applicant’s heavy reliance on Shen in general,
10 TTABVUE 9-12, is misplaced. Unlike the marks here, the marks in that case did not both
begin with the same dominant element followed by subordinate elements with little or no
source-identifying significance.
10 The only third-party CAMELOT-formative mark for educational services in the record is
the subject of a pending application to register CAMELOT CHILD DEVELOPMENT
CENTER and design for “childcare, transportation services and educational services provided
in the ideal environment for before school, daily care and after school services to provide for
the regular care, education and emotional support of infants through school age children.”
August 3, 2016 Response to Office Action at 17-18. This mark by itself is not probative of any
dilution of the distinctiveness of the word CAMELOT for educational services because there
is no evidence of its use. Cf. Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v.
Serial No. 86795013
- 13 -
With respect to appearance, we agree with the Examining Attorney that it is
unlikely that the verbal elements of Applicant’s “mark will be read as one phrase,
CAMELOT EDUCATION YOUR FUTURE STARTS HERE, as applicant claims,” 12
TTABVUE 8, in part because “the slogan ‘Your Future Starts Here’ appears apart
from CAMELOT EDUCATION and between two horizontal lines that set the slogan
apart from the other elements in the mark.” 12 TTABVUE 8. But even if all of the
words were read together, the fact that the marks “consist of a different number of
words,” 10 TTABVUE 13, does not significantly distinguish them in appearance. Both
marks are dominated by the first word CAMELOT. The additional words LEARNING
in the cited mark and EDUCATION YOUR FUTURE STARTS HERE, while different
in an improper side-by-side comparison, Coach, 101 USPQ2d at 1721, are less likely
to be differentiated by ordinary consumers, who normally retain “a general rather
than a specific impression of trademarks.” In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351,
1353 (TTAB 2015).
The cited mark is a typed mark, which “is the legal equivalent of a standard
character mark.” In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1085 n.2 (TTAB 2016).
As such, CAMELOT LEARNING “could be used in any typeface, color, or size,
including the same stylization actually used . . . [in Applicant’s mark], or one that
minimizes the differences or emphasizes the similarities between the marks.”

New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“evidence of third-party use of similar marks on similar goods ‘can show that customers have
been educated to distinguish between different marks on the basis of minute distinctions.’”
(quoting Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
(Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Serial No. 86795013
- 14 -
Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1823 (TTAB
2015) (citing Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d
1253, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We thus must assume that the cited mark CAMELOT
LEARNING could be depicted in the same way in which the words CAMELOT
EDUCATION appear in Applicant’s mark, with CAMELOT displayed in bolded
capital letters beginning with an oversized letter “C” and with the word LEARNING
in smaller type tucked beneath CAMELOT. Davia, 110 USPQ2d at 1814. As the
Board noted in Davia, we cannot similarly assume that CAMELOT LEARNING
would be used with the particular design in Applicant’s mark, but such a depiction
would make the literal elements CAMELOT LEARNING and CAMELOT
EDUCATION identical in appearance, and would reduce the impact of the design
element and the phrase “The Future Starts Here.” In addition, we reject Applicant’s
claim that the minimal design element causes the word CAMELOT in Applicant’s
mark to differ “significantly from the typed word ‘CAMELOT’ in the registration.” 10
TTABVUE 11. For the most part, it simply forms part of the lettering and the person
riding a shooting star aligns with the commercial impression of an idyllic or
aspirational place engendered by use of the word CAMELOT with educational
services. We find that the marks are similar in appearance despite having different
numbers of words and despite the presence of the design element in Applicant’s mark.
As to sound, Applicant argues that the “marks differ in the number of syllables,
i.e., the applicant’s mark contains twelve (12) syllables and the registrant’s mark
contains five (5) syllables.” 10 TTABVUE 13. Applicant’s argument assumes that its
Serial No. 86795013
- 15 -
mark will not just be read as “CAMELOT EDUCATION YOUR FUTURE STARTS
HERE,” but will be verbalized that way as well. That assumption is dubious.
Generally, “users of language have a universal habit of shortening full names —
from haste or laziness or just economy of words. Examples are: automobile to auto;
telephone to phone; necktie to tie; gasoline service station to gas station.” In re Abcor
Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 511, 200 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1978) (Rich, J., concurring).
Similarly, “companies are frequently called by shortened names, such as Penney’s for
J.C. Penney’s, Sears for Sears and Roebuck (even before it officially changed its name
to Sears alone), Ward’s for Montgomery Ward’s, and Bloomies for Bloomingdales.”
Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta Int’l Inc. v. Anthony’s Pizza Holding Co., 95 USPQ2d 1271,
1280 (TTAB 2009) (quoting Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d
1321, 1333 (TTAB 1992)).
This natural tendency to shorten marks in speech is corroborated by the record.
We can infer from Applicant’s website and specimen that consumers who verbalize
Applicant’s mark will do what Applicant itself has done in print—shorten the literal
elements in its mark to CAMELOT EDUCATION or simply CAMELOT. A similar
inference is reasonable with respect to the cited mark CAMELOT LEARNING.
Although it is only two words to begin with, Registrant shortened it to CAMELOT
alone in two places on its website, in a link entitled “Why Camelot?” and in a section
entitled “About Camelot.”11 It is more likely that Applicant’s mark will be verbalized
as CAMELOT or CAMELOT EDUCATION than as the mouthful CAMELOT

11 February 16, 2017 Request for Reconsideration at 12.
Serial No. 86795013
- 16 -
EDUCATION YOUR FUTURE STARTS HERE. The likely shortened versions of the
marks are very similar in sound.
But even if the entire marks are verbalized, Applicant’s mark and the cited mark
are similar in sound because they both begin with the dominant first word
CAMELOT, which will be pronounced identically in both marks. The differences in
sound resulting from the different elements that follow the dominant word
CAMELOT in both marks do not differentiate them significantly because these
additional elements do not indicate that there is a different source of the services
provided by the entity identified by the dominant word CAMELOT.
The marks are similar in appearance, sound, and, in particular, connotation and
commercial impression, when considered in their entireties. This du Pont factor
strongly supports a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
B. Similarity of the Services
Our determination of the similarity of the services is based upon the
identifications in the application and cited registration. Stone Lion Capital Partners,
LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783,
1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The services need not be identical or even competitive for
confusion to be likely, as the relevant issue is not whether consumers would confuse
the services per se, but rather whether they would confuse their source. Davia, 110
USPQ2d at 1818. “[L]ikelihood of confusion can be found ‘if the respective [services]
are related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing
Serial No. 86795013
- 17 -
are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the
same source.’” Coach, 101 USPQ2d at 1722 (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83
USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)). The refusal to register may be affirmed as to Class
41 in its entirety if confusion is likely as to any portion of the three-part identification
of services in the class. See, e.g., Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Grp.,
648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981).
The services identified in the application are:
● “Educational services, namely, conducting full day kindergarten through
twelfth grade classroom remedial academic instruction, and conducting full
day kindergarten through twelfth grade classroom instruction for students
who are having behavioral, emotional or developmental needs, excluding
before and after school lessons;”

● “Educational consulting services, namely, providing peer to peer professional
development coaching services in the fields of alternative and special
education;” and

● “Educational counseling services to assist students with behavioral, emotional,
or developmental needs in planning and preparing to transition from
kindergarten through high school to college.”

The identified educational and educational counseling services are expressly limited
to students with “behavioral, emotional, or developmental needs,” and the identified
educational consulting services are expressly limited to “the fields of alternative and
special education.” The identified educational services also exclude instruction in
“before and after school lessons.”
The services identified in the cited registration are “educational services, namely,
designing, implementing, teaching, and training others to teach, before and after
school lessons and hands-on activities to supplement and enrich course curricula at
Serial No. 86795013
- 18 -
the elementary and middle school levels.” While Registrant’s identified services are
expressly limited to “before and after school lessons and hands-on activities to
supplement and enrich course curricula,” there is no limitation to non-special needs
students or to educational fields other than alternative or special education. As a
result, we must presume that Registrant’s “teaching” services would be rendered to
the same special needs students as Applicant’s educational and educational
consulting services, and that Registrant’s “training others to teach” services would be
rendered to instructors “in the fields of alternative and special education.” In re
i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“It is
well established that the Board may not read limitations into an unrestricted
registration or application.”).12
Applicant argues that its “services are not identical to nor are they overlapping
with the registrant’s services” and that the “services are different and
noncompetitive.” 10 TTABVUE 15.13 Applicant summarizes the claimed differences
as follows: “The applicant’s full day programs are offered to students with behavioral,
emotional, or developmental needs, specifically excluding before and after school

12 Applicant similarly “may not restrict the scope of the [services] covered in the cited
registration by argument or extrinsic evidence.” In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645,
1647 (TTAB 2008). Applicant’s argument regarding the nature of Registrant’s current math
intervention program, described on Registrant’s website, is thus irrelevant. 10 TTABVUE 18.
13 Applicant devotes most of its argument on this du Pont factor to a discussion of cases that
have rejected claims that goods or services were related “simply because each falls within the
same general field.” 10 TTABVUE 16. These cases do not aid Applicant because the record
here, which Applicant never addresses, shows that the specific identified services at issue are
related.
Serial No. 86795013
- 19 -
lessons; in contrast, the registrant trains others to provide before and after school
enrichment lessons.” 10 TTABVUE 15 (emphasis supplied by Applicant).
The Examining Attorney argues that “applicant’s and registrant’s educational
services are tailored for those students with learning deficiencies,” 12 TTABVUE 10,
that third-party registrations and webpages in the record show use of marks for the
same or similar services identified in the application and registration, 12 TTABVUE
10-15, and that Applicant “attempts to restrict the services in the cited registration
by mischaracterizing the services as being limited to ‘train[ing] others to provide
before and after school enrichment lessons.’” 12 TTABVUE 16 (quoting 10 TTABVUE
15).
Applicant acknowledges that “it is the manner in which the applicant and
registrant have identified their services that is controlling.” 10 TTABVUE 15. The
services identified in the cited registration are not limited only to “training others to
teach,” but also cover “teaching” per se. This particular portion of the services
encompasses teaching students “before and after school lessons and hands-on
activities to supplement and enrich course curricula at the elementary and middle
school levels.” Like the portion of Applicant’s services identified as “conducting full
day kindergarten through twelfth grade classroom remedial academic instruction,
and conducting full day kindergarten through twelfth grade classroom instruction for
students who are having behavioral, emotional or developmental needs, excluding
before and after school lessons,” Registrant’s “teaching” services are directed to
students. The fact that Applicant’s services exclude the teaching of “before and after
Serial No. 86795013
- 20 -
school lessons” is not significant. As discussed below, the record shows that school-
day instruction and before- and after-school instruction services frequently emanate
from the same source.
In its summary of the claimed differences between the services, Applicant also
ignores the portion of its identification covering “Educational consulting services,
namely, providing peer to peer professional development coaching services in the
fields of alternative and special education.” As described, these particular services
involve training teachers to enhance their professional development.14 Because these
services do not exclude training in “before and after school lessons,” they encompass,
or at a minimum are very similar to, the portion of Registrant’s services identified as
“training others to teach, before and after school lessons and hands-on activities to
supplement and enrich course curricula at the elementary and middle school levels”
because Registrant’s services are not limited to fields other than alternative and
special education.
The Examining Attorney also made of record multiple use-based, third-party
registrations of marks covering one or more of the services identified in the
application and one or more of the services identified in the cited registration, or very
similarly-identified services.15 We summarize below several of these registrations,
with only the relevant common services listed.

14 We take judicial notice that the word “coaching” is the gerund form of the verb “coach,”
which means “to train intensively (as by instruction and demonstration).” MERRIAM-
WEBSTER DICTIONARY (merriam-webster.com, accessed on September 19, 2017).
15 August 17, 2016 Office Action at 3-33.
Serial No. 86795013
- 21 -
● Registration No. 4153013: Conducting after school tutoring programs;
Consultation in the field of K-12 educational systems; Educational counseling
services to assist students in planning and preparing for further education;
Educational services, namely, developing curriculum for educators;
Educational services, namely, developing curriculum for teachers; Providing
after school educational programs for children in grades preK-12;

● Registration No. 4418018: Conducting after school tutoring programs;
Educating at senior high schools; Education services in the nature of early
childhood instruction; Education services, namely, pre-kindergarten through
12th grade classroom instruction, vocational instruction, mentoring, tutoring,
classes, seminars and workshops for individuals with ADD and ADHD;
Education services, namely, providing kindergarten through 12th grade (K-
12) classroom instruction; Educational services, namely, developing,
arranging, and conducting educational conferences and programs and
providing courses of instruction in the field of remediation and enrichment;
Providing after school educational programs for children in grades
kindergarten through twelfth grade;

● Registration No. 5020054: Educational services namely, providing sixth
grade through twelfth grade classroom instruction educational services,
namely, providing classroom instruction, vocational instruction, mentoring,
tutoring, classes, seminars and workshops in the field of secondary education;
providing after school educational and extracurricular programs, namely,
leadership, educational forums, study-abroad and academic coursework for
students in sixth grade through twelfth grade;

● Registration No. 4879704: Educational services, namely, providing sixth
grade through twelfth grade classroom instruction and distributing course
materials in conjunction therewith; educational services, namely, providing
classroom instruction, vocational instruction, mentoring, tutoring, classes,
seminars and workshops in the field of secondary education; providing after
school educational and extracurricular programs, namely, leadership
seminars, and summer camp programs in the nature of athletic, arts, crafts
and academic coursework for students in sixth grade through twelfth grade;

● Registration No. 4844312: Conducting after school math, science, social
studies, English tutoring programs; Education services, namely, training
educators in the field of math, science, English, social studies, leadership,
differentiated instruction and providing curricula in connection therewith;
Educational services, namely, conducting seminars, conferences, workshops
in the field of math, science, English, social studies and distribution of
training material in connection therewith; Providing after school educational
programs for children in grades 6-12;
Serial No. 86795013
- 22 -

● Registration No. 4935472: Education services, namely, providing
mentoring, tutoring, classes, seminars and workshops in the field of English
language, the sciences, arts, culture, mathematics, reading, writing, business,
engineering, technology, biology, health, computer science, and social
sciences; Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars,
conferences, workshops, retreats, camps and field trips in the field of English
language, the sciences, arts, culture, mathematics, reading, writing, business,
engineering, technology, biology, health, computer science, and social sciences
and distribution of training material in connection therewith; Providing
courses of instruction at the K-12 and College educational levels; Conducting
after school academic, foreign language, standardized test preparation
tutoring programs; Consultation in the field of K-12 educational systems;
College consulting services, namely, assisting students in finding colleges and
universities and completing the application process; Admission consulting
services, namely, consulting in the field of college admissions, specifically,
college selection, completing admissions applications, and preparation for
college admission interviews;

● Registration No. 4958942: Educational services, namely, conducting
classes, seminars, conferences, workshops, and on-line courses and webinars
in the field of camps, after-school programs; Educational services, namely,
providing training of staff, administrators, managers, and directors for
certification in the field of camps, after-school programs; and

● Registration No. 5012059: Educational services, namely, providing tutoring
help for homework and academic enrichment in the fields of K-8 education;
educational services, namely, providing internal staff training for others
through workshops, seminars or tutorials, in the field of before and after
school child care services.

These registrations are evidence that the respective identified services may emanate
from the same source. In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 n.5 (TTAB 2015);
In re Davey Prods. Pty. Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009); In re Mucky Duck
Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988).
Finally, third parties use the same marks for both school-day and after-school
programs and instruction as well as educator training, and entities, including
Serial No. 86795013
- 23 -
Applicant, have partnered with schools to provide remedial and supplemental
education programs as well as after-school education programs.16
Applicant’s identified educational consulting services encompass or overlap
Registrant’s identified services, Registrant’s identified services are otherwise related
to Applicant’s identified educational services, and the third-party registration and
Internet evidence is probative of the close similarity of the services identified in the
application and cited registration. We find that this du Pont factor also favors a
finding of a likelihood of confusion.
C. Similarity in Channels of Trade, Purchasers and Purchase
Conditions
The third du Pont factor considers “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity of established,
likely-to-continue trade channels,” Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1061, while the fourth
du Pont factor considers the “conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are
made, i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.” du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567.
In considering these factors, we must “focus on the application and registration[]
rather than on real-world conditions, because ‘the question of registrability of an
applicant’s mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of [services] set
forth in the application,’” Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1162, and we similarly “may
not read limitations into an unrestricted registration . . . .” i.am.symbolic, 123
USPQ2d at 1748.

16 August 17, 2016 Office Action at 43-46, 48-65; February 21, 2017 Denial of Request for
Reconsideration at 41-71.
Serial No. 86795013
- 24 -
Applicant argues that while it and Registrant both offer their educational services
to parents of students, they offer them to different parents:
The applicant’s services are marketed to the parents of
students with behavioral, emotional, or developmental
needs interested in attending grades kindergarten through
12 of a full day school. The registrant’s services are
marketed to parents of students in need of additional
assistance, before or after school, in learning math skills. .
. .
10 TTABVUE 19.
Applicant’s distinction is contrived and unsupported by the record. There is
nothing in the record to suggest that parents either have children with special needs,
or children without special needs, but not both, or that parents with special needs
children would not seek out before or after school educational enrichment services as
well as classroom instruction.17 The class of purchasers for the subject educational
services, parents seeking various types of instruction for their children, is identical,18
and we agree with the Examining Attorney that a “parent who enrolls a student in
elementary or a middle school program that is associated with the mark CAMELOT
EDUCATION YOUR FUTURE STARTS HERE and design, and also enrolls a

17 Applicant relies heavily upon the Federal Circuit’s decision in Elec. Design & Sales Inc. v.
Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 954 F.2d 713, 21 USPQ2d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992), in which the court
reversed the Board because its analysis of the pertinent classes of customers was “legally
deficient.” 21 USPQ2d at 1392. The case is distinguishable. The parties in Elec. Design &
Sales had “some of the same large corporations” as overlapping customers, but within those
corporations, the applicant’s power supplies and battery chargers and the opposer’s computer
services were purchased by different departments and individuals. Id. at 1391-92. As
discussed above, there is no comparable difference between the parents who purchase the
subject educational services here.
18 As discussed above, the services in the cited registration directed to training teachers
overlap with Applicant’s educational consulting services, and thus are both directed to the
same class of customers, instructors.
Serial No. 86795013
- 25 -
student with an entity that teaches before and after school lessons using the mark
CAMELOT LEARNING, will likely believe that the services are associated with, or
are sponsored by the same entity.” 12 TTABVUE 17. This du Pont factor, and the du
Pont factor regarding channels of trade, also support a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
D. Other Referenced du Pont Factors and Other Arguments
Applicant correctly argues that “[o]ne of the relevant factors in the likelihood of
confusion determination is the number and nature of similar marks in use with
similar goods and services,” 10 TTABVUE 20, but it misunderstands this du Pont
factor. As explained above in footnote 10, there is no relevant evidence of third-party
marks here.
Applicant also argues that it “is not aware of a single instance of any actual
confusion between its mark and the registrant’s mark despite concurrent use in [sic]
for over 3 years” and that this “is either a neutral factor or weighs in favor of no
conflict between the marks.” 10 TTABVUE 22. As Applicant acknowledges, 10
TTABVUE 21, it is unnecessary to show actual confusion to establish its likelihood,
see, e.g., Weiss Assocs. Inc. v. HRL Assocs. Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840, 1842
(Fed. Cir. 1990), and, in any event, there is no evidence that would enable us to
determine whether the claimed absence of actual confusion is significant. In re Big
Pig Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1436, 1439-40 (TTAB 2006). This factor is neutral.

Serial No. 86795013
- 26 -
Conclusion
All of the relevant du Pont factors support a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
The marks are both dominated by the word CAMELOT, and the record does not show
that the term’s distinctiveness has been diluted by third-party use or registration of
CAMELOT-formative marks for educational services. The marks are similar in
appearance, sound, and, in particular, connotation and commercial impression, when
considered in their entireties. The services as identified in the application and
registration overlap in part and are otherwise similar because the record shows that
they may emanate from the same source under the same mark. The services are
promoted to the same general classes of customers through the same channels of
trade. On the basis of the record as a whole, we find that there is a likelihood of
confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the educational, consulting, and
counseling services provided under Applicant’s mark.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.