DC diskont-computer.com GmbH

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2019

79192374 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2019)

Mailed: August 23, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re DC diskontcomputer.com GmbH
_____

Application Serial No. 79192374
_____

Lawrence E. Abelman and Erica R. Halstead of Abelman Frayne & Schwab,
for DC diskontcomputer.com GmbH.

Marcie R. Frum Milone, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 116,
Christine Cooper, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Bergsman, Shaw and Greenbaum, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

DC diskontcomputer.com GmbH (Applicant) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark MIKKA and design, reproduced below, for “computer monitors;
computer screens in the nature of touch screens,” in Class 9.1

1 Application Serial No. 79192374 was filed February 12, 2016 under Section 66(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1141f, seeking a request for protection based on International
Registration No. 1310602 registered February 12, 2016.
This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 78192374

- 2 -

The description of the mark reads as follows:
The mark consists of the stylized wording “MIKKA” with
“MIKKA” in the color black except for the dot on the “I”,
which is in the color red.
The color(s) black and red is/are claimed as a feature of the
mark.
The letters are in black color except for the dot on the “I”
which is in red color.
The Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark so
resembles the marks in the four registrations listed below, owned by different
entities, as to be likely to cause confusion:
1. Registration No. 4423129 for the mark MIKA, in standard characters, for
“Stands specially adapted for holding computers and computer hardware;
Stands for handheld digital electronic devices and personal digital electronic
devices, namely, cell phones, MP3 players, personal digital assistants, laptop
computers, tablet computers, smartphones, portable media players and
handheld computers,” in Class 9.2
2. Registration No. 4763310 for the mark MICCA and design, reproduced below,
for “Audio-receivers and video-receivers; Portable media players; Digital photo
frames; Laptop computers; Smart phones; Cameras; Power supplies; Chargers
for electric batteries, in Class 9.3

2 Registered October 22, 2013.
3 Registered June 30, 2015.
Serial No. 78192374

- 3 -

The description of the mark reads as follows:
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark
consists of outlines of two squares placed onto each other
and overlapping in the center area with one square rotated
from the other to form triangles in places where the
squares do not overlap; and to the right of the squares a
text reading “MICCA”.
3. Registration No. 5047961 for the mark MIKA, in standard characters, for, inter
alia, “Microphone boom pole; Microphone stands; Microphones,” in Class 9.4
4. Registration No. 5268291 for the mark MICA, in standard characters, for, inter
alia, “computers … for industrial applications … for use in relation to cooling,
transportation, storing, mixing, metering and drying of food and liquids,
especially milk and beer, and all relating to measurement of temperature,
dosage, calibration and condition of such food and liquids during
transportation and storing,” in Class 9.5
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the likelihood
of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563,
567 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”) cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.,

4 Registered July 12, 2016.
5 Registered August 22, 2017.
Serial No. 78192374

- 4 -

575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1293, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015); see also In re Majestic
Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have
considered each DuPont factor that is relevant or for which there is evidence of record.
See 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) (“While we have considered each factor for which we have evidence, we
focus our analysis on those factors we find to be relevant.”). “[E]ach case must be
decided on its own facts and the differences are often subtle ones.” Indus. Nucleonics
Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386, 387 (CCPA 1973) (internal citations
removed). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the
similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods or services.
See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
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.”); see also In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The likelihood of confusion analysis considers all DuPont factors for
which there is record evidence but ‘may focus … on dispositive factors, such as
similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods’”) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v.
Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Serial No. 78192374

- 5 -

I. Strength of the registered marks, including the number and nature of similar
marks in use on similar goods.
In determining the strength of a mark, we consider both its inherent strength,
based on the nature of the mark itself, and its commercial strength, based on the
marketplace recognition value of the mark. See In re Chippendales USA, Inc.,
622 F.3d 1346, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A mark’s strength is
measured both by its conceptual strength (distinctiveness) and its marketplace
strength (secondary meaning).”); Top Tobacco, L.P. v. North Atlantic Operating Co.,
Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1171-72 (TTAB 2011) (the strength of a mark is determined
by assessing its inherent strength and its commercial strength); Tea Bd. of India v.
Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1899 (TTAB 2006); MCCARTHY ON
TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 11:83 (5th ed. 2019) (“The first enquiry
focuses on the inherent potential of the term at the time of its first use. The second
evaluates the actual customer recognition value of the mark at the time registration
is sought or at the time the mark is asserted in litigation to prevent another’s use.”).
Market strength is the extent to which the relevant public recognizes a mark as
denoting a single source. Tea Bd. of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d at 1899.
In other words, it is similar to acquired distinctiveness. For purposes of analyzing
likelihood of confusion, a mark’s renown may “var[y] along a spectrum from very
strong to very weak.” Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC,
857 F.3d 1323, 122 USPQ2d 1733, 1734 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotations
omitted). The proper standard is the mark’s “renown within a specific product
Serial No. 78192374

- 6 -

market,” id., and “is determined from the viewpoint of consumers of like products,”
id. at 1735, not from the viewpoint of the general public.
A. Inherent or conceptual strength
When making a determination of likelihood of confusion in an ex parte appeal, in
order to determine the inherent or conceptual strength of the cited mark, we evaluate
its intrinsic nature, that is, where it lies along the generic-descriptive-suggestive-
arbitrary-fanciful continuum of words. Word marks that are arbitrary, fanciful, or
suggestive are “held to be inherently distinctive.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara
Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000); see also, Chippendales USA,
96 USPQ2d at 1684 (“In general, trademarks are assessed according to a scale
formulated by Judge Friendly in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537
F.2d 4, 189 USPQ 759 (2d Cir. 1976), which evaluates whether word marks are
‘arbitrary’ or ‘fanciful,’ ‘suggestive,’ ‘descriptive,’ or ‘generic.’”).
There is no evidence in the record that any of the registered marks MIKA, MICCA
and design, and MICA have any meaning when used in connection with the goods for
which they are registered. Accordingly, the registered marks are fanciful or arbitrary
terms which are inherently or conceptually strong marks.
B. Commercial strength
There is no evidence regarding the commercial strength of any of the registered
marks. Therefore, we find that the commercial strength of the marks is a neutral
factor.
Serial No. 78192374

- 7 -

C. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
There is no evidence regarding the use of any similar marks in use on similar
goods. As Applicant points out, “[i]f the evidence establishes that the consuming
public is exposed to third-party uses of similar marks on similar goods or services,
this evidence ‘is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only
a narrow scope of protection.’”6 Because there is no evidenced regarding the use of
any similar marks, let alone the marks in the cited registrations, there is no evidence
that the consuming public has been exposed to any similar marks, let alone the marks
in the cited registrations. The probative value of third-party trademarks depends
entirely upon their usage. Palm Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison
Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005), quoting
Scarves by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports, Ltd., 544 F.2d 1167, 192 USPQ 289, 294 (2d
Cir. 1976) (“The significance of third-party trademarks depends wholly upon their
usage. Defendant introduced no evidence that these trademarks were actually used
by third parties, that they were well promoted or that they were recognized by
consumers.”). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that where the
“record includes no evidence about the extent of [third-party] uses … [t]he
probative value of this evidence is thus minimal.” Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver
Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (emphasis added).

6 Applicant’s Brief (11 TTABVUE 11). References to the briefs and orders on appeal are to
the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.
Serial No. 78192374

- 8 -

Nevertheless, in determining the degree of weakness, if any, in the shared terms,
we must “adequately account for the apparent force of [third-party use] evidence,”
regardless of whether “specifics” pertaining to the extent and impact of such use have
been proven. Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d
1671, 1674-5 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[E]xtensive evidence of third-party use and
registrations is ‘powerful on its face,’ even where the specific extent and impact of the
usage has not been established.” Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH &
Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136
(Fed. Cir. 2015), citing to Juice Generation, 115 USPQ2d at 1674.
In this appeal, Applicant points to the marks in the four cited registrations, MIKA,
MICCA and design, and MICA, as well two registrations attached to Applicant’s brief
set forth below:7

7 Although the record is supposed to be complete prior to the filing of an appeal, Trademark
Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d), because the Examining Attorney did not object to the
evidence attached to Applicant’s brief, we consider the evidence.
One of the third-party marks submitted by Applicant is an application that has not
registered: Serial No. 87836844 for the mark MICAH for “computer software for automating
underwriting in the field of commercial lending; downloadable computer software for
automating underwriting in the field of commercial lending.” Applicant’s Brief (11 TTABVUE
17). Pending applications are evidence only that the applications were filed on a certain date;
they are not evidence of use of the marks. Nike Inc. v. WNBA Enters. LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1187,
1193 n.8 (TTAB 2007); Interpayment Services Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463,
1468 n.6 (TTAB 2003); In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear, Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1694, 1699 (TTAB
1992).
Also, Applicant submitted a copy of a registration for the mark MIKA (11 TTABVUE 25) that
is illegible. Illegible exhibits are obviously of no probative value. It is the responsibility of the
party making submissions to the Board via the electronic database to ensure that the
evidence has, in fact, been properly made of record. See Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D&D Beauty
Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1350-51 (TTAB 2014); Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake
Marine Tours Inc. dba Watermark Cruises, 107 USPQ2d 170, 1758 n.16 (TTAB 2013) (“the
onus is on the party making the submissions to ensure that, at a minimum, all materials are
clearly readable by the adverse party and the Board”); Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v.
Serial No. 78192374

- 9 -

1. Registration No. 3209678 for the mark MICA, in standard characters, for
“loudspeakers,” in Class 9;8 and
2. Registration No. 5552771 for the mark MIKA, in standard characters, for
“software for the creation, installation, and management of web and mobile
digital assistants functioning with artificial intelligence and combining all
data sources on a single text, voice and multimedia interface in the nature of
voice-dictated automated assistance,” in Class 9;9
While there is some overlap among some of the registered marks and their recited
goods, there are also differences. For example, the first two sets of marks below have
some similarities among the goods while the third set are quite different.
Registration No. 5047961 for the mark MIKA, in standard
characters, for, inter alia, “microphones” and
Registration No. 3209678 for the mark MICA, in standard
characters, for “loudspeakers.”
_____
Registration No. 4423129 for the mark MIKA, in standard
characters, for “stands specially adapted for holding
computers and computer hardware” and for handheld
digital electronic devices and
Registration No. 4763310 for the mark MICCA and design,
reproduced below, for “portable media players,” “laptop
computers,” and “smart phones.”

Elsea, 48 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (TTAB 1998) (“It is reasonable to assume that it is opposer’s
responsibility to review the documents it submits as evidence to ensure that such
submissions meet certain basic requirements, such as that they are legible and identified as
to source and date.”).
8 11 TTABVUE 19.
9 11 TTABVUE 22.
Serial No. 78192374

- 10 -

_____
Registration No. 5268291 for the mark MICA, in standard
characters, for, inter alia, “computers … for industrial
applications … for use in relation to cooling,
transportation, storing, mixing, metering and drying of
food and liquids, especially milk and beer, and all relating
to measurement of temperature, dosage, calibration and
condition of such food and liquids during transportation
and storing” and
Registration No. 5552771 for the mark MIKA, in standard
characters, for “software for the creation, installation, and
management of web and mobile digital assistants
functioning with artificial intelligence and combining all
data sources on a single text, voice and multimedia
interface in the nature of voice-dictated automated
assistance.”
In any event, six registrations do not rise to the same level of persuasiveness as
the voluminous evidence in Juice Generation and Jack Wolfskin.
Because the registered marks cited as a bar to registration are arbitrary marks
that are inherently or conceptually strong and the evidence regarding the number
and nature of similar marks for similar goods is not persuasive, we find that the
marks in the cited registrations fall on the strong side “of the spectrum from very
strong to very weak.” Joseph Phelps Vineyards, 122 USPQ2d at 1734.
II. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties in terms of
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
We now turn to the DuPont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the similarity
or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation
and commercial impression. DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567. “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); accord Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
Serial No. 78192374

- 11 -

390 F.2d 728, 156 USPQ 523, 526 (CCPA 1968) (“It is sufficient if the similarity in
either form, spelling or sound alone is likely to cause confusion.”) (citation omitted).
In comparing the marks, we are mindful that “[t]he 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.” Cai v. Diamond Hong,
Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs.
Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir.
2012)); see also Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A.,
685 F.3d 1046, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); San Fernando Elec. Mfg. Co.
v. JFD Elec. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons
Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d mem., 972 F.2d
1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant is seeking to register the mark MIKKA and design, reproduced below:

The registered marks are MIKA, MICA and MICCA and design, reproduced below:

Serial No. 78192374

- 12 -

While we assess each mark in its entirety, in the case of marks consisting of words
and a design, the words are normally accorded greater weight because the words are
likely to make an impression upon purchasers, would be remembered by them, and
would be used by them to request the services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358,
101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d
1579, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)); Sweats Fashions Inc. v. Pannill Knitting
Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 4 USPQ2d 1793, 1798 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Giant Food, Inc. v.
Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1983). There is
nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been
given to a particular feature of a mark, such as a common dominant element, provided
the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties. In re
Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also In re
Viterra Inc., 101 USPQ2d at 1908.
While not identical, is similar to the registered
mark in appearance and sound. As noted above, the dominant
portion of both marks are the words “Mikka” and “Micca.” Neither the stylization of
Applicant’s mark, nor the design element in the registered mark, is so significant as
to distinguish the marks. Likewise, the differences between MIKKA and MICCA do
not distinguish the marks. See In re Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 227 USPQ 483, 485
(TTAB 1985) (applicant’s mark CAYNA (stylized is similar to CANA). In Great Lakes
Canning, the Board made the following finding of fact:
Serial No. 78192374

- 13 -

Moreover, although there are certain differences between
the [marks CAYNA and CANA] in appearance, namely, the
inclusion of the letter ‘Y’ and the design feature in
applicant’s mark, there are also obvious similarities
between them. Considering the similarities between the
marks in sound and appearance, and taking into account
the normal fallibility of human memory over a period of
time (a factor that becomes important if a purchaser
encounters one of these products and some weeks, months,
or even years later comes across the other), we believe that
the marks create substantially similar commercial
impressions. Even those purchasers who are fully aware of
the specific differences between the marks may well
believe, because of the similarities between them, that the
two marks are simply variants of one another, used by a
single producer to identify and distinguish companion lines
of products.
Id. See also Mag Instrument, Inc. v. Brinkmann Corp., 96 USPQ2d 1701, 1715 (TTAB
2010) (difference of a single letter does not suffice to distinguish MAG STAR from
MAXSTAR); Alfacell v. Anticancer Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1305 (TTAB 2004)
(ONCASE is similar to ONCONASE); Kabushiki Kaisha Tokeiten v. Scuotto, 228
USPQ 461, 462 (TTAB 1985) (“[T]he term ‘SEYCOS’ is simply so close in appearance
and pronunciation to ‘SEIKO’ as to make source confusion inevitable when the marks
are used in connection with identical goods.”); Hercules v. Nat’l Starch, 223 USPQ
1244, 1246 (TTAB 1984) (NATROSOL and NATROL is similar because “the clearly
dominant aspect of both marks is that the first four letters and the final two are the
same”).
As noted in the section analyzing the strength of the marks, the marks are
arbitrary or fanciful terms that do not have any descriptive/suggestive meaning when
used in connection with the recited goods and, therefore, they engender similar
commercial impressions.
Serial No. 78192374

- 14 -

is similar to MIKA and MICA in appearance
in part because the two registered marks are in standard character format. Marks
presented in standard characters are not limited to any particular depiction. The
rights associated with a mark in standard characters reside in the wording, and not
in any particular display. Thus, the registered marks MIKA and MICA may be
depicted in any manner, regardless of the font style, size, or color, and might at any
time in the future be displayed in a manner similar to Applicant’s mark. In re Viterra,
101 USPQ2d at 1909-11; Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344,
98 USPQ2d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 216
USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (rejecting argument that for purposes of determining
whether two marks are similar, a mark in a typed drawing (equivalent to modern
standard character format) is distinct from such mark in a logo format; “[b]y
presenting its mark in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by
that party” (emphasis in original)); In re RSI Sys., LLC, 88 USPQ2d 1445, 1448
(TTAB 2008); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988).
Further, the marks are phonetically identical and for the reasons discussed above
have similar commercial impressions. Therefore, we find that the marks are similar.
When considering Applicant’s mark to each of the cited marks in their entireties,
we find that they are more similar than dissimilar and that this DuPont factor weighs
in favor of finding that there is a likelihood of confusion.
Serial No. 78192374

- 15 -

III. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods and established,
likely-to-continue channels of trade and classes of consumers.
Applicant is seeking to register for “computer
monitors” and “computer screens in the nature of touch screens.”
A. MIKA for “Stands specially adapted for holding computers and computer
hardware; Stands for handheld digital electronic devices and personal
digital electronic devices, namely, cell phones, MP3 players, personal
digital assistants, laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones,
portable media players and handheld computers.”
To show that computer monitors or touch screens are related to stands for holding
computers and handheld digital devices, in the May 8, 2018 Office Action, the
Examining Attorney submitted third-party use-based registrations for marks
registered for both types of products. Third-party registrations based on use in
commerce that individually cover a number of different goods may have probative
value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the listed goods are of a type that
may emanate from the same source. In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783,
1785-1786 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470
n.6 (TTAB 1988), aff’d mem. 864 F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The registrations, with
relevant portions of the identifications, are listed below.10
Mark Reg. No. Goods
IT’S WHAT’S
INSIDE THAT
COUNTS
3417404 Monitors; notebook computer stands (TSDR 12)
INLAND and
INLAND and
Design
3426087
3243520
Computer monitors; computer stands (TSDR 15
and 22)

10 Page references to the application record are to the downloadable .pdf version of the
USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system.
Serial No. 78192374

- 16 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods
POWER
SUPPORT and
PSC
3208577
3208616
Computer monitors; computer cursor control
devices, namely, touch pads; computer stands
especially designed for holding a computer, printer
and accessories (TSDR 25 and 28)
CABLE AND
CASE
4531980 Computer monitors and screens; computer stands
specially designed for holding a computer, printer
and accessories (TSDR 34)
VORAGO and
V (stylized)
4458964
4459127
Computer monitors; touchpads; computer stands
specially designed for holding a computer, printer
and accessories (TSDR 37 and 42)
ADEMOV
LUXURY
ELECTRONICS
4771152 Computers; computer monitors; computer stands
specially designed for holding a computer, printer
and accessories (TSDR 47)
SANRIO 4623854 Computer monitors; stands for personal electronic
devices, namely, mobile phones, portable music
players, portable media players, and table
computers (TSDR 50)
MICCUS 5038969 Computer monitors; computer touch screens;
Computer cursor control devices, namely, touch
pads; computer stands specially designed for
holding a computer, printer and accessories
(TSDR 72)
YITEE 5048425 Computer screens; computer terminals, touch
pads; touchscreen monitors; computer stands
specially designed for holding a computer, printer
and accessories (TSDR 77)
GS GEESUNG 5063893 Computer monitors; computer stands specially
designed for holding a computer, printer and
accessories (TSDR 83)
FLFLK 5099229 Computer monitors; stands adapted for mobile
phones (TSDR 86)
WEARSON 5077448 Computer monitors; computer stands specially
designed for holding a computer, printer and
accessories (TSDR 89)
UNIACHIEVE 5272332 Computer monitors; computer stands (TSDR 91)
DOOPER 5165293 Computer monitors; stands adapted for tablet
computers (TSDR 94)
COOLER
MASTER
5299366 Computer monitors; holders specially adapted for
use with notebook computers, handheld digital
electronic devices such as cell phones, MP3
players, and personal digital assistants (TSDR 99)
Serial No. 78192374

- 17 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods
YESEE 5267587 Computer monitors; computer stands specially
designed for holding a computer, printer and
computer peripherals (TSDR 103)
DAZL FIT 5415934 Computer monitors; stands adapted for mobile
phones (TSDR 108)

To show that the products are offered in the same channels of trade and to the
same classes of consumers, the Examining Attorney submitted excerpts from two
third-party websites:
• Inland Product website (inlandproduct.com) advertising the sale of a “universal
tabletop anti-slip laptop riser,” a “wooden laptop tray with small drawer,”
“laptop/notebook stand,” and an “aluminum tablet holder,”11 as well as computer
monitors;12 and
• The Micro Center website (microcenter.com) advertises the sale of computer
monitors and stands for computers and handheld devices.13
Applicant argues, in essence, that computer stands are not computer monitors or
touchscreens and, without any evidence, that consumers would not expect the same
manufacturers to produce such products.14 In determining whether the goods are
related, it is not necessary that the goods at issue be similar or competitive in
character to support a holding of likelihood of confusion; it is sufficient for such
purposes that the goods are related in some manner or that conditions and activities

11 November 29, 2018 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (6 TTABVUE 9). See also 6
TTABVUE 13-14 and 7 TTABVUE 7.
12 Id. at 6 TTABVUE 10.
13 May 8, 2018 Office Action (TSDR 114, 115, 120, 121, 123-26).
14 Applicant’s Brief (11 TTABVUE 9).
Serial No. 78192374

- 18 -

surrounding marketing of the goods are such that they would or could be encountered
by same persons under circumstances that could, because of similarities of marks
used with them, give rise to the mistaken belief that they originate from or are in
some way associated with the same producer. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning
LLC, 101 USPQ2d at 1722. In this case, the third-party registrations submitted by
the Examining Attorney serve to suggest that computer monitors and computer
stands emanate from the same source and Applicant has not submitted any evidence
to rebut that evidence.
We find that computer monitors and the computer stands in the cited registration
are related products offered in the same channels of trade to the same classes of
consumers.15
B. MICCA and design for “Audio-receivers and video-receivers; Portable media
players; Digital photo frames; Laptop computers; Smart phones; Cameras;
Power supplies; Chargers for electric batteries.”

To show that computer monitors or touch screens are related to the above goods,
in the May 8, 2018 Office Action, the Examining Attorney submitted third-party use-
based registrations for marks registered for both types of products. The registrations,
with relevant portions of the identifications, are listed below.

15 Under this DuPont factor, the Examining Attorney need not prove, and we need not find,
similarity as to each and every product listed in the description of goods. It is sufficient for a
refusal based on likelihood of confusion that relatedness is established for any item
encompassed by the identification of goods in a particular class in the application. Tuxedo
Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981); In
re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1409 (TTAB 2015); In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d
1122, 1126 n.5 (TTAB 2015) (“it is sufficient for finding a likelihood of confusion if relatedness
is established for any item encompassed by the identification of goods within a particular
class in the application.”).
Serial No. 78192374

- 19 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods
IT’S WHAT’S
INSIDE THAT
COUNTS
3417404 Monitors; projectors; MP3 players; security
cameras; camera power supplies (TSDR 12)
INLAND and
INLAND and
Design
3426087
3243520
Computer monitors; uninterruptible power supply
devices for computers; power supplies; computer
cameras (TSDR 15 and 22)
POWER
SUPPORT and
PSC
3208577
3208616
Computer monitors; computer cursor control
devices, namely, touch pads; computer cameras
(TSDR 25 and 28)
ISTORE 4381959 Computer monitors; cameras; chargers, namely,
battery chargers (TSDR 31)
CABLE AND
CASE
4531980 Computer monitors and screens; cell phones;
mobile phones (TSDR 34)
VORAGO and
V (stylized)
4458964
4459127
Computer monitors; touchpads; chargers for
electric batteries; audio receivers; laptop
computers (TSDR 37 and 42)
ADEMOV
LUXURY
ELECTRONICS
4771152 Computers; computer monitors; digital phones;
laptop computers (TSDR 47)
SANRIO 4623854 Computer monitors; cameras (TSDR 50)
TECH LOUNDS 4658774 Computer monitors; cameras; Audio-receivers and
video-receivers (TSDR 54)
PHANTOM 4920531 Computer monitors; Audio-receivers and video-
receivers; laptop computers (TSDR 60)
Design mark 5004424 Computer monitors; laptop computers; smart
phones (TSDR 63)
FASTGO 4925623 Computer monitors; portable media players;
laptop computers; smart phones (TSDR 66)
MORE FINE 4877405 Computer monitors; Chargers for electric
batteries; digital video cameras; smartphones
(TSDR 69)
MICCUS 5038969 Computer monitors; computer touch screens;
Computer cursor control devices, namely, touch
pads; Audio-receivers and video-receivers; video
cameras; battery chargers (TSDR 72)
YITEE 5048425 Computer screens; computer terminals; touch
pads, touchscreen monitors; computer cameras;
audio-video receivers; chargers for electric
batteries; cameras (TSDR 77)
FLFLK 5099229 Computer monitors; audio and video receivers;
(TSDR 86)
WEARSON 5077448 Computer monitors; battery charge devices;
mobile phones (TSDR 89)
Serial No. 78192374

- 20 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods
UNIACHIEVE 5272332 Computer monitors; computer power supplies
(TSDR 91)
DOOPER 5165293 Computer monitors; chargers for electric batteries;
audio-receivers (TSDR 94)
COOLER
MASTER
5299366 Computer monitors; smart phones; electrical
power supplies; uninterrupted power supplies
(TSDR 99)
YESEE 5267587 Computer monitors; chargers for electric batteries;
computer cameras; audio receivers; smart phones
(TSDR 103)
DAZL FIT 5415934 Computer monitors; laptop computers; battery
chargers (TSDR 108)
GLOPOLE 5458926 Computer monitors; battery chargers; smart
phones (TSDR 111)

To show that the products are offered in the same channels of trade and to the
same classes of consumers, the Examining Attorney submitted excerpts from two
third-party websites:
• BCI website (basscomputers.com) advertises the sale of cameras and
touchscreens; 16 and
• The Micro Center website (microcenter.com) advertises the sale of computer
monitors and power supplies and laptops.17
As discussed above, despite the third-party registration evidence, Applicant
argued, without any evidence, that consumers will not believe the computer monitors
and the recited goods emanate from a single source. Also, Applicant did not submit
any evidence to rebut the third-party registration evidence.

16 November 29, 2018 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (5 TTABVUE 16-17).
17 May 8, 2018 Office Action (TSDR 114-116).
Serial No. 78192374

- 21 -

We find that computer monitors and “audio-receivers and video-receivers …
laptop computers; smart phones; cameras; power supplies; chargers for electric
batteries” are related products offered in the same channels of trade to the same
classes of consumers.
C. MIKA for, inter alia, “Microphone boom pole; Microphone stands;
Microphones.”

To show that computer monitors or touch screens are related to “microphone boom
pole; microphone stands; microphones,” in the May 8, 2018 Office Action, the
Examining Attorney submitted third-party use-based registrations for marks
registered for both types of products. The registrations, with relevant portions of the
identifications, are listed below.
Mark Reg. No. Goods
JPA 2334929 Computer monitors; microphone stands (TSDR 9)
IT’S WHAT’S
INSIDE THAT
COUNTS
3417404 Monitors; microphones (TSDR 12)
SANRIO 4623854 Computer monitors; microphone stands;
microphones (TSDR 50)
TECH LOUNDS 4658774 Computer monitors; microphones (TSDR 54)
CAROL 4828064 Video conferencing apparatus, namely, computer
monitors, projection screens, and digital
telephones; microphones (TSDR 57)
MORE FINE 4877405 Computer monitors; microphones; microphone
stands (TSDR 69)
YITEE 5048425 Computer screens; computer terminals; touch
pads; touchscreen monitors; microphones;
microphone stands (TSDR 77)
FLFLK 5099229 Computer monitors; microphones; microphone
stands (TSDR 86)
DOOPER 5165293 Computer monitors; microphones; microphone
stands (TSDR 94)
COOLER
MASTER
5299366 Computer monitors; microphones (TSDR 99)
Serial No. 78192374

- 22 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods
YESEE 5267587 Computer monitors; public address and sound
system accessories, namely, microphone stands
(TSDR 103)

As discussed above, despite the third-party registration evidence, Applicant
argued, without any evidence, that consumers will not believe the computer monitors
and the recited goods emanate from a single source.
We find that computer monitors and microphones and microphone stands are
related products.
D. MICA for, inter alia, “computers … for industrial applications … for use in
relation to cooling, transportation, storing, mixing, metering and drying of
food and liquids, especially milk and beer, and all relating to measurement
of temperature, dosage, calibration and condition of such food and liquids
during transportation and storing.”

To show that computer monitors or touch screens are related to “computers … for
industrial applications … for use in relation to cooling, transportation, storing,
mixing, metering and drying of food and liquids, especially milk and beer, and all
relating to measurement of temperature, dosage, calibration and condition of such
food and liquids during transportation and storing,” in the May 8, 2018 Office Action,
the Examining Attorney submitted third-party use-based registrations for marks
registered for both types of products. The registrations, with relevant portions of the
identifications, are listed below.
Mark Reg. No. Goods
IT’S WHAT’S
INSIDE THAT
COUNTS
3417404 Computers; monitors (TSDR 12)
ISTORE 4381959 Computers; computer monitors (TSDR 31)
CABLE AND
CASE
4531980 Computer monitors and screens; computer
hardware (TSDR 34)
Serial No. 78192374

- 23 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods
VORAGO and
V (stylized)
4458964
4459127
Computer monitors; laptop computers; desktop
computers (TSDR 37 and 42)
ADEMOV
LUXURY
ELECTRONICS
4771152 Computers; computer monitors (TSDR 47)
TECH LOUNDS 4658774 Computer monitors; computers (TSDR 54)
PHANTOM 4920531 Computer monitors; desktop, laptop, mobile,
notebook, tablet and personal computers (TSDR
60)
Design mark 5004424 Computer monitors; laptop and tablet computers;
computer hardware (TSDR 63)
FASTGO 4925623 Computer monitors; laptop computers; PC tablets;
(TSDR 66)
MORE FINE 4877405 Computer monitors; computers (TSDR 69)
MICCUS 5038969 Computer monitors; computer touch screens;
Computer cursor control devices, namely, touch
pads; computer hardware; electronic computers
(TSDR 72)
YITEE 5048425 Computer screens; computer terminals; touch
pads; touchscreen monitors; computers (TSDR 77)
GS GEESUNG 5063893 Computer monitors; computers (TSDR 83)
FLFLK 5099229 Computer monitors; micro-computer; tablet
computer (TSDR 86)
DOOPER 5165293 Computer monitors; micro-computer; electronic
computers (TSDR 94)
COOLER
MASTER
5299366 Computer monitors; computers (TSDR 99)
YESEE 5267587 Computer monitors; electronic computers (TSDR
103)
DAZL FIT 5415934 Computer monitors; laptop computers (TSDR 108)
GLOPOLE 5458926 Computer monitors; laptop, notebook, and tablet
computers (TSDR 111)

Although the descriptions of goods in the listed registrations do not include the
limitations in the cited registration, “for industrial applications,” and “for use in
relation to cooling, transportation, storing, mixing, metering and drying of food and
liquids, especially milk and beer, and all relating to measurement of temperature,
dosage, calibration and condition of such food and liquids during transportation and
Serial No. 78192374

- 24 -

storing,” we must presume that those products include all types of computers and
monitors regardless of their actual use. See In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 123 USPQ2d at
1748; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 216 USPQ at 940 (“There is no specific limitation and
nothing in the inherent nature of Squirtco’s mark or goods that restricts the usage of
SQUIRT for balloons to promotion of soft drinks. The Board, thus, improperly read
limitations into the registration”); In re Thor Tech, 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638 (TTAB
2009) (“We have no authority to read any restrictions or limitations into the
registrant’s description of goods.”).
As discussed above, despite the third-party registration evidence, Applicant
argued, without any evidence, that consumers will not believe the computer monitors
and the recited goods emanate from a single source.
We find that computer monitors and “computers … for industrial applications …
for use in relation to cooling, transportation, storing, mixing, metering and drying of
food and liquids, especially milk and beer, and all relating to measurement of
temperature, dosage, calibration and condition of such food and liquids during
transportation and storing” are related products.
IV. The conditions under which and purchasers to whom sales made (i.e., the
degree of purchasing care).
Applicant argues, without any evidence, that consumers will exercise a high
degree of purchasing care when purchasing the products at issue.
In addition to the differences between the marks and the
goods, the sophistication of the relevant consumers
decreases the potential for confusion to occur. [Internal
citation omitted]. Electronics, such as computers,
televisions, and mobile phones as covered by the relevant
marks, tend to be high priced items. Accordingly,
Serial No. 78192374

- 25 -

consumers purchasing such products are likely to be
sophisticated and knowledgeable about the specific product
they are buying. In plain terms, consumers of these types
of goods will know exactly what product they wish to
purchaser, and will not make a decision on impulse. This
factor weighs in favor of Applicant since consumers are
likely to know they are buying products manufactured by
Applicant, and not by a third party. Such care in
purchasing tends to minimize a likelihood of confusion.18
Computer monitors are not especially expensive. The Micro Center website lists
computer monitors in a range of $65 to $120.19 Likewise, an INLAND tablet stand
has a list price of $30.20 Other stands are listed in a range of $16 to $150.21 Moreover,
considering the ubiquity of electronics, computer monitors, computer screens in the
nature of touch screens, laptops, smartphones, computer stands, and microphones,
those products are likely to be purchased by potential purchasers who will exercise
varying degrees of care during the purchasing process. We are bound to consider the
least sophisticated consumer in the class. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion
Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1163-64 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (recognizing
Board precedent requiring consideration of the “least sophisticated consumer in the
class”). See also In re Sailerbrau Franz Sailer, 23 USPQ2d 1719, 1720 (TTAB 1992)
(finding that all purchasers of wine may not be discriminating because while some
may have preferred brands, “there are just as likely to be purchasers who delight in
trying new taste treats.”).

18 Applicant’s Brief (11 TTABVUE 10).
19 May 8, 2018 Office Action (TSDR 116-117).
20 Id. at TSDR 121.
21 Id. at TSDR 123-126.
Serial No. 78192374

- 26 -

Without any evidence to support the degree of care that the relevant consumers
will use when purchasing the products at issue, this DuPont factor is neutral.
V. Conclusion
Because the marks are similar and the goods are related we find that Applicant’s
mark for computer monitors and computer screens
in the nature of touch screens is likely to cause confusion with the following registered
marks:
• Registration No. 4423129 for the mark MIKA for “Stands specially adapted
for holding computers and computer hardware; Stands for handheld digital
electronic devices and personal digital electronic devices, namely, cell phones,
MP3 players, personal digital assistants, laptop computers, tablet computers,
smartphones, portable media players and handheld computers”;
• Registration No. 4763310 for for “Audio-receivers and
video-receivers; Portable media players; Digital photo frames; Laptop
computers; Smart phones; Cameras; Power supplies; Chargers for electric
• Registration No. 5047961 for the mark MIKA for, inter alia, “Microphone
boom pole; Microphone stands; Microphones”; and
• Registration No. 5268291 for the mark MICA for, inter alia, “computers …
for industrial applications … for use in relation to cooling, transportation,
storing, mixing, metering and drying of food and liquids, especially milk and
beer, and all relating to measurement of temperature, dosage, calibration and
condition of such food and liquids during transportation and storing.”
Serial No. 78192374

- 27 -

Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark
is affirmed.