Digitalmojo, Inc.v.Connect Public Relations, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 8, 2019

92054395 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2019)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: July 8, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Connect Public Relations, Inc.
v.
Digitalmojo, Inc.

Opposition No. 91196299
_____

Digitalmojo, Inc.
v.
Connect Public Relations, Inc.

Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 920544271
_____

Karl R. Cannon and Ryan P. Gillan of Morriss O’Bryant Compagni Cannon, PLLC,
for Connect Public Relations, Inc.

Thomas W. Cook of Thomas Cook Intellectual Property Attorneys,
for Digitalmojo, Inc.
_____

Before Zervas, Cataldo and Mermelstein,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Zervas, Administrative Trademark Judge:

1 The Board consolidated the Opposition and the Cancellations in its February 23, 2012 order.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 2 -
Digitalmojo, Inc. (“Digitalmojo” or “DigitalMojo”) filed an application to register
on the Principal Register the standard character mark CONNECT for goods and
services including:2
International Class 9:
Audio recordings featuring music; video recordings featuring music;
downloadable audio and video recordings featuring music; prerecorded
music on CD, DVD and other media;

International Class 38:
Providing online chat rooms for registered users for transmission of
messages concerning classifieds, virtual community and social
networking; providing on-line chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards
for transmission of messages among users in the field of general
interest; providing email and instant messaging services;

International Class 42:

Computer services, namely, creating an on-line community for
registered users to participate in discussions, get feedback from their
peers, form virtual communities, and engage in social networking;
computer software development; application service provider (ASP)
featuring software to enable uploading, posting, showing, displaying,
tagging, blogging, sharing or otherwise providing electronic media or
information over the Internet or other communications network;
providing temporary use of non-downloadable software applications for
classifieds, virtual community, social networking, photo sharing, video
sharing, and transmission of photographic images; computer services,
namely, hosting online web facilities for others for organizing and
conducting online meetings, gatherings, and interactive discussions;
computer services in the nature of customized web pages featuring user-
defined information, personal profiles and information; and

2 Application No. 77714693, filed on April 15, 2009 under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), claiming a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. The application
also includes International Class 35 services, discussed briefly, infra.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 3 -
International Class 45:
On-line social networking services; internet based dating, introduction
and social networking services.

Opposition No. 91196299
Connect Public Relations, Inc. (“CPR”) opposed registration of Digitalmojo’s mark
claiming likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d), with CPR’s allegedly previously used and registered typed-form marks,
including:3
CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS4 and CONNECTPR5 both for
“prerecorded audio recordings, prerecorded video recordings, and
prerecorded audio-visual recordings featuring topics in the fields of
marketing and market research and consulting services, public and
media relations services and sales promotion services; electronic
publications featuring topics in the fields of marketing and market
research and consulting services, public and media relations services
and sales promotion services on computer discs and CD-ROM” in
International Class 9 and

CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS6 and CONNECTPR7 both for
“communications services, namely, delivery of messages by electronic
transmission” in International Class 38.

CPR also alleged prior common law rights in the mark CONNECT for
“prerecorded audio recordings, prerecorded video recordings, and prerecorded audio-

3 Registrations for typed-form marks encompass any presentation of the registered mark. See
Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp. Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
4 Registration No. 2373505, issued August 1, 2000, renewed. PUBLIC RELATIONS
disclaimed.
5 Registration No. 2383777 issued September 5, 2000, renewed. PUBLIC RELATIONS
disclaimed.
6 Registration No. 2383778, issued September 5, 2000, renewed. PUBLIC RELATIONS
disclaimed.
7 Registration No. 2365074, issued July 4, 2000, renewed. No disclaimer entered.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 4 -
video recordings; electronic publications featuring public and media relations services
and sales promotion services;” “printed publications;” “marketing and market
research and consulting services; public and media relations services and sales
promotion services;” and “communications services, including delivery of messages
by electronic transmission.”8
Digitalmojo denied the salient allegations of the amended Notice of Opposition
and raised several affirmative defenses, including estoppel, laches and acquiescence.9
Digitalmojo did not discuss these affirmative defenses in its trial brief and therefore
waived them. See Swiss Watch Int’l Inc. v. Fed’n of the Swiss Watch Indus., 101
USPQ2d 1731, 1734 n.4 (TTAB 2012) (affirmative defenses deemed waived where no
mention of them in trial brief); Barbara’s Bakery Inc. v. Landesman, 82 USPQ2d
1283, 1292 (TTAB 2007) (where applicant did not argue the affirmative defense of
equitable estoppel in her brief, the affirmative defense was given no consideration).
On February 27, 2015, the Board granted CPR’s cross-motion for summary
judgment on the likelihood of confusion claim only insofar as it concerned
International Class 35. The Board sustained the Opposition and refused registration
as to that class only.10

8 Amended Notice of Opposition, 5 TTABVUE 18. Citations provided in this opinion are to
the USPTO’s electronic record for Opposition No. 91196299.
9 7 TTABVUE.
10 41 TTABVUE 19.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 5 -
Cancellation No. 92054395
In the Second Amended Petition to Cancel, Digitalmojo seeks cancellation of
CPR’s pleaded Registration No. 2366850 for the mark CONNECTPR in typed form
for “Marketing and market research and consulting services; public and media
relations services and sales promotion services” in International Class 35 on the
ground of abandonment. CPR denied the salient allegations of the Second Amended
Petition to Cancel.
Cancellation No. 92054427
Digitalmojo sought cancellation of CPR’s pleaded Registration No. 2373504 for
the mark CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS in typed form for “Marketing and market
research and consulting services; public and media relations services and sales
promotion services” in International Class 35 on the ground of abandonment. On
February 27, 2015, the Board granted CPR’s motion for summary judgment on
Digitalmojo’s abandonment claim and denied Digitalmojo’s cross-motion for summary
judgment.
The following remains for decision in this consolidated proceeding; (i) CPR’s
likelihood of confusion claim in the Opposition with regard to International Classes
9, 38, 42 and 45 of Digitalmojo’s CONNECT application; and (ii) Digitalmojo’s claim
of abandonment in Cancellation No. 92054395 involving CPR’s pleaded Registration
No. 2366850 for CONNECTPR.11

11 41 TTABVUE 20.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 6 -
I. The Trial Record
In addition to the pleadings, the trial record automatically includes the involved
application file and the files of the registrations sought to be cancelled pursuant to
Trademark Rule 2.122(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b). The trial record also includes the
following:
● CPR’s Notice of Reliance submitting a copy of:

CPR’s registration certificates and pages from the USPTO’s TSDR database
for Registration Nos. 2362916, 2373504, 2373505 and 2383778 all for the mark
CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS; and Registration Nos. 2366850, 2383777,
2713692 and 3330353, all for the mark CONNECTPR;

CPR’s First, Second and Third Sets of Requests for Admissions, and CPR’s
First, Second and Third Sets of Interrogatories;12

Digitalmojo’s Responses to CPR’s First, Second and Third Sets of Requests for
Admissions;

Digitalmojo’s Responses to CPR’s First, Second and Third Sets of
Interrogatories;

A definition of “marketing” from “Random House Webster’s Unabridged
Dictionary” (2001);

An excerpt from “Technology Marketing Intelligence” Vol. XVIII, #8 (Aug.
1998); and

Webpages from CPR’s website.

12 We consider the requests for admissions and the interrogatory requests because CPR has
provided responses and answers to the requests for admissions and interrogatories.
Trademark Rule 2.120(k)(3)(i) provides that “an answer to an interrogatory [or] an admission
to a request for admission” may be made of record by notice of reliance.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 7 -
● Digitalmojo’s Notice of Reliance, submitting:13
CPR’s Responses to Digitalmojo’s First and Second Requests for Admission and
Supplemental and Second Supplemental Responses thereto, CPR’s responses
to Digitalmojo’s First and Third Sets of Interrogatories and CPR’s responses to
CPR’s First and Second requests for Documents and Things.

● CPR’s “Stipulated Motion for Admission of Evidence” submitting the Affidavits
of Dr. Glenn L. Christensen, Garrett Research Fellow and Associate Professor of
Marketing, Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University, and
exhibits, and Neil Myers, CPR’s founder and President, and exhibits.14
II. Dr. Christensen’s Testimony
Dr. Christensen states in his Affidavit that he is Associate Professor of Marketing
and conducts academic research focused on consumer psychology; that in his

13 Digitalmojo submitted “relevant documents produced by Opposer with Opposer’s
Responses to Applicant’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things,”
some of which are not legible. Digitalmojo’s Not. of Rel., Exh. 5, 59 TTABVUE 108-350. A
“party that has obtained documents from another party through disclosure or under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34 may not make the produced documents of record by notice of reliance alone, except
to the extent that they are admissible by notice of reliance under 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e) (as
official records; or as printed publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the
general public in libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that
segment of the public which is relevant under an issue in the proceeding; or Internet
documents) ….” TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP)
§ 704.11 (June 2019). In addition, a party has a duty to ensure that the evidence it submits
is legible. See Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1758
(TTAB 2013) (citing Hard Rock Café Licensing Corp. v. 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...,’ finding that applicant’s objections, raised for the first time in its
trial brief, to illegible exhibits submitted with opposer’s notice of reliance, to be timely)”),
aff’d, 565 Fed. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mem.). We have considered only the legible
documents which are admissible under Trademark Rule 2.122(e).
In addition, CPR’s responses to Digitalmojo’s document requests, to the extent that they
indicate that no such documents exist, have been treated as being of record. See L.C.
Licensing Inc. v. Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883 n.5 (TTAB 2008); TBMP § 704.11.
14 23 TTABVUE.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 8 -
“academic research and consulting practice, he has conducted and participated in
numerous consumer research studies across a spectrum of industries and
consumption contexts”; that he was asked to “assess the similarity, if any, of the
parties’ respective marks and the similarity, if any, of parties’ goods and services
under a likelihood of confusion analysis” and “to assess whether, in my opinion,
Connect Public Relations, Inc. continues to employ the Connect Public Relations®
and ConnectPR® registered trademarks in its marketing of goods and services under
an abandonment analysis”; and that the “focus of [his] analysis (i.e., the data for this
research) [is] the descriptions of the various marks as they are found on the USPTO
federal registry.”15 He offers opinions regarding the similarity of the marks and the
similarity of the goods and services.
Because we are able to determine the similarity of the marks ourselves, Dr.
Christensen’s analysis of the similarity of the marks has limited probative value. See
Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Vigilanz Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1399, 1401-1402 (TTAB
2010) (“[T]he Board is responsible for determining whether the marks are similar,
and we will not substitute the opinion of a witness, even an expert witness, for our
evaluation of the facts.”) (citing Mennen Co. v. Yamnouchi Pharma. Co., 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.”)). In addition, his analysis

15 Christensen Aff. ¶¶ 1, 10 and 11, 61 TTABVUE 6, 8 and 9.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 9 -
of the goods and services has limited probative value because in this case we are, like
Dr. Christensen, able to assess the parties’ goods and services based on the wording
of the identifications of goods and services.
III. Standing
Standing is a threshold issue that must be proven by a plaintiff in every inter
partes case. To establish standing in an opposition or cancellation proceeding, a
plaintiff must show “both a ‘real interest’ in the proceedings as well as a ‘reasonable
basis’ for its belief of damage.” Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753
F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting ShutEmDown Sports,
Inc., v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036, 1041 (TTAB 2012)); Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d
1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds by Iancu
v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. —, 2019 USPQ2d 232043 (2019); Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston
Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982).
CPR’s standing is established by its pleaded registrations, which it has entered
into the record and which show active status and CPR’s ownership.16 See, e.g.,
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (party’s ownership of pleaded registration establishes standing). “DigitalMojo
agrees Connect has standing to Oppose DigitalMojo’s Application.”17
Digitalmojo’s standing in Cancellation No. 92054395 involving one of the marks
asserted against Digitalmojo in the Opposition is inherent from its position as

16 CPR’s Not. of Rel. Exhs. 1-9, 58 TTABVUE 9-81.
17 Digitalmojo’s brief at 11, 67 TTABVUE 12.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 10 -
defendant in the Opposition. Finanz St. Honore B.V. v. Johnson & Johnson, 85
USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (TTAB 2007); Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. FirstHealth of the
Carolinas Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1492, 1502 (TTAB 2005) (citing Ohio State Univ. v. Ohio
Univ., 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1293 (TTAB 1999)). We treat Digitalmojo as a
counterclaimant in this consolidated proceeding.
IV. Cancellation No. 92054395 - Abandonment
We now turn to Digitalmojo’s claim of abandonment involving Registration
No. 2366850 for the mark CONNECTPR for “marketing and market research and
consulting services; public and media relations services and sales promotion
services.” Digitalmojo alleges:18
8. On information and belief, DigitalMojo alleges CPR has
abandoned the CPR Marks, including its mark CONNECTPR, in that
CPR has ceased providing, or offering to provide, the CPR Services
under the CPR Marks, including the name CONNECTPR. More
specifically, CPR has changed its name to Connect Marketing, Inc., and
is offering its CPR Services under the mark CONNECT MARKETING,
and not the CPR Marks. In support of this allegation, Petitioner
attaches to this Petition the following specimens take[n] from the web
site of CPR at the domain name http://www.connectmarketing.com/[.]

a. The “home” page at
http://www.connectmarketing.com/, upon which appears
the service mark “CONNECT MARKETINGsm” (top left),
the statement “Connect® Public Relations is now Connect
Marketing” (right hand side in two places), and the legend
“2011 Connect Marketing. All Rights Reserved. | Formerly
Connect Public Relations®” (bottom of page).

b. The “about” page at
http://www.connectmarketing.com/, upon which appears
the service mark “CONNECT MARKETINGsm” (top left),
the registered address of CPR at “80 E 100 N, Provo, Utah

18 Amended Pet. for Canc. at ¶ 8, 14 TTABVUE 6-7, Canc. No. 92054395.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 11 -
84606 USA,” and the legend “2011 Connect Marketing. All
Rights Reserved. | Formerly Connect Public Relations®”
(bottom of page).

c. A third page at http://www.connectmarketing.com/,
upon which appears the service mark “CONNECT
MARKETING (top left), the question “What Happened to
Connect Public Relations?,” the statement “Today Connect
Public Relations becomes Connect Marketing” and the
legend “2011 Connectsm, Marketing. All Rights Reserved. |
Formerly Connect Public Relations®” (bottom of page).

9. These attachments show CPR is no longer using its CPR Marks
for the CPR Services, including the mark CONNECTPR, registered
under U.S. Registration No. 2,366,850, and also that cessation of use of
the CPR Marks was intentional. These attachments also demonstrate
CPR intends not to use the CPR Marks for the CPR Services in the
future, including the mark CONNECTPR for the services identified in
U.S. Registration No. 2,366,850, and Petitioner so alleges CPR’s intent
not to use the Mark CONNECTPR for the CPR Services in the future.

Digitalmojo did not file a brief in the cancellation;19 we therefore decide the
Cancellation based on the evidence of record bearing on Digitalmojo’s claim of
abandonment.
Abandonment of a mark occurs:
When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use.
Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3
consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. “Use”
of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary
course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.

Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
Mr. Meyers submitted several webpages from CPR’s website with his Affidavit
dated April 21, 2014. He testified the webpages were printed on March 21, 2013 and

19 See the Board’s February 2, 2018 order regarding briefing in the Cancellations.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 12 -
April 4, 2014, subsequent to the filing of the amended petition to cancel in
Cancellation No. 92054395. One webpage states, “Connect Public Relations is now
Connect Marketing.”20 Mr. Meyers also testified, however, that he could “state
unequivocally that Connect has not discontinued use of its CONNECT PUBLIC
RELATIONS® and CONNECTPR® marks for those services listed in their respective
registrations. … In fact, both these marks are prominently used in commerce on
Connect’s current website as shown in Exhibit E,”21 referring to Exh. E to his
affidavit.22 Digitalmojo has not submitted any countering evidence.
In addition, Section 45 provides that an intent not to resume use must be proven.
Although the statute raises a presumption of abandonment upon proof of three years’
nonuse, Digitalmojo is not entitled to such a presumption because it has not
established that CPR discontinued use for three consecutive years. As such, it
remained CPR’s burden to prove that Digitalmojo’s nonuse (if any) was accompanied
by an intent not to resume use. If there was any discontinued use - which Digitalmojo
has not established - there is nothing in the evidence submitted by Digitalmojo that
establishes that CPR had an intent not to resume use.
In view of the foregoing, Digitalmojo’s claim for cancellation of Registration
No. 2366850 for the mark CONNECTPR for “marketing and market research and

20 Meyers Aff. Exh. D, 61 TTABVUE 138.
21 Meyers Aff. ¶ 51, 61 TTABVUE 77.
22 Id. Exh. E, 61 TTABVUE 139-61.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 13 -
consulting services; public and media relations services and sales promotion services”
on the basis of abandonment is denied.
V. Opposition No. 91196299
We turn next to CPR’s claims of priority and likelihood of confusion under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act.
A. Priority
As noted earlier in this opinion, CPR asserted common law rights in the mark
CONNECT, which is identical to Digitalmojo’s mark. CPR claims common law use of
the mark CONNECT and relies on Mr. Meyers’ testimony to support its claim. Mr.
Meyers testified:
Connect is … the owner of common law rights in the CONNECT mark
since at least as early as 1998. In particular, Connect has used its
CONNECT mark on the same goods and services recited in the
[asserted] Connect registrations. That is, the goods and services for the
CONNECT mark are commensurate in scope with the goods and
services recited in the above-identified Connect registrations. This is
true because Connect frequently used its Connect mark alongside its
CONNECTPR® and CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS® mark in its
promotional materials.23

Digitalmojo maintains that CPR has not demonstrated use of “CONNECT” as a
mark.24 Mr. Meyers’ bare-bones testimony does not provide sufficient information as
to use of CONNECT for the goods and service identified in its registrations to
persuade us that CPR has used CONNECT for such goods and services. With one
exception, Mr. Meyers’ testimony is not supported by documentary evidence showing

23 Id. ¶ 16, 61 TTABVUE 69.
24 Digitalmojo’s brief at 22, 67 TTABVUE 23.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 14 -
use prior to Digitalmojo’s filing date. One brochure makes limited use of CONNECT
as a single term and mentions “announcement videos” featuring “a simple customer
success story,” “soundbytes from key industry analysts talking about your company’s
superiority” and “powerful animation that makes even the most complex technology
easy to understand” in a document which makes some reference to CONNECT
alone.25 Mr. Meyers authenticated the brochure and testified that it was published in
1998.26 Thus, we find the brochure in combination with Mr. Meyers’ testimony
sufficient to establish prior common law rights for the mark CONNECT, but only for
“announcement videos.”
With regard to CPR’s registrations, we focus on CPR’s CONNECT PUBLIC
RELATIONS and CONNECTPR registrations because the goods and services
identified are closest to the goods and services set forth in the subject application. If
there is no likelihood of confusion with respect to these registrations, there will be no
likelihood of confusion with respect to CPR’s other pleaded registered marks. See N.
Face Apparel Corp. v. Sanyang Indus. Co., 116 USPQ2d 1217, 1225 (TTAB 2015).
Because CPR’s pleaded registrations are of record and we have disposed of the
claim for cancellation, priority is not at issue with respect to the mark and goods
covered by CPR’s CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS and CONNECTPR registrations.
See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 55 USPQ2d at 1844; King Candy Co. v. Eunice

25 Myers Aff. Exh. A, 61 TTABVUE 82-112.
26 Id. at ¶ 23, 61 TTABVUE 70.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 15 -
King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974); Penguin Books
Ltd. v. Eberhard, 48 USPQ2d 1280, 1286 (TTAB 1998).
B. Likelihood of confusion
Our determination of CPR’s claim of likelihood of confusion is based on an analysis
of all of the facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of
likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177
USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“du Pont”); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315
F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In considering the evidence of
record on these factors, we keep in mind that “[t]he 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.” Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper
Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976). “[W]e need to consider only the
factors that are relevant and of record.” M2 Software Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns Inc., 450
F.3d 1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
It is CPR’s burden to establish a likelihood of confusion claim by a preponderance
of the evidence. Cerveceria Centroamericana S.A. v. Cerveceria India Inc., 892 F.2d
1021, 13 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
a. Similarity of the Marks
The first du Pont factor we consider concerns the similarities or dissimilarities of
the marks in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. Palm Bay
Imps. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 73 USPQ2d at 1692.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 16 -
Of course, CPR’s common law mark is identical to Digitalmojo’s mark in all
respects.
With regard to the registered marks, “[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.” Coach Services, Inc. v.
Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(quotation omitted). While marks must be compared in their entireties and the
analysis cannot be predicated on dissecting the marks into their various components,
different features may be analyzed to determine whether the marks are similar. See
In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Franklin
Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 212 USPQ 233, 234 (CCPA 1981) (“It
is axiomatic that a mark should not be dissected and considered piecemeal; rather, it
must be considered as a whole in determining likelihood of confusion.”); Joel Gott
Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (TTAB 2013) (citing
Price Candy Co. v. Gold Medal Candy Corp., 220 F.2d 759, 105 USPQ 266, 268 (CCPA
1955)). In the course of comparing the marks in their entireties, there is nothing
improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more weight has been given to a
particular feature of the marks, their “dominant” portions, provided that our ultimate
conclusion rests upon a comparison of the marks in their entireties. In re Nat’l Data
Corp., 224 USPQ at 751. Similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance,
meaning, or commercial impression is sufficient to support a determination of
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 17 -
likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co., 390 F.2d 728, 156
USPQ 523, 526 (CCPA 1968); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1089 (TTAB
2016); Eveready Battery Co. v. Green Planet Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1519 (TTAB
2009). When goods or services are identical, as certain services are in this case, see
discussion infra, “the degree of similarity necessary to support a conclusion of likely
confusion declines.” Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d
874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We find that CPR’s registered marks and Digitalmojo’s mark are similar in
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. The only difference
between CPR’s registered CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS and CONNECTPR
marks and Digitalmojo’s CONNECT mark is the presence in CPR’s mark of the terms
“public relations” and “pr,”27 Both of CPR’s marks begin with the dominant word
“connect,” and “upon encountering each mark, consumers must first notice this
identical lead word.” Id. at 1700 (CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA for insurance
underwriting services found to be similar to CENTURY 21 for real estate brokerage,
insurance brokerage, and mortgage brokerage services); see also In re Integrated
Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he dominance of BARR in
[a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is reinforced by its location as the first word in the
mark.”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB
1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon

27 The absence of a space between the components CONNECT and PR is immaterial. In re
Greenliant Sys. Ltd, 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (TTAB 2010) (NANDRIVE); Micro Motion Inc.
v. Danfoss A/S, 49 USPQ2d 1628, 1631 (TTAB 1998) (MASSFLO).
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 18 -
the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
PUBLIC RELATIONS and PR are at best very highly descriptive terms; “PR” is
defined as “public relations”28 and CPR has disclaimed “PUBLIC RELATIONS” in
three of the four asserted registrations discussed above. Disclaimed matter that is
descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant
or less dominant when comparing marks.29 See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405,
41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 752.
We also find that the presence of PUBLIC RELATIONS and PR do not change the
connotation or meaning of CONNECT in the context of the mark as a whole; and that
purchasers consider CONNECT as a shortened form of CONNECT PUBLIC
RELATIONS or CONNECTPR. See CPR’s brochure at p. 4, quoting, “‘Connect got our
message out,’ Patrick continues … ‘Every person at Connect is enthusiastic about our
business. They do whatever it takes’”;30 and Mr. Meyers’s testimony that “Connect’s
clients often refer to it using the CONNECT mark.”31

28 See online version of Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/pr) accessed on May 23, 2019. We take judicial notice of this
definition. 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, 596 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372,
217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983), including online dictionaries that exist in printed format or
regular fixed editions. In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (TTAB 2006).
29 The registrations for International Class 9 goods specify that the goods pertain to public
relations. The registrations for International Class 38 services are not as specific as the
registrations for International Class 9 goods, but the wording in the identifications of services
includes services pertaining to or offered in connection with public relations.
30 Meyers Aff. Exh. B, 61 TTABVUE 116.
31 Meyers Aff. ¶ 16, 61 TTABVUE 69.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 19 -
The du Pont factor regarding the similarity of the marks favors a finding of
likelihood of confusion.
b. Similarity of Goods and Services, Channels of Trade and
Classes of Purchasers
CPR relies on the testimony of Mr. Meyers and Mr. Christiansen, and the
substance of the identifications of goods and services, in arguing that the goods,
services, trade channels and purchasers are related. Mr. Christiansen maintains that
“Applicant’s proposed goods and services that I have analyzed in this report are, in
my opinion, quite similar and even identical as a subset to the Opposer’s goods and
services as described in its registrations.”32
It is settled that in making our determination, when considering CPR’s
registrations, we must look to the goods and services identified in the application vis-
à-vis those recited in the cited registrations. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v.
Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Comput. Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783,
1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1514 (TTAB
2016); In re Giovanni Food Co., 97 USPQ2d 1990, 1991 (TTAB 2011). We do not read
limitations into the identification of goods. Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038,
216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“There is no specific limitation and nothing in
the inherent nature of Squirtco’s mark or goods that restricts the usage of SQUIRT

32 Christensen Aff. ¶ 42, 61 TTABVUE 42.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 20 -
for balloons to promotion of soft drinks. The Board, thus, improperly read limitations
into the registration”).
It is not necessary that the respective goods and services be competitive, or even
that they move in the same channels of trade to support a holding of likelihood of
confusion. It is sufficient that the respective goods and services are related in some
manner, or that the conditions and activities surrounding the marketing of the goods
and services are such that they would or could be encountered by the same persons
under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that they originate
from the same producer. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101 USPQ2d
at 1722 (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007). See
also On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed.
Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289
(Fed. Cir. 1984). The issue here is not whether purchasers would confuse the goods
and services, but rather whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of
these goods and services. L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (TTAB
2012); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984). 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 the application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills
Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981); Apple Comput. v.
TVNET.Net, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1393, 1398 (TTAB 2007).
International Class 9
Digitalmojo’s International Class 9 goods are:
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 21 -
Audio recordings featuring music; video recordings featuring music;
downloadable audio and video recordings featuring music; prerecorded
music on CD, DVD and other media. (emphasis added.)

CPR argues that because “both the Connect and Digitalmojo goods explicitly
include ‘audio recordings’ and ‘video recordings,’ Digitalmojo’s Class 9 goods and
Connect’s Class 9 goods are identical or are legally related.” This is not correct.
Digitalmojo’s identification of goods specifies that the recordings feature music but
CPR’s identification of goods specifies that the recordings feature topics in the fields
of marketing and market research and consulting services, public and media relations
services and sales promotion services.33 Also, the “announcement videos” do not
feature music. There hence is no apparent relationship from the identifications or
from any evidence in the record between music recordings and recordings in CPR’s
fields. We therefore find that CPR has not demonstrated that Digitalmojo’s
International Class 9 goods and any of the goods and services of CPR’s asserted
registrations are related to one another, and we need not further discuss CPR’s
common law mark CONNECT for “announcement videos.”
Turning to the trade channels and classes of purchasers, due to the content
limitations in the identifications, we find the trade channels and classes of purchasers
for (i) CPR’s and Digitalmojo’s International Class 9 goods, and (ii) Digitalmojo’s

33 The relevant portion of the identification of goods in the registered marks reads,
“prerecorded audio recordings, prerecorded video recordings, and prerecorded audio-visual
recordings featuring topics in the fields of marketing and market research and consulting
services, public and media relations services and sales promotion services.”
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 22 -
International Class 9 goods and any of CPR’s services, unrelated. They hence weigh
against a finding of likelihood of confusion for such goods and services.
International Class 38
Digitalmojo’s International Class 38 services are:
Providing online chat rooms for registered users for transmission of
messages concerning classifieds, virtual community and social
networking; providing on-line chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards
for transmission of messages among users in the field of general
interest; providing email and instant messaging services.

Registration No. 2383778 for the mark CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS and
Registration No. 2365074 for the mark CONNECTPR both recite “communication
services, namely, delivery of messages by electronic transmission” in International
Class 38. These services are essentially the same services as “providing email and
instant messaging services” in Digitalmojo’s International Class 38 identification of
services, and we find them to be legally identical.
With regard to the trade channels and classes of purchasers, because the services
are in part legally identical, we presume that the channels of trade and classes of
purchasers are the same. See Interstate Brands Corp. v. McKee Foods Corp., 53
USPQ2d 1910, 1913 (TTAB 2000) (“Because the goods are legally identical, they must
also be deemed to be sold in the same channels of trade to the same classes of
customers.”); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531, 1532 (TTAB 1994) (“Because
the goods are legally identical, they must be presumed to travel in the same channels
of trade, and be sold to the same class of purchasers.”).
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 23 -
International Class 42

Digitalmojo’s International Class 42 services include “computer services, namely,
creating an on-line community for registered users to participate in discussions, get
feedback from their peers, form virtual communities, and engage in social
networking.” CPR maintains that “[p]articipating in discussions in on-line
communities, getting feedback online, forming virtual communities and engaging in
social networking, as recited in Class 42 of the Opposed Application all involve the
‘delivery of messages by electronic transmission’ as specifically recited in Connect’s
registrations,” and concludes that “Digitalmojo’s Class 42 services and Connect’s
services both encompass the delivery of messages of electronic transmission and
Digitalmojo Class 42 services are nothing more than a subset of Connect’s Class 38
services, or are legally related thereto.”34
CPR’s “communications services, namely, delivery of messages by electronic
transmission,” is broadly worded with no limitations; the identification thus must be
construed to encompass all services of the type described, which move in all normal
trade channels, and are available to all classes of purchasers. In re Thor Tech, Inc.,
90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638 (TTAB 2009). The identification must be construed to involve
the delivery of messages for creating an on-line community for registered users to,
inter alia, get feedback from peers, to form virtual communities and to engage in
social networking. At a minimum, the formation of virtual communities entails
sending messages by electronic transmission. Because the services have common

34 CPR’s brief at 30, 66 TTABVUE 31.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 24 -
uses, and one service requires the use of the other, we find that such services are
related to one another.
We are not concerned that these services are classified in different International
Classes. The system for classification of goods and services was created for the
convenience of the USPTO, and has no bearing on the issue of likelihood of confusion.
Section 30 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1112, provides in pertinent part that
“The Director may establish a classification of goods and services, for convenience of
Patent and Trademark Office administration, but not to limit or extend the
applicant’s or registrant’s rights.” The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has
stated that “classification is wholly irrelevant to the issue of registrability under
section 1052(d), which makes no reference to classification. Cf. 15 U.S.C. § 1112….”
Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 29 USPQ2d 1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
see also In re Sailerbrau Franz Sailer, 23 USPQ2d 1719, 1720 (TTAB 1992) (“[T]he
fact that goods are found in different classes has no bearing on the question of
likelihood of confusion. The separation of goods into the various classes of the
classification schedule is merely a convenience for the Office and is not intended as a
commentary on their relationship to one another in the marketplace.”).
With regard to the channels of trade and classes of consumers, there is limited
information in the record regarding the trade channels for any of the parties’ services.
Mr. Christenson primarily discussed the trade channels of Digitalmojo’s
International Class 35 services (the subject of the Board’s summary judgment grant)
and Mr. Meyers testified that CPR has promoted its goods and services under its
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 25 -
marks using a wide range of media, including the Internet, through its own websites,
through sales brochures, through advertisements placed in nationally distributed
magazines, on product labels, on business cards, and at tradeshows.35 He did not
provide any specifics regarding these trade channels.
The identifications of services suggest that members of the general public are
users of both CPR’s and Digitalmojo’s services, but offer little help in determining the
channels of trade. Any conclusion we could draw regarding trade channels based on
the identifications of services would be speculative. We therefore find the du Pont
factor regarding trade channels neutral as they pertain to the International Class 42
services but that members of the general public are users of both CPR’s and
Digitalmojo’s services.
International Class 45
Digitalmojo’s International Class 45 services are:
On-line social networking services; internet based dating,
introduction and social networking services.

CPR argues that on-line social networking services involve the “delivery of
messages by electronic transmission.” We agree. There are no limitations in the
identification as to the nature of the messages or the manner of delivery of the
messages and hence they include social networking messages. An integral component
of social networking is the delivery of electronic messages. We therefore find these
services to be related to one another.

35 Meyers Aff. ¶ 20, 61 TTABVUE 70.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 26 -
We also find the purchasers overlap in view of the nature of the respective services
and the fact that members of the general public are the ultimate consumers of both
services. Because any conclusion we could draw regarding the trade channels based
on the identifications of services would be speculative, we find the du Pont factor
regarding trade channels to be neutral in our analysis.
c. Purchasing Conditions.
Digitalmojo argues that the fourth du Pont factor is a dominant factor in the
likelihood of confusion analysis, arguing that its customers are “‘Consumers,’ in the
technical sense of end-users of the goods and services”36 (presumably members of the
general public) while CPR’s customers are businesses only, that CPR supplies only
business-to-business services, and that CPR’s clients are high-tech businesses such
as Microsoft, Symentec or Lexmark.37 CPR, however, identifies its customers for its
goods and services as “[a]ny businesses and individuals with need for marketing,
public relations, editorial support, market research, consulting, media relations, sales
promotion, strategic marketing planning, development of market position and
messaging, and seminar creation and operation.”38 (emphasis added.) The standard
of care for our analysis is that of the least sophisticated purchaser, see Alfacell Corp.
v. Anticancer, Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1306 (TTAB 2004).

36 Digitalmojo’s brief at 19, 67 TTABVUE 20.
37 Id. at 16-17, 67 TTABVUE 17-18. Much of Digitalmojo’s argument is unrelated to the
substance of CPR’s identified goods and services. As noted previously, our decision is based
on CPR’s (and Digitalmojo’s) identifications, and not on actual use.
38 Digitalmojo’s Notice of Reliance, Exh. 3, Resp. to Interrog. Nos. 7, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24,
30, 31, 33 and 34, 59 TTABVUE 40-60.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 27 -
Digitalmojo has not identified the standard of care for each party’s purchasers.
Because of the lack of evidence, we find the fourth du Pont factor neutral in our
analysis for all goods and services.
d. Number and Nature of Third-Party Uses/Strength of CPR’s
Mark
Digitalmojo argues that “[t]he ‘number and nature’ of [third-party] registrations
of identical marks … demonstrates the word ‘connect’ is non-distinctive. The
weakness of the word ‘connect’ is evidenced by the numerous other identical third-
party marks presently co-existing as registrations on the USPTO web site.”39
Third-party registrations are not evidence of use of the marks, Olde Tyme Foods,
Inc. v. Roundy’s Inc., 961 F.2d 200, 22 USPQ2d 1542, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1992), but they
can be used to show that a mark or portion thereof is weak. See Juice Generation, Inc.
v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (weakness
of PEACE, LOVE); 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); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ2d 693, 694-695
(CCPA 1976) (even if “there is no evidence of actual use” of third-party registrations,
such registrations “may be given some weight to show the meaning of a mark in the
same way that dictionaries are used”). An applicant may come closer to a weak mark
without causing a likelihood of confusion. Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC,
115 USPQ2d at 1674.

39 Digitalmojo’s brief at 12, 67 TTABVUE 13.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 28 -
Digitalmojo relies on a list of registrations and applications submitted with its
December 3, 2009 Office Action Response, almost ten years ago, and argues that there
are numerous third-party registrations on the register for CONNECT-formative
marks for goods and services related to CPR’s goods and services. It argues that it
has not presented evidence of “the number and nature of ‘similar’ (but not identical)
marks because such a presentation would involve thousands of records given the
breadth of the identification of goods and services recited in this application, and the
breadth of goods and services recited in Connect’s Registrations.”40 The list of
applications and registrations has no probative value because (i) the goods and
services are not included; (ii) several of the identified marks differ from the marks
involved in this proceeding (e.g., CNC and KONEKTIVA); (iii) the list is ten years old
and there is no indication to what extent the registrations identified therein are still
in full force and effect; and (iv) applications are only evidence that an application has
been 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 Servs.
Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463, 1468 n.6 (TTAB 2003). In view thereof,
and because the Board does not take judicial notice of registrations, see Wright Line
Inc. v. Data Safe Servs. Corp., 229 USPQ 769 n.5 (TTAB 1985), the record does not
reflect any inherent weakness in CPR’s marks.
Digitalmojo maintains that “the word ‘connect’ is descriptive of the goods and
services Connect provides, and descriptive of the services its clients provide”; and that

40 Id.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 29 -
“the word ‘connect’ is … descriptive of the goods and services identified in Connect’s
Registrations.”41 We do not agree that “connect” is merely descriptive of a feature of
CPR’s goods and services. “Connect” is the first term in the CONNECT PUBIC
RELATIONS registered mark and CPR has disclaimed PUBLIC RELATIONS in
three of the four asserted registrations we consider in this opinion. Because an
existing registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the mark under
Trademark Act § 7(b), any allegation that CONNECT is not distinctive in CPR’s
CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS registration is essentially an attack on the validity
the registration, which we may not consider in the absence of a counterclaim or
separate petition to cancel the registration.42 Rather, we agree with CPR that
“connect” is suggestive of a feature of CPR’s goods and services. Mr. Meyers testified
“[t]he term ‘connect,’ when used for [C]onnect’s goods and services, connotes or
suggests the idea of bringing together or joining things together, such as a business
with its customers.”43 In addition, the verb “connect” is defined as to “link two things:
to join two or more people, things, or parts”; and “establish [a] telecommunication
link for somebody: to set up a communication link between people, organizations, or
places ... connected to the Internet.”44 In view of this testimony and definition, we
find that “connect” is a suggestive term when used with CPR’s International Class 38

41 Digitalmojo’s brief at 14, 67 TTABVUE 15.
42 Trademark Rule 2.106(b)(3)(ii). A descriptiveness claim could not be brought anyway,
because the asserted registrations are more than five years old. See Trademark Act Section
14, 15 U.S.C. § 1064.
43 See Myers Aff., ¶¶ 3, 4, and 31, 61 TTABVUE 67, 72.
44 July 8, 2009 Office Action, from http://encarta.msn.com/, accessed July 8, 2009, TSDR 6.
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 30 -
services, “communications services, namely, delivery of messages by electronic
transmission” in light of the linking function of the services. When used in connection
with CPR’s publications on computer discs and CD-ROM and recordings in
International Class 9, the marks suggest a feature of the goods, namely, the
connections that are made in marketing, and public and media relations.
As a suggestive mark without third-party uses, we find that the mark is weak, but
not so weak as to allow the registration of similar marks for legally identical or
related goods.
e. Conclusion on Likelihood of Confusion.
We have considered all of the evidence of record pertaining to CPR’s likelihood of
confusion claim, as well as all of the arguments related thereto, including any
evidence or arguments not specifically discussed in this opinion. In view of our
findings set forth above, we conclude as follows:
● Digitalmojo’s CONNECT mark for its International Class 9 goods is not
likely to be confused with CPR’s CONNECT, CONNECT PUBLIC
RELATIONS and CONNECTPR marks; and

● Digitalmojo’s CONNECT mark for its International Class 38, 42 and 45
services is likely to be confused with CPR’s CONNECT PUBLIC RELATIONS
and CONNECTPR marks.

Decision:
● Cancellation No. 92054395 to cancel CPR’s Registration No. 2366850 on the
ground of abandonment is denied;
● CPR’s opposition is sustained with respect to Digitalmojo’s services in
International Classes 38, 42 and 45; and
Opposition No. 91196299; Cancellation Nos. 92054395 and 92054427
- 31 -
● CPR’s opposition is dismissed with respect to Digitalmojo’s goods in
International Class 9. Digitalmojo’s application will move forward to the intent-to-
use division of the USPTO to await the filing of a Statement of Use for the
International Class 9 goods.
● As noted, on February 27, 2015, the Board (i) granted CPR’s motion for summary
judgment in Canc. No. 92054427, denying the Cancellation, and (ii) granted CPR’s
cross-motion for summary judgment on the likelihood of confusion claim only insofar
as it concerned International Class 35, sustaining the Opposition and refusing
registration as to the International Class 35 services.