Fujitech Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2011

No. 77270426 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2011)

Mailed:
March 31, 2011

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Fujitech Ltd.
________

Serial No. 77270424
Serial No. 77270426
_______

Jeffrey M. Furr of Furr Law Firm for Fujitech Ltd.

Asmat Khan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 114
(K. Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Bucher, Wellington, and Ritchie, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Fujitech Ltd., a Hong Kong company, has filed
applications to register the mark FUJITECH in standard
character format and in the following stylized manner:

for the following goods in International Class 9:
Audio Players, namely, Music Player 3 (MP3), Mini Disc
(MD), Compact Disc (CD); Audio Add-On-Cards, Namely,
Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI), Accelerated
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
2
Graphics Port (AGP) Sound, Local Area Network (LAN),
Fax Modem, Television Tuner, television tuner boxes;
Set Top Converters and Encoders; Audio Cables; Coaxial
Cables; Fiber Optics Cables; Games Cables; Telecom or
Modular Cables; Audio Adaptors; Coaxial Adaptors;
Fiber Optics Adaptors; Games Adaptors; Telecom or
Modular Adaptors; Electronic Cards, Namely, Smart
Media Cards, Multimedia Cards, Secure Digital Cards
sold blank.1

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration
to both applications under Section 2(d) of the Trademark
Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the ground that
applicant’s marks used in connection with the goods listed
in the application is likely to cause confusion with the
registered marks of two different entities. Specifically,
the examining attorney cited the following registered marks
owned by Fujifilm Corporation:

for: photographic apparatus, supplies, and
accessories-namely, sensitized photographic film,
papers, cameras;2

1 Applications Serial No. 77270424 and 77270426, both filed on
September 3, 2007, and based on a foreign registration under
Section 44(e).
2 Registration No. 0614791 issued on October 25, 1975, renewed.

Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
3

for, inter alia: photographic cameras, photographic
lenses, photofinishing apparatus, processors for
graphic arts film, microfilming equipment, video tapes
and audio tapes;3

and for, inter alia: video cameras, video tape
recorders, video camcorders, video players, video
recorder/players, video image transmitters, video
printers, blank video floppy disks, apparatus for
analysis of biological image using stimulable
phosphor, color printer for making color from video
image data by using thermal developing photosensitive
material;4

FUJI (in standard characters)

for: single use cameras;5 and

FUJIFILM (in standard characters)

for: single use cameras.6

The examining attorney also cited the following two
registered marks owned by Fuji Electric Holdings Co., Ltd.:

3 Registration No. 1339842 issued on June 11, 1985, renewed.
4 Registration No. 1949724 issued on January 16, 1996, renewed.
5 Registration No. 3089936 issued on May 9, 2006.
6 Registration No. 3092797 issued on May 16, 2006.
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
4

for, inter alia: electric batteries; electric
connectors; electric circuit closers; condensers;
electric resistors; induction voltage regulators;
electric reactors; electric phase modifiers; electric
or magnetic meters and testers, namely, circuit
testers, frequency meters, watt hour meters,
resistance measuring apparatus, voltmeters, wave
meters, ammeters and wattmeters; electric door closing
apparatus that uses linear motor technology for
controlling automatic sliding doors in electric
railcars or platforms such as safety fences on train
station platforms, sliding doors and partition sliding
doors of railcars; computer programs to control
equipment, machines, and robots; photosensitive drums,
a cartridge component of a laser print engine that
receives data for use in copying machines; electric
apparatus, namely, electric transformers, electric
current transformers, electric power supply apparatus
used for conversion of energy, electric switchboards,
electric switch boxes, electric switches, telemeters,
electricity meters, electric relays, electric time
switches, electric safety fuses, circuit breakers,
electric converters, electric branch terminals,
electric current rectifiers; electrolysis rectifiers;
computers; semiconductor devices; computer
peripherals; electromechanical controls for operating
machines and motors by means of current control;
industrial measuring instruments namely, hybrid
particle counter electro-magnetic flow meter used as
an instrument for detecting individual particles in a
fluid, such as water; ultrasonic flow meter and
integrator; vending machines; machines for detecting
counterfeit coins installed in vending machines for
detecting counterfeit money, and counting bills and
coins; machines for counting and sorting money; cash
registers; x-rays not for medical purposes; water
pollution monitors that use biosensors to detect and
measure water pollution, atmospheric pollution
monitors that use gas analyzers to measure and detect
pollution; electric distribution boards; electronic
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
5
monitoring apparatus for use in industrial operations,
namely, computer monitors, video cameras and video
monitors, LCD displays and flat screen monitors, and
oxygen analyzers; remote control apparatus for
computers, for operating motors and industrial
machines by current control, and for power supplies;
metal-clad switch gears used for housing circuit
breakers; circuit breakers; crossbar electrical
contacts; apparatus for analyzing gas, namely, gas
sensors for measuring gas concentration; glass lined
ozonizer tubes used to [sic] for ozone production;
solar cell and batteries; inverters; programmable
controllers; radiation monitors; industrial measuring
instruments, namely, oscillographs, voltmeters,
ammeters, frequency meters, galvanometers, ohmmeters,
dynamometers, wavemeters; fuel batteries; high-
frequency transceivers; timers; data processors; data
transmitters; hard disks for hard disk drives; blank
magnetic data carriers; amplifiers; programmable
operation touch panels that connect user to machines'
temperature control networks via image displays; pilot
lamp;7 and

FUJI ELECTRIC FA (in standard characters)

for, inter alia: electric current transformers,
electric power supplies, electric switchboards,
namely, computer hardware and computer software used
to control the generation, management, control and
distribution of electric power, and electric power
distribution switchboards, electric switch boxes,
electric switches, telemeters, electricity meters,
electric relays, electric automatic time switches,
electric safety fuses, circuit breakers, electric
converters, electric branch terminals, electric
connectors, electrical contacts, electric current
rectifiers, electrolysis rectifiers, computers,
semiconductor devices, computer peripherals, and video
cameras and video monitors, LCD displays and flat
screen monitors, and programmable operation touch
panels with electric display, electric transformers,

7 Registration No. 3223604 issued on April 3, 2007. The word
ELECTRIC has been disclaimed. The registration also covers goods
in International Classes 7 and 11; we note the examining attorney
does not argue that the goods in classes 7 and 11 are related to
applicant’s goods and, indeed, they are not.
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
6
switchgears, inverters, programmable control machines
and instruments, electric units for operating machines
and motors by means of current control, data
processing instruments, namely, data processors,
network switches, systems boards, input/output modules
and interconnect modules, computers, data transmission
instruments, namely, remote controls, computers,
telecommunications switches, routers, computer
servers, storage systems consisting of storage area
networks and memory farms, electronic timers. 8

Consolidation/ Background
Applicant has appealed the examining attorney’s
decisions to refuse registration to its marks. Inasmuch as
these two ex parte appeals involve nearly identical issues
of law and fact, the Board consolidates these two cases by
deciding them together in this decision.
By way of background, we note that the examining
attorney initially cited only the registration for the
stylized FUJI ELECTRIC mark as a bar to registration of
applicant’s marks based on a likelihood of confusion with
that registered mark. After the Trademark Examining
Attorney issued her “final” refusal office actions to both
applications, applicant filed (on September 20, 2008)
appeals and requests for reconsideration concurrently for
each application. On December 5, 2008, the examining
attorney denied the requests for reconsideration.

8 Registration No. 3699253 issued on October 20, 2009. The
wording ELECTRIC FA has been disclaimed. The registration also
covers goods in International Classes 7; again, we note the
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
7
Applicant shortly thereafter filed its appeal briefs which,
in substance, are nearly the same. With its appeal briefs,
applicant attached printouts from the USPTO’s electronic
database regarding third-party registrations for marks that
incorporate the term FUJI (or some derivative thereof). In
its appeal briefs, applicant focused solely on trying to
distinguish its applied-for marks from the registered FUJI
ELECTRIC (stylized) mark. In support, applicant attached
printouts showing “approximately 37 marks registered in
International Class 009 containing ‘fuji’ or a version
thereof wherein the proprietor of the mark is not those of
either applicant’s mark or registrant’s mark.” Brief,
(unnumbered) p. 8.
When the appeal files were forwarded to the examining
attorney for briefing, she requested that jurisdiction over
the applications be remanded to her because “upon further
review,...there is evidence to support a likelihood of
confusion refusal of the application[s] based on the
existence of trademark applications and registrations owned
by Fujifilm Corporation and Fuji Electric Assets Management
Co.” Requests for Remand (filed February 23, 2009). We
note that several of registrations that the examining

examining attorney does not argue that the goods in class 7 are
related to applicant’s goods and, indeed, they are not.
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
8
attorney references as being discovered “upon further
review” were those referenced in the attachments to
applicant’s appeal briefs as evidence of third-parties
owning registrations for marks containing the term “fuji.”
The requests for remand were granted by the Board and
the examining attorney subsequently issued office actions
ultimately refusing registration to applicant’s applied-for
marks based on the registered marks identified above.
We again note that applicant’s appeal brief addressed
only the refusal to registration based on the FUJI ELECTRIC
(stylized) registration. On June 4, 2010, the Board
resumed the appeal proceedings and allowed applicant time
to file a supplemental brief in view of the additional
registrations being cited as bars to registration of the
applied-for marks. No such supplemental brief was filed.
The examining attorney, on October 4, 2010, filed her
appeal briefs.
In view of the above, we do not have ideal briefing of
the issues currently before us. We have an appeal brief
from applicant that addresses only one of the cited
registrations as a bar to registration of its marks.
Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
Our determination of likelihood of confusion under
Section 2(d) is based on consideration of all of the
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
9
probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the
factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of confusion.
In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177
USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). See also, In re Majestic
Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201,
1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, two key considerations are the similarities or
dissimilarities between the marks and the similarities or
dissimilarities between the goods and/or services. See
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry
mandated by §2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of
differences in the essential characteristics of the goods
and differences in the marks”).
We further note that our analysis is made with respect
to each of the registered marks, and the goods identified
in the respective registration, vis-à-vis applicant’s marks
and the goods identified in the applications. That is, we
do not consider the registrations in conjunction with one
another. We keep in mind that there are two entities whose
respective registrations have been cited in support of
refusing registration to applicant’s marks.
Notwithstanding, we need only find a likelihood of
confusion based on any one of the cited registrations in
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
10
order to affirm the refusals to registration of the
applied-for marks.
We turn first to the du Pont likelihood of confusion
factor focusing on the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. du Pont
De Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ at 567. In comparing the marks,
we are mindful that the test is not whether the marks can
be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side
comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently
similar in terms of their overall commercial impression so
that confusion as to the source of the goods offered under
the respective marks is likely to result. San Fernando
Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp., 565
F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons Restaurants
Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991),
aff’d unpublished, No. 92-1086 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 1992).
The proper focus is on the recollection of the average
customer, who retains a general rather than specific
impression of the marks. Winnebago Industries, Inc. v.
Oliver & Winston, Inc., 207 USPQ 335, 344 (TTAB 1980);
Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108
(TTAB 1975). Furthermore, although likelihood of confusion
must be determined by analyzing the marks in their
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
11
entireties, “there is nothing improper in stating that, for
rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a
particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate
conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their
entireties.” In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224
USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Comparing applicant’s marks to the registered marks,
it is clear that they are similar to the extent that all
marks share the dominant literal element, FUJI. The term
either appears alone or followed by descriptive and/or
suggestive terms. Descriptive matter or highly suggestive
terms, such as TECH, ELECTRIC, FA, FILM, are generally
viewed as a less dominant or significant feature of the
mark. In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 750.
Accordingly, when not combined with FUJI, there is
disclaimer of these terms in the registrations (see
footnotes 7 and 8). In re Code Consultants, Inc., 60
USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (TTAB 2001). See also Cunningham v.
Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed.
Cir. 2000), quoting In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ at
750 (“Regarding descriptive terms, this court has noted
that the ‘descriptive component of a mark may be given
little weight in reaching a conclusion on the likelihood of
confusion’”).
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
12
As far as appearance, one of applicant’s marks and
several of the registered marks are stylized. With the
exception of one registered mark, the stylization employed
is not so different from one another to distinguish or
outweigh the importance of the marks sharing the same
dominant element, FUJI. In fact, several of the registered
marks are in standard character format and we must
therefore assume the marks may be displayed in the same
manner as that employed by applicant; likewise, applicant’s
typed mark may appear in the same font as the registered
marks. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc.,
___ F.3d ___, ___ USPQ2d ___, slip op. at 12-13 (Fed. Cir.
Mar. 28, 2011).
As to the registered mark appearing in highly stylized
letters forming a rectangle with two “edged” corners, shown
again below,

consumers will be able to decipher the literal term FUJI,
in spite of the fanciful letters and design. Nevertheless,
with respect to this mark and viewing it as a whole, we
acknowledge that the stylization is significant and creates
a different appearance.
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
13
As far as connotation and commercial impression, the
examining attorney argues in her brief that the “relevance
or meaning” of the term FUJI is “as an iconic symbol for
Japan, referring to one of Japans three holy mountains” and
that this term “creates a stronger commercial impression.”9
Brief, (unnumbered) p. 8. Applicant, on the other hand,
does not offer a possible connotation for its marks or that
of the registered marks. Thus, to the extent consumers are
familiar with the Japanese mountain, Mt. Fuji, the marks
may have the same connotation or create the same commercial
impression.
In sum, we conclude that applicant’s marks are similar
to each and every one of the registered marks.
We next turn to the du Pont factor involving any
possible weakness of the common element “Fuji” due to

9 The examining attorney did not reference any authority in her
brief as to the meaning of the term “Fuji.” We take judicial
notice of the following definition:
Fuji, Mount also Fu·ji·ya·ma(f j -yä m , -mä) or
Fu·ji·no·ya·ma (-n -) or Fu·ji·san (-sän )
The highest peak, 3,778.6 m (12,389 ft), in Japan, in
central Honshu west-southwest of Tokyo. An almost perfectly
symmetrical snow-capped volcanic cone, it is a sacred
mountain and pilgrimage site. Its last major eruption was
in 1707.
[The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language (4th
edition, 2000).
The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions.
University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imports
Co., Inc., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217
USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
14
third-party use of the same or similar marks in the
marketplace. With its brief, applicant attached printouts
from a USPTO database showing the existence of
approximately thirty-seven (37) registrations owned by
various entities for marks containing the term “Fuji” and
covering goods in International Class 9.10 To the extent
that applicant is attempting to show a weakness of the term
“Fuji” in connection with electronic goods, these third-
party registrations, by themselves, are insufficient in
this regard. Absent evidence of actual use, third-party
registrations have little probative value because they are
not evidence that the marks are in use on a commercial
scale or that the public has become familiar with them.
See Smith Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Stone Mfg. Co., 476 F.2d 1004,
177 USPQ 462, 463 (CCPA 1973) (the purchasing public is not
aware of registrations reposing in the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office). See also In re Hub Distributing, Inc.,
218 USPQ 284, 285 (TTAB 1983).
[I]t would be sheer speculation to draw any inferences
about which, if any of the marks subject of the third
party (sic) registrations are still in use. Because
of this doubt, third party (sic) registration evidence
proves nothing about the impact of the third-party
marks on purchasers in terms of dilution of the mark

10 As previously noted, applicant referenced and provided copies
of registrations owned by Fujifilm Corporation which were
subsequently cited as the basis, in part, of the likelihood of
confusion refusal with respect to each applied-for mark.
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
15
in question or conditioning of the purchasers as their
weakness in distinguishing source.

In re Hub Distributing, Inc., 218 USPQ at 286.

We now turn to the du Pont factor requiring us to
consider any relatedness of the goods. In this regard, we
must keep in mind that there is no rule that certain goods
are per se related, such that there must be a likelihood of
confusion from the use of similar marks in relation
thereto. See, e.g., Information Resources Inc. v. XPress
Information Services, 6 USPQ2d 1034, 1038 (TTAB 1988)
(regarding computer hardware and software); Hi-Country
Foods Corp. v. Hi Country Beef Jerky, 4 USPQ2d 1169, 1171
(TTAB 1987) (regarding food products); In re Quadram Corp.,
228 USPQ 863, 865 (TTAB 1985) (regarding computer hardware
and software); In re British Bulldog, Ltd., 224 USPQ 854,
855-56 (TTAB 1984) and cases cited therein (regarding
clothing).
The examining attorney has taken a very minimalist
approach in her argument and presentation of evidence in
support of her contention that applicant’s goods are
related to those in the cited registrations. Her brief
contains one case-specific sentence in this regard:
A likelihood of confusion exists in the instant case
because consumers will likely believe there is an
association, sponsorship or an affiliation between the
applicant’s FUJITECH mark and the registrants’ marks
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
16
which consist of variations of the dominant term FUJI
because the parties have highly related and
complementary goods, including, for example, audio
players, audio tapes, cables, electric switches,
secure digital cards, cameras, video tapes and
players, computer peripherals, peripheral component
interconnect (PCI), accelerated graphics port (AGP),
local area network (LAN), fax modem, coaxial cables,
computers, adaptors, transformers, routers, and
circuit breakers such that the goods would be marketed
in the same channels of trade.

[Unnumbered p. 11, emphasis supplied herein to
illustrate goods of applicant.]

There is no attempt to delineate which of the above-
identified goods are those of applicant versus those
belonging to one of the two registrants. The examining
attorney does not elaborate as to why she believes the
goods are “highly related and complementary.” The list of
goods is also somewhat misleading because while the term
“audio players” is listed in the two applications, it is
immediately followed by “namely, Music Player 3 (MP3), Mini
Disc (MD), Compact Disc (CD),” none of which utilizes
“audio tapes.” In light of the fact that seven different
registrations owned by two different entities have been
cited in support of the likelihood of confusion refusal to
registration, it was incumbent upon her to explain, at the
very least, which goods from each registration were most
likely to support the refusal.
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
17
As to the evidence, the examining attorney relies
exclusively on the printouts of 44 third-party
registrations for marks purportedly covering both
applicant’s goods and those of one of the registrants. She
argues that these registrations have “probative value to
the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods listed
therein are of a kind that may emanate form a single
source.”
Third-party registrations which individually cover a
number of different items and which are based on use in
commerce may serve to suggest that the listed goods are of
a type that may emanate from a single source. See In re
Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 1993); In
re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1469 (TTAB 1988),
aff'd (unpublished) No. 88-1444 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 1988).
citing to In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783
(TTAB 1993) and other cases.
As to the third-party registration printouts submitted
by the examining attorney, we initially note that over one-
third of these are based on Section 44(e) (ownership of a
foreign registration) and do not have use in commerce
dates. As we have previously stated many times in other
decisions, such registrations are not indicative of a
common source in the United States of the goods identified
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
18
therein and have no probative value. See, e.g., In re
Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470, n. 6
(TTAB 1988) (third-party registrations which are based upon
foreign registrations “are not even necessarily evidence of
a serious intent to use the marks shown therein in the
United States on all of the listed goods and services, and
they have very little, if any, persuasive value on the
point for which they were offered.”). Accordingly, we have
not considered these third-party registrations.
We further note that the examining attorney has merely
referenced the printouts and the existence of the third-
party registrations. That is, no attempt was made to spell
out the goods in the third-party registrations that are
relevant to showing a relationship between applicant’s
goods vis-à-vis any of the goods listed in the seven
different registrations.
In our review of the third-party registrations that
are based on use, we found most covered at least one of the
goods identified in the applications as well as one of the
goods identified in one of the seven different
registrations; however, there is not a significant number
of registrations covering the same specific item in the
applications and the same specific item found in any one of
the seven different registrations. For example, there are
Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
19
approximately three to four registrations which
individually cover applicant’s MP3 players (or goods that
are described so broadly as to encompass MP3 players) as
well as cameras, found in registrant Fujifilm Corporation’s
registrations.11 Likewise, there is roughly the same number
of third-party registrations for marks individually
covering applicant’s electronic cards, e.g., Smart Media,
Secure Digital, etc. and cameras. There are also fewer
than a handful of third-party registrations that cover
electronic cards and “blank video floppy disks”
indentified in one of Fujifilm Corporation’s registrations.
With regard to the goods indentified in the registrations
owned by Fuji Electric Holdings Co., Ltd., the third-party
registrations have even less significance in establishing a
relationship with any of the goods in the subject
applications.
In sum, the third-party registrations are not
sufficiently convincing of the relatedness of the goods.
In particular, there are too few showing the relatedness of
any specific item in the application with an item in a

11 For example, we note Registration No. 3308778 for the
mark EBOC covers, inter alia, “digital cameras” and “MP3
players”; and Registration No. 3180906 for the mark
SMALLDOG.COM covers, inter alia, “cameras” and “apparatus
for transmitting and reproducing sound or images.”

Serial Nos. 77270424 and 77270426
20
given cited registration. Furthermore, it would be too
tenuous of a connection for us to somehow consider all of
the registrations conjunctively for purposes of showing
that all or certain of the goods of applicant’s and any one
of the registrant’s are related.
On this record, we cannot make a finding that
applicant’s goods are clearly related to any of the goods
in the cited registrations. Accordingly, the examining
attorney has not made out a prima facie showing in this
regard; again, the limited number of use-based and
probative third-party registrations submitted are
insufficient in this regard. We do not hesitate to point
out that on a different record, such as might be adduced by
a competitor in an opposition proceeding, a different
result may be reached on the issue of the relatedness of
the goods.
Ultimately, in spite of the respective marks being
similar, we are constrained to find that there is no
likelihood of confusion in this case without a finding that
the goods of applicant are related to any of those listed
in the cited registrations.
Decision: The refusals to register are reversed.