Herman Miller, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 2, 1999

No. 75229955 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 1999)

Paper No. 9
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
SEPT. 2,99 HRW
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Herman Miller. Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/229,955
_______
Timothy E. Eagle of Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett
LLP for Herman Miller, Inc.
Erica D. B. Glembocki, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 102 (Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Wendel and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Herman Miller, Inc. has filed an application to
register the mark PUZZLE for office furniture.1
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground of likelihood of

1 Serial No. 75/229,955, filed January 23, 1997, based on the
assertion of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 75/229955
2
confusion with the registered mark PUZZLE CRAFT for
furniture.2
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed
briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
In looking to the du Pont factors3 which we find to be
relevant in this case, we first consider the similarity or
dissimilarity in the nature of the respective goods.
Applicant’s goods are specifically limited to office
furniture. Registrant’s goods, on the other hand, are
broadly identified in the registration as “furniture.”
Applicant argues, however, that registrant in fact only
uses its mark in connection with children’s furniture which
is readily assembled by the parents, or even by the
children themselves. Applicant has made of record copies
of screens from the Web site of registrant to support
applicant’s allegations that registrant’s goods are limited
in this way.
As pointed out by the Examining Attorney, it is a well
established principle that the issue of likelihood of
confusion must be determined on the basis of the goods as
identified in the application and in the cited

2 Reg. No. 1,923,683, issued October 3, 1995, claiming first use
in December 1992.
3 See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177
USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).
Ser No. 75/229955
3
registration, without limitations or restrictions which are
not set forth therein. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Despite any evidence which applicant may have
submitted with respect to one type of furniture on which
registrant is presently using its mark, because it is not
limited to one type of furniture, the registration must be
construed as covering furniture in general, including
office furniture. For purposes of determining the
likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), the goods of
the parties are identical.
Similarly, there are no restrictions in the
registration as to channels of trade and thus registrant’s
“furniture” must be presumed to travel in all the normal
channels of trade for these goods. See Kangol Ltd. v.
KangaROOS U.S.A. Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Applicant’s arguments with respect to
distinctions in the manner of sale of the goods of the
parties are to no avail.
It is well accepted that the greater the degree of
similarity of the goods, the lesser the degree of
similarity in the marks which is necessary to conclude that
there will be a likelihood of confusion. See Century 21
Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874,
Ser No. 75/229955
4
23 USPQ2d 1698 (Fed. Cir. 1992). While applicant argues
that the marks PUZZLE and PUZZLE CRAFT differ not only in
sound and appearance, but also in connotation, we do not
find the overall commercial impressions created by the
marks to be so dissimilar as to avoid the likelihood of
confusion.4
We agree with the Examining Attorney that the word
PUZZLE, applicant’s entire mark, is the dominant component
of the registered mark PUZZLE CRAFT. While it is true that
marks must be considered in their entireties in determining
likelihood of confusion, it is also well established that
there is nothing improper in giving more or less weight to
a particular portion of a mark. See In re National Data
Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Hilson
Research Inc. v. Society for Human Resource Management, 27
USPQ2d 1423 (TTAB 1993).
Here, the term CRAFT, when used in connection with
furniture, clearly is suggestive of the goods or the manner

4 Applicant’s arguments with respect to the distinctive style in
which registrant is presently using its mark can be given no
consideration. The mark, as registered, is in a typed drawing
and thus registrant is free to use its mark in any style,
including one very similar to that adopted by applicant. See
Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 216 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Ser No. 75/229955
5
in which the goods are made.5 Applicant itself described
the CRAFT portion of the registered mark as evoking a
connotation of “arts and crafts” or “handicrafted,”
although applicant argued that the presence of this term
resulted in different connotations for the two marks as a
whole. We agree that CRAFT gives the idea of being
handcrafted, but, in doing so, the word is relegated to
secondary importance in the mark as a whole. The
suggestive word CRAFT does not detract from the dominance
of the arbitrary word PUZZLE; the overall commercial
impressions created by the marks PUZZLE and PUZZLE CRAFT,
when used in connection with furniture, are highly similar.
Accordingly, when the marks PUZZLE and PUZZLE CRAFT
are used on identical goods, we find confusion to be
likely.

5 We take judicial notice of the dictionary definitions of
“craft” which the Examining Attorney has attached to her brief.
See University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imports
Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
Ser No. 75/229955
6
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
is affirmed.
R. F. Cissel
H. R. Wendel
D. E. Bucher
Trademark Administrative Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/229955
7