Inter-American Investment Corporation

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2015

No. 85890006 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2015)

Mailed: April 6, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Inter-American Investment Corporation
_____

Serial No. 85890006
_____

Christopher J. Maier of Maier & Maier PLLC,
for Inter-American Investment Corporation.
Kathryn E. Coward, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
John Lincoski, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Kuhlke, Taylor and Masiello,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Taylor, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Inter-American Investment Corporation (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark depicted below for
Financing and loan services, namely, arranging of loans,
financial guarantees, equity capital investments, and
providing lines of credit to local financial intermediaries
for the economic development of Latin American and
Caribbean countries; local and regional investment
services, namely, providing loans to small and medium
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 85890006
- 2 -

size companies in Latin American and Caribbean
countries in International Class 36.1

The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on a likelihood
of confusion with the two marks below, both owned by the same Registrant:
Registration No. 33592442 for the mark
SII INVESTMENTS, INC. (in standard characters); and

Registration No. 33592433 for the stylized mark

both for “financial services, namely, securities brokerage
and investment advisory services” in International Class

1 Application Serial No. 85890006 was filed on March 29, 2013, based upon Applicant’s
claim of first use anywhere and use in commerce since at least as early as August 18, 2011.
The application includes the following statements: “The mark consists of a globe focused on
Central and South America, and having curved bracket element next to the lower right
portion of the globe, the letters ‘SII’ written to the right of the globe and bracket in a
distinctive font. Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.”
2 Issued December 25, 2007; Section 8 affidavit accepted, Section 15 affidavit
acknowledged.
3 Issued December 25, 2007; Section 8 affidavit accepted, Section 15 affidavit
acknowledged. The registration includes the following statements: “The mark consists of
the letters SII surrounded by a square and adjacent to INVESTMENTS, INC. Color is not
claimed as a feature of the mark.”

Serial No. 85890006
- 3 -

36. Both registrations include a disclaimer of the words
“Investments, Inc.”
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed to this
Board. We affirm the refusal to register.
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 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 between the marks and the
similarities between the 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”). These factors, and any
other relevant du Pont factors in the proceeding now before us, will be considered in
this decision.
The Marks
We consider first the du Pont factor of the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks. In analyzing likelihood of confusion, we limit our discussion to Registration
No. 3359244 for the mark SII INVESTMENTS, INC., in standard character form,
because the stylization of the mark against a square background in Registration No.
3359243 arguably contains additional points of difference with Applicant’s mark. To
the extent that there would be confusion with the ‘244 registration, it would serve
Serial No. 85890006
- 4 -

little purpose to consider the other registration. And if there is no likelihood of
confusion with that registration, there similarly would be no likelihood of confusion
with the ‘243 Registration.
We thus compare Applicant’s mark with the cited mark SII
INVESTMENTS, INC. In determining the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks,
we must compare the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation
and commercial impression. Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ at 567. “The 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 Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713,
1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The focus is on the recollection of the
average purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than a specific
impression of trademarks. See Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d
1734, 1740 (TTAB 2014); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB
1975). In this case, the customers of Applicant’s services are “local” financial
intermediaries focusing on the economic development of Latin American and
Caribbean countries, and small and medium-sized companies in Latin American
and Caribbean countries.
Serial No. 85890006
- 5 -

Although we must consider the marks in their entireties, one feature of a mark
may be more significant than another and it is not improper to give more weight to
this dominant feature in determining the commercial impression created by the
mark. See In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(“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. Indeed, this type of analysis
appears to be unavoidable.”). For instance, as our principal reviewing court has
observed, “[t]hat a particular feature is descriptive or generic with respect to the
involved goods or services is one commonly accepted rationale for giving less weight
to a portion of the mark.” See id. at 751.
Here, we find the dominant and distinguishing portion of the cited mark SII
INVESTMENTS, INC. is the letters “SII” due to the descriptiveness of the term
INVESTMENTS, INC., which merely describes a feature of Registrant’s services
and corporate status as evidenced by the disclaimer, and would not be looked upon
as a source-identifying element.
We likewise find the dominant and distinguishing portion of Applicant’s
mark to be the designation “SII.” In making this finding, we agree with
Applicant that “there is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will
dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or designs dispositive
of the issue.” In re Electrolyte Laboratories, Inc., 929 F.2d 645, 647, 16 USPQ2d
1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We nonetheless find in this case that the “SII” portion
Serial No. 85890006
- 6 -

of the mark is more likely to make the greater impression on purchasers and is
more likely to be remembered as the source-identify portion. We find so because,
although the globe design is clearly noticeable being approximately the same size as
the letters “SII,” the letters “SII” appear in a bolder eye-catching font. Moreover, in
the likely perception by consumers when viewing a globe, the design reinforces the
global, and particularly the Latin American focus of Applicant’s services. We point
out, too, that the stylization of the letters “SII” in Applicant’s mark does not
distinguish the two marks because we are required to consider the various ways in
which Registrant could display its mark in any font, style and color, including a
stylization that uses the font style and size employed by Applicant. See e.g., In re
Vittera Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909-10 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Star
Belly Sticher, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 2059, 2064 (TTAB 2013).
Although there are differences between the marks, as a whole, they are
substantially similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression
due to the shared letters “SII.”
We are not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments to the contrary. First, Applicant
maintains that “[g]iven that SII has no ordinary meaning and carries a commercial
impression as an acronym/initialism, a consumer would look to other indicators
when making a determination of source.” Applicant goes on to explain that the
acronym “SII” in its mark “represents the French words Societe interamericaine
d’investissment” and refers to Applicant’s activities as a multilateral development
bank whereas the same acronym in Registrant’s mark represents “service,
Serial No. 85890006
- 7 -

innovation and integrity.”4 The problem with this argument is that neither mark, as
depicted in the application and registration, includes any wording or other indicia
that would induce consumers to interpret the letters “SII” in the manner proposed
by Applicant.
Applicant also contends that there is no likelihood of confusion between its mark
and the cited mark because a consumer would see and recognize the font and
familiar globe design from Applicant’s other registrations.5 To the extent Applicant
is arguing that there is no likelihood of confusion because it has a recognizable
family of marks, such argument is unavailing. A family of marks argument is not
available to an applicant seeking to overcome a likelihood of confusion refusal in an
ex parte proceeding. The focus of the likelihood of confusion analysis must be on the
mark Applicant seeks to register vis-à-vis the cited mark, not other marks
Applicant may have used or registered. In re Cynosure, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1644, 1645
(TTAB 2009). See also In re Lar Mor International, Inc., 221 USPQ 180, 183 (TTAB
1983).
In considering whether the similarity of the marks factor favors a finding of
likelihood of confusion, a major issue is the strength of the cited mark. Applicant
argues that because of the prevalent use of similar acronyms, including a large
number of coexisting, similar registrations in the financial field, consumers will be

4 Br. p. 3-4, 4 TTABVue 9-10, Attachments to Applicant’s Response dated. December 20,
2013.
5 In that regard, Applicant made of record copies of its Registration No. 4435935 for the
mark and Registration No. 4435934 for the mark , both for the same
services at issue in this case.
Serial No. 85890006
- 8 -

able to differentiate the marks based on other factors. In order to show that the
cited mark is weak, Applicant has submitted a number of third-party registrations,
as well as Internet evidence.6 We find this evidence unpersuasive. As for the third-
party registrations, Applicant has introduced a number of what it categorizes as
“acronym” marks for goods and services in the financial field that coexist on the
Principal Register. These registrations include, by way of example, Registration No.
4413173 for the mark for financial asset management, funds investment,
investment management and providing financial information; Registration No.
2685196 for the mark SI BANK & TRUST for, inter alia, investment services,
namely estate planning and management services; financial analysis and
consultation services; Registration No. 1607637 for the mark SEI for “mutual funds
investment services”; Registration No. 3159416 for the mark “
for, inter alia, “funds investment, namely investing in banking and financial service
institutions; and Registration No. 3344010 for the mark for “insurance agency
and brokerage; insurance services, namely, writing property and casualty
insurance. Third party registrations by themselves have little probative value with
respect to the strength of a mark because they tell us nothing about whether or not
the marks are actually being used or the extent of any such use. Coach Services Inc.
v. Triumph Learning, 96 USPQ2d at 1614. Without evidence as to how, or whether,
the third-party marks have been used, we cannot assess whether any such use has

6 Attachments to Applicant’s Response dated December 20, 2013.
Serial No. 85890006
- 9 -

been so widespread as to have had an impact on consumer perceptions. Moreover,
none of the marks in the registrations contain all three letters “SII” and, as such,
are not as similar to the cited marks as is Applicant’s mark.
Applicant also made of record listings from www.acronymfinder.com in response
to the query “What does SII stand for?”. The listings consist of 46 “definitions” of the
acronym “SII.” The definitions include, for example, Seiko Instruments, Inc.,
Standards Institution of Israel, Special Investigative Inquiry and Sinclair Intimacy
Institute. These listings have no probative value because they provide no context as
to the nature and use of the listed terms (though many on their face appear to be
unrelated to the financial industry), or how consumers may encounter any such
uses. Moreover, even if customers were inclined to interpret the acronym SII in
accordance with one or more of the definitions shown, there is no reason why
customers would not assign the same meaning to the acronym in the marks of both
Applicant and Registrant. We further find the listings from www.acronymattic.com
of an additional 141 “possible definitions” of “SII” similarly deficient.
Lastly, Applicant made of record excerpts from various third-party websites in
which SII is purportedly used as an acronym in conjunction with trademarks or
trade names used in the economic growth, education and insurance fields. These
web sites include:7
i. http://www.sii-inc.org

7 Applicant also provided web pages from http://es.groupe-sii.com/en/group sii, the website
of SII group. A reading of the web page leads us to believe that the corporation operates
primarily in France. Accordingly, it has little probative value.
Serial No. 85890006
- 10 -

Sustainable Innovation Initiative (SII) is a US 501(c)3
non-profit organization dedicated to enabling sustainable
economies in tropical forest regions.
ii. http://www.see-africa.org/about-us.html
Social Impact Institute – Africa [SII] is a capacity
development firm that offers a range of services and also
runs its own portfolio of programs.
iii. Sifma (http://www.sifma.org/education/securities-industry-
institute-(sii)/investment-knowledge)

iv. Sii Insurance, Inc. (http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Simi-
Valley/sii-insurance-inc/71215756.aspx) The web page includes a listing for the
company.

While these Internet materials evidence use of the letters “SII,” in each instance
the letters are accompanied by additional matter that clearly lends each use a
distinct meaning. Even if that were not so, the probative value of these uses is
limited because the services listed in the web pages are unrelated, or only obliquely
related, to those identified in the application and the cited registration. See e.g.,
SBS Products Inc. v. Sterling Plastic & Rubber Products Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1147, 1149
n.6 (TTAB 1988) (“Even if evidence of such third-party uses were submitted, it
would be of no aid to respondent herein where the third-party usage was for goods
unrelated to either petitioner’s skin care products or respondent’s stuffing box
sealant.”).
Serial No. 85890006
- 11 -

This evidence fails to establish any weakness in Registrant’s mark due to any
form of common usage.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the dominant portion of
Applicant’s mark is identical to the dominant portion of the cited mark in
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. While we have not
overlooked the stylization and the design elements in Applicant’s mark, or the term
INVESTMENTS, INC. in Registrant’s mark because it is a descriptive term, or
Applicant’s arguments regarding the weakness of the letters “SII” in the cited mark,
we nonetheless find that Applicant’s mark and the cited standard
character mark, SII INVESTMENTS, INC., when considered in their entireties, are
substantially similar due to the shared letters “SII.”
We next consider the du Pont factor of the relatedness of the services and
compare Applicant’s financing and loan services, namely, arranging of loans,
financial guarantees, equity capital investments, and providing lines of credit to
local financial intermediaries for the economic development of Latin American and
Caribbean countries; local and regional investment services, namely, providing
loans to small and medium size companies in Latin American and Caribbean
countries with the “financial services, namely, securities brokerage and investment
advisory services,” as recited in the cited registration. In making our comparison, it
is well settled that the question of likelihood of confusion must be determined based
on an analysis of the services recited in Applicant’s application vis-à-vis the services
recited in the cited registration. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811
Serial No. 85890006
- 12 -

F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992); The Chicago Corp. v. North American
Chicago Corp., 20 USPQ 2d 1715 (TTAB 1991). Further, it is a general rule that
the services do not have to be identical or directly competitive to support a finding
that there is a likelihood of confusion. It is sufficient if the respective services are
related in some manner and/or that the conditions surrounding their marketing are
such that they would be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that
could, because of the similarity of the marks used in connection therewith, give rise
to the mistaken belief that they emanate from or are associated with a single
source. In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785 (TTAB 1993); In re
International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910, 911 (TTAB 1978).
Based on the identifications themselves, we find that Applicant’s services and
Registrant’s broadly worded investment advisory services are clearly
complementary financial services that could be used together by the same consumer
and for the same purpose, i.e., investment opportunities in Latin America and the
Caribbean. That is, persons seeking such investment opportunities could obtain
investment advice from Registrant and investment financing from Applicant in the
form of either loans or equity capital investments. Further, the evidence of record
also indicates that Applicant’s services are likely to be perceived as originating from
the same source as Registrant’s services. Specifically, the Examining Attorney made
of record with her first Office action copies of twenty-three (23) use-based, third-
party registrations showing services of the same or similar types as those of
Applicant and Registrant offered by the same entity. Third-party registrations that
Serial No. 85890006
- 13 -

individually cover different services and that are based on use in commerce serve to
suggest that the listed services are of a type that may emanate from a single source.
See Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988) (Although
third-party registrations are “not evidence that the marks shown therein are in use
on a commercial scale or that the public is familiar with them, [they] may
nonetheless have some probative value to the extent that they may serve to suggest
that such goods or services are of a type which may emanate from a single source”).
See also In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (TTAB 1993). These
registrations include, by way of example:
Registration No. 3815042 for, inter alia, “Financial
services for residential and commercial customers,
namely, loan financing and arranging of loans” and
“investment advisory services”;
Registration No. 3668668 for, inter alia, “Capital
investment services and equity capital investment” and
“advice relating to investments and financial planning
and investment advisory services”;
Registration No. 3868172 for, inter alia, “equity capital
investment services” and “investment advisory services”;
Registration No. 3815588 for, inter alia, “consumer
installment and business loans and lines of credit” and
“investment counseling”;
Registration No. 4198824 for, inter alia, “equity capital
investment” and “financial advice and consultancy
services and investment advisory services”;
Registration No. 3789977 for, inter alia, “advice relating
to investments and Financial planning and investment
advisory services” and “equity capital investments”;
Serial No. 85890006
- 14 -

Registration No. 3484963 for, inter alia, “capital
investment consultation and investment advisory
services” and “equity capital investment”; and
Registration No. 4021976 for, inter alia, “equity capital
investment” and “investment advisory services.”8
The Examining Attorney also made of record Internet materials showing
services of the same or very similar types identified by Applicant and Registrant
offered on the same website under the same mark See, e.g., www.jpmorgan.com.
(J.P. Morgan offers financial services in Latin America, including money lending
and provides corporate finance advice to Investment banking clients);
www.morganstanley.com. (Morgan Stanley offers investment banking and
investment services in Latin America and investment advisory services to clients in
the United States); and www.Goldmansachs.com. (Goldman Sachs offers leveraged
loans and structured finance services in Latin America and investment
management and advisory services to clients in the United States).9
Based on the nature of the services as identified in Applicant’s application and
the cited registration, and on the third-party evidence of record, we conclude that
Applicant’s and Registrant’s respective services are complementary and closely

8 The remaining registrations are for similar services and are Registration Nos. 3812243,
3928012, 4140611, 4295973, 4199147, 4021976, 4155211, 4082805, 4076676, 4167327,
4263634, 4322198, 4314845, 4337591, 4346121 and 4364622.
We note that Registration Nos. 3868172 and 4155211 are owned by the same entity. We
note further that Registration No. 3203939 has been cancelled pursuant Section 8 of the
Trademark Act. A cancelled or expired registration has no probative value other than to
show that it once issued.
9 The Examining Attorney also made of record materials from the website Bank of
America/Merrill Lynch. Because the materials did not show use of a single mark for
services identified in both Applicant’s application and the cited registration, it has no
probative value.
Serial No. 85890006
- 15 -

related services that are often offered under a single mark by a single entity such
that, when identified by substantially similar marks, i.e., and SII
INVESTMENTS, INC., confusion as to source is likely.
Applicant appears to question the probative value of the third-party
registrations, particularly arguing that the existence of such registrations “does not
show that it is normal for a single source to provide the [identified] services” or that
“a consumer would assume [the recited services] come from the same source, even
when provided under the same mark.”10 We reiterate that the third-party
registrations merely serve to suggest that such services are of a type which may
emanate from a single source, because they indicate that companies selected a
single mark for use with the various services, and alleged to the USPTO that they
were using the mark for those services. In any case, the Examining Attorney did not
base her assertion that the services involved herein are related solely on the third-
party registrations. Rather, as discussed above, her assertion, and our finding, is
based on the entirety of the record including the respective identifications on their
face.
Applicant attempts to distinguish its services from those of Registrant by
arguing that its services are provided “with the overall mandate of fostering private
sector development in [Latin American and Caribbean] countries,” whereas
“Registrant is a broker/dealer firm that supervises the sale of securities.”11

10 Br. p. 6, 4 TTABVue 12.
11 Br. p. 5, 4 TTABVue 11.
Serial No. 85890006
- 16 -

However, Registrant’s services also include investment advice services, which are
not limited as to geographical scope and could be offered with respect to
investments in Latin America and Caribbean countries. As stated above, we are
constrained to compare the services based on the recitations in Applicant’s
application and the cited registration. See e.g., In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229
USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986) (an applicant may not restrict the scope of the goods
covered in the cited registration by argument or extrinsic evidence).
Applicant similarly argues with respect to the channels of trade and classes of
purchasers that its services are “catered specifically to small and medium sized
companies in developing Latin American and Caribbean countries.” Although
Applicant’s identification of services includes limitations as to classes of purchasers,
Registrant’s identification is not restricted in any manner. Accordingly, we must
presume that Registrant’s services will be offered in the usual channels of trade and
to the usual classes of purchasers, including, small and medium sized Latin
American and Caribbean corporations seeking advice on investment opportunities.
Thus, at a minimum, the class of purchasers overlaps. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639
(TTAB 1981).
In view of the above, the du Pont factors of the relatedness of the services and
classes of purchasers favor a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Sophistication of the Purchasers
Serial No. 85890006
- 17 -

With respect to the du Pont factor of conditions under which sales are made,
Applicant, citing to a non-precedential decision,12 argues that “the Board has
previously addressed the high level of sophistication among purchasers specifically
in the financial field, which may minimize the potential for likelihood of confusion
in the present case.”13 Apart from the fact that each case is decided on its own
merits,14 see In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to
[applicant’s] application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not
bind the Board or this court.”) and, even if we were to assume that the purchasers of
both Applicant’s and Registrant’s services are sophisticated consumers, Applicant
did not provide any evidence regarding the decision-making-process used by these
purportedly sophisticated purchasers, the role trademarks play in their decision
making process, or how observant and discriminating they are in practice.
Accordingly, the problem with Applicant’s argument is that there is no

12 Applicant did not make a copy of this decision of record. Moreover, although parties may
cite to non-precedential cases, the Board does not encourage the practice. Corporacion
Habanos SA v. Rodriguez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1875 n.5 (TTAB 2011). See also In re Luxuria
s.r.o., 100 USPQ2d 1146, 1151 n.7 (TTAB 2011) (parties may cite to non-precedential
decisions, but they are not binding on the Board and because they have no precedential
effect, the Board will generally not discuss them in other decisions).
13 Br. p. 7, 4 TTABVue 13.
14 In further regard, Applicant, throughout its brief, cited to numerous non-precedential
and precedential decisions to support its position. The Board is not bound by the prior
decisions of examining attorneys in allowing marks for registration. We are obligated to
assess the registrability of Applicant’s mark on its own merits and not simply based on the
existence of other registrations. See In re Brown-Forman Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1284, 1286 n.3
(TTAB 2006); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1047, 1048 n.2 (TTAB 2002).

Serial No. 85890006
- 18 -

corroborating evidence. See Refreshment Machinery Inc. v. Reed Industries, Inc., 196
USPQ 840, 843 (TTAB 1977) (selling to a sophisticated purchaser does not
automatically eliminate the likelihood of confusion because “[i]t must also be shown
how the purchasers react to trademarks, how observant and discriminating they are
in practice, or that the decision to purchase involves such careful consideration over
a long period of time that even subtle differences are likely to result in recognition
that different marks are involved”). Moreover, even knowledgeable and careful
purchasers can be confused as to source, where, as here, substantially similar
marks are used in connection with closely related and complementary services. See
In re Research Trading Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 230 USPQ 49, 50 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
citing Carlisle Chemical Works, Inc. v. Hardman & Holden Ltd., 434 F.2d 1403, 168
USPQ 110, 112 (CCPA 1970) ("Human memories even of discriminating purchasers
… are not infallible.").
After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments of record, including
those arguments not specifically addressed, we conclude that prospective
purchasers familiar with the registered mark SII INVESTMENTS, INC. for
financial services, namely, securities brokerage and investment advisory services
would be likely to believe, upon encountering Applicant’s mark for
financing and loan services, namely, arranging of loans, financial guarantees,
equity capital investments, and providing lines of credit to local financial
intermediaries for the economic development of Latin American and Caribbean
countries and local and regional investment services, namely, providing loans to
Serial No. 85890006
- 19 -

small and medium size companies in Latin American and Caribbean countries, that
such services emanate from, or are sponsored by or affiliated with the same source.
We principally find so due to the substantial similarities of the marks, the
complementary and related nature of the services and the overlapping classes of
purchasers.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark under Section 2(d)
of the Act is affirmed.