John Robert Weber

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2008

No. 78908583 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2008)

Mailed: August 29, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________

In re John Robert Weber
___________

Serial No. 78908583
___________

John Robert Weber, Pro Se.

Tejbir Singh, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106
(Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
____________

Before Quinn, Walters and Wellington, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:

John Robert Weber has filed an application to register
the standard character mark TRAVELWEBER on the Principal
Register for “travel information services,” in International
Class 39.1
The examining attorney has issued a final refusal to
register under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s mark so resembles

1 Serial No. 78908583, filed June 14, 2006, based on an allegation of a
bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

THIS OPINION
IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Serial No. 78908583

2
the previously registered marks shown below that, if used in
connection with applicant’s services, it would be likely to
cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.2
Registration No. 2827849 [Registered March 30, 2004]
Mark:

Identification of Goods:
“Providing rate comparison information for travel and
lodging services,” in International Class 35; “providing
travel information services via a global computer network;
travel agency services, namely, checking availability and
making reservations and bookings for transportation via a
global computer network,” in International Class 39; “travel
agency services, namely, checking availability and making
reservations and bookings for temporary lodging via a global
computer network,” in International Class 43.
Owner: Travelweb LLC
Additional Information:
The mark consists of the stylized mark "TRAVELWEB" together
with an arch that curves over and behind "TRAVELWEB" and is
shaded to give the appearance of being three-dimensional.

Registration No. 2413708 [Registered December 19, 2000;
Section 8 affidavit accepted]
Mark: TRAVELWEB
Identification of Goods:
“Providing car rental and airline information by internal
computer communications networks and over the global
computer information network; travel agency services, namely
making reservations for car rentals and airline tickets,” in
International Class 39; “providing hotel, motel and
temporary lodging information by internal computer
communications networks and over the global computer

2 The final refusal also includes Registration No. 2482587 as a basis
for the Section 2(d) refusal. However, this registration was cancelled
under Section 8 and, therefore, the refusal is moot as to this
registration.

Serial No. 78908583

3
information network; travel agency services, namely making
reservations for hotel, motel and temporary information
lodging,” in International Class 42.
Owner: Travelweb LLC

Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
examining attorney have filed briefs. We affirm the
refusals 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 likelihood of
confusion issue. See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also Palm
Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee
En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In
re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65
USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003); and In re Dixie Restaurants
Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In considering the evidence of record on these factors,
we keep in mind that “[t]he fundamental inquiry mandated by
Section 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in
the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and
differences in the marks.” Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort
Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA
1976); and In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50
USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999) and the cases cited therein.

Serial No. 78908583

4
Services
The examining attorney contends that applicant’s and
registrant’s identified services are closely related, if not
the same. The examining attorney states that applicant’s
and registrant’s “travel information services” (Reg. No.
2827849) are the same; and that applicant’s “travel
information services” are related to registrant’s providing
of online information regarding car rental and airline
tickets (Reg. No. 2413708) because registrant’s services
would be used by consumers as they make their travel plans.
In support of this position, the examining attorney
submitted copies of numerous third-party registrations
showing these types of services, including travel
information services and travel agency services, identified
in a single registration; and excerpts from several Internet
websites showing that travel information services and travel
agency services are offered on the same website and that
these services are marketed in the same trade channels to
the same consumers.
Applicant contends that the services are different
because applicant “does not provide travel agency services
[and] does not make reservations and bookings for
transportation” and his services “do not include … making
reservations for car rentals and airline tickets” (brief, p.
2). Applicant states that he provides travel information
Serial No. 78908583

5
only and consumers must make their reservations,
confirmations and payments directly with the service
provider. Applicant also contends that “the online consumer
is sophisticated and knowledgeable enough to determine the
difference between TRAVELWEB and TRAVELWEBER” (id.).
The question of likelihood of confusion must be
determined based on an analysis of the goods or services
recited in applicant’s application vis-à-vis the goods or
services recited in the registration, rather than what the
evidence shows the goods or services actually are. Canadian
Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d
1813, 1815 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also, Octocom Systems,
Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16
USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992); and The Chicago Corp. v. North
American Chicago Corp., 20 USPQ2d 1715 (TTAB 1991).
Further, it is a general rule that goods or services need
not be identical or even competitive in order to support a
finding of likelihood of confusion. Rather, it is enough
that goods or services are related in some manner or that
some circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that
they would be likely to be seen by the same persons under
circumstances which could give rise, because of the marks
used therewith, to a mistaken belief that they originate
from or are in some way associated with the same producer or
that there is an association between the producers of each
Serial No. 78908583

6
parties’ goods or services. In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d
1386 (TTAB 1991), and cases cited therein; and Time Warner
Entertainment Co. v. Jones, 65 USPQ2d 1650, 1661 (TTAB
2002).
The services identified in cited Registration No.
2827849 include “… travel information via a global computer
network,” which is encompassed within applicant’s broader
identification of “travel information services,” and, thus,
these services are in part identical. Additionally, the
evidence of record clearly establishes a relationship
between applicant’s travel information services and the
travel agency services identified in both of the cited
registrations. It is unnecessary to consider whether, or to
what extent, applicant’s services are related or similar to
the remaining services recited in the cited registrations.
The du Pont factor regarding the services weighs
against applicant.
Trade Channels and Purchasers
Turning to the du Pont factors regarding the channels
of trade and the conditions under which and buyers to whom
sales are made, we note, first, that applicant’s recitation
of services is not limited in this regard. Thus, we presume
that applicant’s services would be offered in all ordinary
trade channels for these services and to all normal classes
of purchasers. See In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716
Serial No. 78908583

7
(TTAB 1992). While the identical travel information and
travel agency services in cited Registration No. 2827849 are
rendered “via a global computer network,” this trade channel
is encompassed within applicant’s broadly identified
services, i.e., applicant may also render its services via
the Internet. The trade channels for the travel agency
services recited in Registration No. 2413708 are not so
limited and, thus, applicant’s services and these closely
related travel agency services are likely to be rendered in
overlapping, if not the same, channels of trade. In other
words, the applicant’s and registrant’s trade channels are
overlapping and/or the same.
Neither the application nor either of the cited
registrations is limited with respect to the purchasers of
the respective services. Thus, while the class of
purchasers may encompass sophisticated individuals, it also
includes all members of the general public, i.e., all levels
of sophistication. Further, even sophisticated purchasers
are susceptible to source confusion, particularly under
circumstances where, as here, the services are the same or
closely related. 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."). See
Serial No. 78908583

8
also Wincharger Corp. v. Rinco, Inc., 297 F.2d 261, 132 USPQ
289 (CCPA 1962); and In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ
588 (TTAB 1983). While some members of the general public
may exercise care in obtaining travel information and making
travel plans, there is no evidence in this regard in the
record and we must presume that all levels of care will be
exercised in utilizing the respective services.
The du Pont factors regarding the services, channels of
trade and purchasers weigh against applicant.
Marks
The examining attorney contends that the marks are
substantially similar because the word portion of the
registered design mark is dominant; both applicant’s and
registrant’s marks contain the terms “travel” and “web”
combined in the same order as that of applicant to form a
single word; and the “er” at the end of applicant’s mark
does not distinguish it from the registered marks.
Applicant appears to argue that the marks can be
distinguished because his last name is “Weber” and, thus,
this portion of his mark will be perceived as his last
name.3

3 Applicant concludes that “fair use” requires that he be permitted to
use his name. We note that this is not a concept that is relevant to
the issue of registrability. See Nina Ricci S.A.R.L. V. E.T.F.
Enterprises Inc., 889 F.2d 1070, 12 USPQ2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(VITTORIO RICCI for handbags, clothing and retail store services in the
field of clothing is likely to cause confusion with NINA RICCI for
clothing and accessories even though Vittorio Ricci was the name of
defendant’s principal); Ford Motor Co. v. Ford, 462 F.2d 1405, 174 USPQ
Serial No. 78908583

9
In determining whether applicant’s mark and the
registered mark, when viewed in their entireties, are
similar in terms of appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression, 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 impressions
that confusion as to the source of the goods or services
offered under the respective marks is likely to result. The
focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who
normally retains a general rather than a specific impression
of trademarks. See Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190
USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975). Furthermore, although the marks at
issue must be considered in their entireties, it is well
settled that 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

456, 458 (CCPA 1972) (“the interest in allowing an entrepreneur to use
his own surname as a trademark on his goods must give way to the more
compelling public and private interests involved in avoiding a
likelihood of confusion or mistake as to source where use of the surname
leads to such confusion or mistake”). See also Justin Industries, Inc.
v. D.B. Rosenblatt, Inc., 213 USPQ 968, 976 (TTAB 1981) (“the right to
use one’s name in his business may be circumscribed if it conflicts with
a mark previously used by another and is likely to cause confusion as to
the origin of the business or of the goods sold thereunder”); Jack
Winter Inc. v. Lancer of California, Inc., 183 USPQ 445, 446 (TTAB 1974)
(DAVID WINTER for clothing is likely to cause confusion with JACK WINTER
for clothing); Girard-Perregaux & Cie, S.A. v. Perregaux, 122
USPQ 95, 96 (Comm’r. Pats. 1959) (“Paul Perregaux” is likely to be
confused with “Girard Perregaux” and “Perregaux”).

Serial No. 78908583

10
impression created by the mark. See In re National Data
Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Applicant’s mark consists of the word portion of the
registered marks with the addition of the letters “er” as a
suffix. The mark TRAVELWEB in Registration No. 2431708 is
in standard character form, as is applicant’s mark,
TRAVELWEBER. Registration No. 2827849 consists of the
single word TRAVELWEB in a non-distinctive script, with the
two individual words “travel” and “web” in different font
shades so that it is visually obvious that the whole term
TRAVELWEB consists of the merger of two individual words,
“travel” and “web.” The arch over the term TRAVELWEB serves
to highlight that term. Due to the nature of this design,
we find that the term TRAVELWEB is the dominant portion of
the mark. Moreover, it is the wording TRAVELWEB that would
be used by purchasers to search for registrant’s services.
Thus, the wording would make a greater impression on
purchasers and is the portion that is more likely to be
remembered as the dominant and source-signifying portion of
the registered mark. In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59
USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 2001) (“words are normally accorded
greater weight because they would be used by purchasers to
request the goods”). See also, e.g., In re Appetito
Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (1987).
Serial No. 78908583

11
Applicant appears to argue that the connotations of the
marks are different because purchasers will understand the
letters WEBER in his mark as applicant’s last name.
However, only those persons familiar with applicant are
likely to, perhaps, so perceive applicant’s mark. In this
day of the ubiquitous Internet, it is equally likely that
these same purchasers, as well as all other members of the
general public, would understand “er” in applicant’s mark as
a suffix to the term TRAVELWEB, which consists of the two
recognizable words “travel” and “web.” As such they are
more likely to understand TRAVELWEBER as suggesting someone
who uses the “web” to research and reserve “travel.” In
this case, the connotation of the “TRAVELWEB” portion of
applicant’s mark is likely to be the same as the connotation
of TRAVELWEB in the registered marks. When we consider the
marks as a whole, we consider them to be more similar than
dissimilar.
While applicant argues that he will distinguish his
mark from the registered marks by including the phrase
TRAVELWEBER IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH TRAVELWEB on “each
individual deliverable” (brief, p. 2), this is irrelevant to
our determination of the registrability of the mark,
TRAVELWEBER, in this application. That phrase is not part
of the mark in the application and we must consider only the
applied-for mark.
Serial No. 78908583

12
Conclusion
When we consider the record and the relevant likelihood
of confusion factors, and all of applicant's arguments
relating thereto, including those arguments not specifically
addressed herein, we conclude that in view of the
substantial similarity in the commercial impressions of
applicant’s mark, TRAVELWEBER, and registrant’s marks,
TRAVELWEB in standard characters and in a design format,
their contemporaneous use on the same and closely related
services involved in this case is likely to cause confusion
as to the source or sponsorship of such services.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(d) of the Act is
affirmed.