Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2003

No. 76231881 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2003)

Paper No. 10
EWH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
____________
In re Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc.
____________
Serial No. 76/231,881
____________
Edgar A. Zarins for Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc.
Brendan Regan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113
(Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Hanak, Holtzman and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hanak, Administrative Trademark Judge.
Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc. seeks to register in typed
drawing form REFLECTIONS for “wall-mounted kitchen and bath
cabinetry.” The intent-to-use application was filed on
March 29, 2001.
Citing Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, the
Examining Attorney has refused registration on the basis
that applicant’s mark, as applied to applicant’s goods, is
likely to cause confusion with the identical mark
REFLECTIONS, previously registered in typed drawing form
Ser. No. 76/231,881
2
for “wall units – namely, free standing storage units.”
Registration No. 1,208,415.
When the refusal to register was made final, applicant
appealed to this Board. Applicant and the Examining
Attorney filed briefs. Applicant did not request a
hearing.
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key,
although not exclusive, considerations are the similarities
of the marks and the similarities of the goods. Federated
Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192
USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated
by Section 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of
differences in the essential characteristics of the goods
and differences in the marks.”).
Considering first the marks, they are absolutely
identical, as applicant concedes at page 3 of its brief.
Both are for the mark REFLECTIONS depicted in typed drawing
form. Thus, the first Dupont “factor weighs heavily
against applicant” because applicant’s mark is identical to
the cited mark. In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.,
748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Turning to a consideration of applicant’s goods and
the goods of the cited registration, we note that because
the marks are identical, their contemporaneous use can lead
Ser. No. 76/231,881
3
to the assumption that there is a common source “even when
[the] goods or services are not competitive or
intrinsically related.” In re Shell Oil Co., 922 F.2d 1204,
26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, in this
case, we find that applicant’s goods (wall-mounted kitchen
and bath cabinetry) are clearly related to the goods of the
cited registration (wall units – namely, free standing
storage units).
To begin with, we note that the term “cabinet” is
defined as follows: “a case with drawers or shelves for
holding or storing things.” Webster’s New World Dictionary
(2d ed. 1975)(emphasis added). Thus, by definition, a
cabinet is a case for storing things. The term “storage
units” which appears in registrant’s identification of
goods is broad enough to encompass cabinets or cabinetry.
Moreover, both applicant’s cabinets (or cabinetry) and
registrant’s storage units are designed to be mounted on
walls. In sum, despite differences in terminology, we find
that the identification of goods in the cited registration
is broad enough to encompass applicant’s goods.
In an effort to distinguish its goods from
registrant’s goods, applicant argues that its goods are for
use in kitchens and bathrooms, whereas registrant’s goods
“are going to be used in the living areas of the home such
Ser. No. 76/231,881
4
as a family room, den or bedroom.” (Applicant’s brief page
3). We have two problems with applicant’s argument.
First, the description of goods in the cited
registration contains no limitation whatsoever as to where
the storage units would be utilized in a home. Absent such
a limitation in the identification of goods, we must
presume that registrant’s storage units would be used in
all parts of the home, including in the kitchen and
bathrooms.
Second, we note in passing that at page 3 of its
brief, applicant contradicts its own argument when it
states that registrant’s storage units can be used
“throughout the home as desired.”
In sum, given the fact that the marks are absolutely
identical and the fact that, at an absolute minimum, the
goods are closely related, we find that there exists a
likelihood of confusion.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.