Leonard J. Broggrebe

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2002

No. 76088319 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2002)

Mailed: September 30, 2002
Paper No. 13
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Leonard J. Broggrebe
________
Serial No. 76/088,319
_______
George J. Netter for Leonard J. Broggrebe.
Leigh A. Lowry, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
109 (Ronald R. Sussman, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Hairston and Chapman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Leonard J. Broggrebe seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark “A.D. 2000” for “golf
clubs.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C.
1 Serial No. 76/088,319, filed July 10, 2000, and asserting first
use and first use in commerce in October 1998.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 76/088,319
2
§1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s mark is
confusingly similar to the mark shown below for “golf
clubs.”2
When the Examining Attorney made the refusal final,
applicant appealed. Both applicant and the Examining
Attorney filed briefs, but an oral hearing was not
requested.3
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. In re E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In any likelihood
2 Registration No. 2,382,311 issued September 5, 2000. The
registration contains the statement that “[t]he mark consists of
the letters ‘AD’ in a stylized font.” In addition, the letters
“AD” have been disclaimed apart from the mark as shown. We note
that the registration covers a number of goods and services, but
the Examining Attorney has based the refusal only on the “golf
clubs” listed therein.
3 This case was reassigned to a different Examining Attorney to
prepare the appeal brief.
Ser No. 76/088,319
3
of confusion analysis, two key factors are the similarities
between the marks and the relatedness of the goods.
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976).
In this case, the goods (golf clubs) are identical.
Thus, applicant and registrant’s goods must be assumed to
move in the same channels of trade (e.g., sporting goods
stores and mass merchandisers) to the same class of
purchasers, namely, the general public.
We focus our attention then on the involved marks. It
is applicant’s position that the marks are quite different
in overall commercial impression because registrant’s mark
is highly stylized, and thus would not be perceived as the
letters “AD” much less as a reference to the term “anno
Domini” (A.D.). Further, applicant points out that because
registrant’s name is Allied Domecq PLC, to the extent that
purchasers perceive registrant’s mark as “AD,” they will
view it as an acronym for registrant’s name and not as a
reference to a date such as applicant’s mark “A.D. 2000.”
Further, applicant argues that the inclusion of “2000” in
his mark aids in distinguishing the marks.
The Examining Attorney, on the other hand, argues that
because applicant seeks to register his mark in typed form,
he is not limited in presentation and could display the
Ser No. 76/088,319
4
mark in the same stylization as registrant’s mark.
Further, the Examining Attorney made of record excerpts
from Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1979), which show
that “A.D.” and “AD” are abbreviations for “anno Domini,”
and argues that purchasers may also perceive registrant’s
mark as a “date source.” Finally, the Examining Attorney
argues that the mere inclusion of “2000” in applicant’s
mark is insufficient to distinguish the marks.
After careful consideration of the arguments and
record in this case, we find that the marks are not
sufficiently similar such that confusion is likely. In
terms of appearance, as is obvious, the cited mark is not
simply “AD” in typed or block letters. Rather, the
registrant’s mark depicts “AD” in a highly stylized font.
Because of the highly stylized format of registrant’s mark,
we question whether the mark will even be perceived by
purchasers as the letters “AD.” The mark could just as
easily be perceived as a fanciful depiction of the symbol
“@” or simply the letter “A.” Although the registration
includes a statement that the mark consists of the letters
“AD,” purchasers are not aware of statements in
registrations.
Further, while we recognize that applicant seeks
registration of his mark in typed drawing form, this does
Ser No. 76/088,319
5
not mean that we must consider applicant’s mark in all
possible forms no matter how extensively stylized. Rather,
we must consider all “reasonable manners” in which
applicant’s mark could be depicted. See Jockey
International Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d
1233 (TTAB 1992). A reasonable manner of presentation
would not include presenting the “A.D.” portion of
applicant’s mark in the highly stylized format of
registrant’s mark. In sum, we find that the marks are not
similar in appearance.
In terms of sound or pronunciation, we likewise find
that the marks are not similar. As indicated, we are not
convinced that registrant’s highly stylized mark will even
be perceived by purchasers as the letters “AD” such that it
would be pronounced as “A” and “D”. Also, applicant’s mark
contains the additional term “2000” which leads to
differences in sound or pronunciation.
Finally, in terms of connotation, we recognize that
“A.D.” and “AD” are both abbreviations for “anno Domini.”
Applicant’s mark, however, connotes the particular year
2000. With respect to registrant’s mark, even if some
purchasers perceive the mark as the letters “AD,” it does
not connote the particular year 2000, as does applicant’s
mark. Moreover, among those purchasers who are also
Ser No. 76/088,319
6
familiar with registrant, it is likely that the mark will
be viewed as an acronym for registrant’s name. Thus, the
marks have different connotations.
In sum, we find on this ex parte record that the marks
differ in terms of sound, appearance, connotation and
overall commercial impression. Thus, notwithstanding the
identity of the involved goods, confusion is not likely in
this case.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act is reversed.