Nemacolin Woodlands, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2018

No. 86918218 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2018)

Mailed: June 15, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Nemacolin Woodlands, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 86918218
_____

David V. Radack of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
for Nemacolin Woodlands, Inc.
Daniel F. Capshaw, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,
Chris A. F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Bergsman, Wellington, and Wolfson,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Nemacolin Woodlands, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark WOODLANDS SPA (in standard characters, “SPA” disclaimed)
for “health spa services for health and wellness of the body and spirit” in
International Class 44.1

1 Application Serial No. 86918218 was filed on February 24, 2016, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), based upon Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere and
use in commerce since at least as early as January 1988.
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 86918218

- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that
Applicant’s mark so resembles the following registered marks:2
Reg. No. Mark/ Owner Services/Class Reg. Date
1374148 THE WOODLANDS
(typeset)

The Woodlands
Land Development
Co., L.P., a ltd.
ptrshp of Texas,
composed of:
TWLDC Holdings
GP, L.L.C., a Texas
limited liability
company

Class 36 - renting apartments to
others; leasing commercial office
space to others.
Class 37 - planning, laying out and
constructing residential
communities for others; subdividing
and developing real property to the
order of others.
Class 39 - leasing warehouse space
to others.
Class 41 - providing recreational
facilities to others-namely,
gymnasium, athletic and swim
centers, tennis courts and golf
courses
Class 42 - hotel services
12/3/1985
Renewed
2397043

The Woodlands
Land Development
Company, L.P., a
ltd. ptrshp of Texas,
composed of:
MS TWC, Inc., a
Delaware Corp.,
and The Woodlands
Land Co. Inc., a
Texas Corp.

Class 42 - hotel services
10/24/2000
Renewed

Claiming
ownership
of
1360956,
1360957,
1374148.

2 Reg. No. 4825532 was also asserted as a bar, but it was cancelled on April 10, 2018.
Serial No. 86918218

- 3 -
Reg. No. Mark/ Owner Services/Class Reg. Date
2863289 WOODLANDS
OASIS (typeset)

Lake of the Torches
Federal Devel. Corp.

Class 41 - health club services,
amusement arcade services, and
providing swimming pool facilities
7/13/2004
Renewed

After the Trademark Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant
appealed to this Board. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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) (“du Pont”) (cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis
Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015)); see also In re Majestic
Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have
considered each du Pont factor that is relevant or for which there is evidence of record.
See M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 2006); ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232, 1242
(TTAB 2015) (“While we have considered each factor for which we have evidence, we
focus our analysis on those factors we find to be relevant.”). In any likelihood of
confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks
and the similarities between the goods or services. See In re Chatam Int’l Inc.,
380 F.2d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Federated Foods, Inc. v.
Serial No. 86918218

- 4 -
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.”); see also
In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
A. Strength of the Cited Registered Marks
Applicant argues that the fact that this mark was registered despite the prior
registrations for the marks THE WOODLANDS and THE WOODLANDS and design
shows that the term WOODLANDS is weak. Applicant further supports its argument
that the term WOODLANDS is weak by its submission of copies of three, third-party
registrations for marks containing the wording WOODLANDS.3 Applicant’s third-
party references are of limited probative value because they are few in number and
unsupported by evidence that these marks are actually being used. As pointed out by
the Examining Attorney, Registration No. 3813049 for the mark THE WOODLANDS
CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU and design involves unrelated services in the
field of special event planning and visitor bureau/promotional services. Registration
Nos. 5067396 and 5165660 each contain a different dominant and distinctive element
as the first and most dominant element of the marks (NEMACOLIN and
COLUMBIA) before the WOODLANDS portion. In addition, the term OASIS in the

3 Reg. No. 3813049 THE WOODLANDS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU and design
for, inter alia, “convention and visitors bureau services” and “special event planning” to
“promote recreation and tourism in the Woodlands, Texas area”; Reg. No. 5067396
NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS RESORT for “resort hotel services” (owned by Applicant); Reg.
No. 5165660 COLUMBIA WOODLANDS for, inter alia, “resort lodging services”; attached to
May 2, 2017 Response at 2-4.
Serial No. 86918218

- 5 -
mark WOODLANDS OASIS distinguishes it from the prior registrations, unlike the
generic term SPA in Applicant’s mark.
Applicant has not shown that WOODLANDS is weak or diluted for hotel or hotel-
related services; therefore it is not subject to a restricted scope of protection. See, e.g.,
Palm Bay Imps., 73 USPQ2d at 1693 (if the evidence establishes that the consuming
public is exposed to third-party uses of similar marks for similar goods, it “is relevant
to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of
protection”); cf. Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta Int’l, Inc., 95 USPQ2d 1271, 1278 (TTAB
2009) (according the name ANTHONY’S a restricted scope of protection because it
had been “extensively adopted, registered and used as a trademark for restaurant
services.”).
B. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks.
We turn first to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression. du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567. “Similarity in
any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In
re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014). In comparing the marks, we are
mindful that “[t]he 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) (quoting Leading Jewelers Guild
Serial No. 86918218

- 6 -
Inc. v. LJOW Holdings LLC, 82 USPQ2d 1901, 1905 (TTAB 2007)); see also San
Fernando Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elec. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1,
3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB
1991), aff’d mem., 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Because this factor is based on the marks in their entireties, our analysis cannot
be predicated on dissecting the marks into their various components; that is, the
decision must be based on the entire marks, not just part of the marks. In re Nat’l
Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also Franklin
Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 212 USPQ 233, 234 (CCPA 1981) (“It
is axiomatic that a mark should not be dissected and considered piecemeal; rather, it
must be considered as a whole in determining likelihood of confusion.”). On the other
hand, there is nothing improper in assigning more or less weight to a particular
feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the
marks in their entireties. Nat’l Data, 224 USPQ at 751.
Applicant’s mark is WOODLANDS SPA in standard characters. As the first and
only distinctive portion of Applicant’s mark, the term WOODLANDS is its dominant
element. Consumers are generally inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or
syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., 73 USPQ2d at 1692
(“VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first
word to appear on the label”); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513
(TTAB 2016) (“[T]he dominance of BARR in [a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is
reinforced by its location as the first word in the mark.”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-
Serial No. 86918218

- 7 -
Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a
mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and
remembered” when making purchasing decisions). The term SPA in the mark is less
significant since it is descriptive of Applicant’s services and has been appropriately
disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
In re Dixie Rest. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In each of the registered marks, the dominant feature of the mark is also the term
WOODLANDS. With respect to Reg. No. 1374148 for the mark THE WOODLANDS,
the marks are extremely similar in that the word “THE” at the beginning of the
registered mark does not have any trademark significance. As the Board noted in In
re Thor Tech, 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009):
“The” is a definite article. When used before a noun, it
denotes a particular person or thing (internal footnote
omitted). See In re Narwood Productions, Inc., 223 USPQ
1034 (TTAB 1984) (noting the insignificance of the word
“the” in comparison of THE MUSIC MAKERS and
MUSICMAKERS). See also In re Universal Package
Corporation, 222 USPQ 344, 345 (TTAB 1984); Conde Nast
Publications Inc. v. Redbook Publishing Company, 217
USPQ 356, 357 (TTAB 1983).
Thus, as used in the registered mark THE WOODLANDS, the word “The” simply
emphasizes the word “Woodlands.”
The registered design mark , owned by a related company, is
also dominated by the word WOODLANDS. Generally, when a mark comprises both
a literal portion and a design element, the literal portion is far more likely to be
impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when requesting the goods or
Serial No. 86918218

- 8 -
services. Joel Gott Wines, LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1431
(TTAB 2013) (citing In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB
1999)); see also In re Viterra, 101 USPQ2d at 1908 (“In the case of a composite mark
containing both words and a design, ‘the verbal portion of the mark is the one most
likely to indicate the origin of the goods to which it is affixed.’”) (citing CBS Inc. v.
Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)). That is
especially true where, as here, the design element is small, sits above the words, and
has a connotation directly associated with the wording in the mark, namely, the
stylized pine cone design reinforces the concept of the term “woodlands” in the
mark.”4 Thus, consumers are more likely to focus on the word WOODLANDS in the
mark and less likely to focus on the pine cone design.
Turning to the mark in Reg. No. 2863289, WOODLANDS OASIS, we again find
that WOODLANDS, as the first term in the mark, will be the term consumers are
most likely to recollect when recalling Registrant’s services. The addition of the term
OASIS does not detract from the overall similarity of the marks.
Accordingly, the first du Pont factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion with
respect to each of the cited registrations.
C. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the services.

4 See definition of “woodland,” defined in the MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY as “land
covered with woody vegetation: timberland, forest.” At www.merriam-webster.com, accessed
June 6, 2018. The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online
dictionaries that exist in printed format. In re Cordua Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.4
(TTAB 2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Threshold.TV Inc. v.
Metronome Enters. Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1031, 1038 n.14 (TTAB 2010).
Serial No. 86918218

- 9 -
Applicant is seeking to register its mark for “health spa services for health and
wellness of the body and spirit.” The Examining Attorney has focused on the following
services from each of the cited registrations: “hotel services” (from Registration Nos.
1374148 and 2397043 for the marks THE WOODLAND and THE WOODLAND and
design) and “health club services” (from Registration No. 2863289 for the mark
WOODLANDS OASIS). Under this du Pont factor, the Examining Attorney need not
prove, and we need not find, similarity as to each and every activity listed in the
identification of services. It is sufficient for a refusal based on likelihood of confusion
that relatedness is established for any activity encompassed by the identification of
services in a particular class in the application. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General
Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981); In re
i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d at 1409, aff’d 123 USPQ2d 1744; Inter IKEA Sys. B.V.
v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014).
We consider the services as they are described in the application and
registrations. See Stone Lion Capital Partners v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317,
1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys, Inc. v. Houston Comput.
Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The authority is
legion that the question of registrability of an applicant’s mark must be decided on
the basis of the identification of [services] set forth in the application regardless of
what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant’s [services],
the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to which the sales of
[services] are directed.”); see also Paula Payne Prods. v. Johnson Publ’g Co., 473 F.2d
Serial No. 86918218

- 10 -
901, 177 USPQ 76, 77 (CCPA 1973) (“Trademark cases involving the issue of
likelihood of confusion must be decided on the basis of the respective descriptions of
[services]”). The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular services, but
likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those services. In re Majestic
Distilling Co., 65 USPQ2d at 1205; In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26
USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
To show that the services are related, the Examining Attorney submitted copies
of third-party web pages, pages from Applicant’s website, and third-party
registrations of marks registered both for Applicant’s services and hotel or health club
services.
With respect to Registration Nos. 1374148 and 2397043 for the marks THE
WOODLAND and THE WOODLAND and design for “hotel services,” Applicant
concedes that many hotels offer spa services. 4 TTABVUE 4. Additionally, the
Examining Attorney has shown through third-party web pages that hotel service
providers also provide spa services under the same mark. For example:
• The Kimpton Lorien hotel and spa offers accomodations and spa
treatments at its Alexandria, Virginia location.5

• The Hyatt Regency “Monterey Hotel and Spa on Del Monte Golf Course”
offers a “destination hotel” where guests are “welcome to enjoy…the
rejuvenating treatments at Marilyn Monroe Spa.”6

• Hilton Richmond Hotel & Spa/Short Pump offers “rooms & suites” and a
“spa.”7

5 At http://www.lorienhotelandspa.com, attached to November 7, 2016 Office Action at 23-7.
6 At https://monterey.regency.hyatt.com, attached to November 7, 2016 Office Action at 28-9.
7 At http://www3.hilton.com, attached to November 7, 2016 Office Action at 30-32.
Serial No. 86918218

- 11 -

The Examining Attorney also submitted third-party registrations, based on
use, to show that hotel services and spa services have been registered under a
single mark by a single provider. For example:
• Registration No. 4092142 for the mark TRAVAASA owned by Green Tea,
LLC for services including “Hotel, bar and restaurant services; resort
hotels” as well as “Health spa services for health and wellness of the body
and spirit.”8

• Registration No. 4363336 for the mark HOTEL GALVEZ & SPA owned by
Eighteen Seventy Strand Corp., for services including “Hotel services” as
well as “Health spa services for health and wellness of the body and
spirit.”9

• Registration No. 4517575 for the mark CASA DEL MAR owned by The
Edward Thomas Hospitality Corp., for services including “Resort hotel
services” as well as “Health spa services for health and wellness of the body
and spirit.”10

Third-party registrations which individually cover a number of different items
and which are based on use in commerce may have some probative value to the extent
that they serve to suggest that the listed goods and/or services are of a type which
may emanate from a single source. See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126
n.6 (TTAB 2015); See also In re RiseSmart Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931, 1934-1935 (TTAB
2012); In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); and In re
Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993).

8 Attached to May 17, 2017 Final Office Action at 2-4.
9 Id. at 8-10.
10 Id. at 23-25.
Serial No. 86918218

- 12 -
As for Reg. No. 2863289 for WOODLANDS OASIS for “health club services,”
Applicant does not specifically address the Examining Attorney’s argument that the
services are related, but as noted supra, argues that the cited mark was registered
despite the prior registration of the two cited THE WOODLANDS marks for “services
that are somewhat related to hotel services.” 4 TTABVUE 5. However, the Examining
Attorney has shown through third-party web pages and registrations that it is
common for health clubs to also provide health spa services under the same mark.
Examples of websites include:
• Sport&Health offers fitness activities, personal training, and spa
services.11

• Total Fitness (“Your Community Health and Fitness Center”) offers
personal training, group exercise classes, exercise machines, and “Tarpon
total fitness spa services.”12

• Villa Sport, an “Athletic Club and Spa,” offers fitness equipment, classes
and kids club as well as the “VillaSpa,” a “full-service spa at the heart of
VillaSport.”13

Examples of third-party registrations include:
• Registration No. 3000219 for the mark W owned by Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide, LLC, for “Health club services, namely providing
instruction and equipment in the field of physical exercise; Health clubs
providing physical fitness facilities for recreational purposes” as well as
“Health spa services for health and wellness of the body and spirit.”14

• Registration No. 3335139 for the mark THE RANCH FITNESS CENTER
& SPA owned by On Top of the World Communities, Inc., for “Health club
services, namely providing instruction and equipment in the field of

11 At http://www.sportandhealth.com, attached to November 7, 2016 Office Action at 53-60.
12 At http://www.tarpontotalfitness.com, attached to November 7, 2016 Office Action at 61-2.
13 At https://www.villasport.com, attached to November 7, 2016 Office Action at 63-5.
14 Attached to May 17, 2017 Final Office Action at 233-235.
Serial No. 86918218

- 13 -
physical exercise; physical fitness consultation and personal training” as
well as “Health spa services for health and wellness of the mind, body and
spirit and cosmetic body care services.”15

• Registration No. 4494769 MINT owned by Downtown Fitness, Inc., for
“Health club services, namely, providing instruction and equipment in the
field of physical exercise” as well as “Health spa services for health and
wellness of the body and spirit, namely, providing massage, facial and body
treatment services, cosmetic body care services.”16

The record evidence supports a finding that the services are closely related. The
second du Pont factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
D. Established, likely-to-continue channels of trade.
Applicant’s services are “health spa services for health and wellness of the body
and spirit.” The cited registrations are for “hotel services” and “health club services.”
Because there are no limitations as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers in
the recitation of services in either the cited registrations or the application, we must
presume that Applicant’s health spa services and the Registrants’ hotel and health
club services move in all channels of trade normal for such services and are available
to all potential classes of ordinary consumers. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank
Group, Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Jump
Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640
(TTAB 1981). In this case, the Examining Attorney has shown that spa services are
offered at hotels and in health clubs to ordinary consumers. Accordingly, the channels

15 Id. at 236-238.
16 Id. at 257-259.
Serial No. 86918218

- 14 -
of trade and classes of purchasers overlap. This du Pont factor favors a finding of
likelihood of confusion.
E. Actual confusion.
Applicant claims that it has been using its mark since 1988, and made of record
its Registration No. 5067396 for the mark NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS RESORT for
“resort hotel services,” which Applicant claims has been in use since 1987.
Applicant argues that there has been no actual confusion between its mark and
the cited mark. The Federal Circuit has addressed the question of the weight to be
given to an assertion of no actual confusion by an applicant in an ex parte proceeding:
With regard to the seventh DuPont factor, we agree with
the Board that Majestic’s uncorroborated statements of no
known instances of actual confusion are of little
evidentiary value. See In re Bissett-Berman Corp., 476 F.2d
640, 642, 177 USPQ 528, 529 (CCPA 1973) (stating that
self-serving testimony of appellant’s corporate president’s
unawareness of instances of actual confusion was not
conclusive that actual confusion did not exist or that there
was no likelihood of confusion). A showing of actual
confusion would of course be highly probative, if not
conclusive, of a high likelihood of confusion. The opposite
is not true, however. The lack of evidence of actual
confusion carries little weight, [citation omitted], especially
in an ex parte context.
Majestic Distilling, 65 USPQ2d at 1205.
Accordingly, while examples of actual confusion may point toward a finding of a
likelihood of confusion, an absence of such evidence is not compelling in support of a
finding of no likelihood of confusion. Thus, we cannot conclude from the lack of
instances of actual confusion that confusion is not likely to occur.
Serial No. 86918218

- 15 -
In any event, this record is devoid of any probative evidence relating to the extent
of use of Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks and, thus, whether there have been
meaningful opportunities for instances of actual confusion to have occurred in the
marketplace. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842,
1847 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Gillette Canada Inc. v. Ranir Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1768, 1774
(TTAB 1992). This du Pont factor is neutral.17
II. BALANCING THE FACTORS
Because the marks are similar, the services are related and travel through the
same trade channels to the same prospective consumers, and the actual confusion
factor is neutral, we find that Applicant’s mark WOODLANDS SPA for “health spa
services for health and wellness of the body and spirit” is likely to cause confusion

17 To the extent Applicant intends to advance a prior registration defense based on its
ownership of the NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS RESORT mark, see Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v.
J. Strickland & Co., 407 F.2d 881, 160 USPQ 715, 717 (CCPA 1969), such defense is
unavailable in an ex parte context. In Re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397, 1399
(TTAB 2012). Nor do we find sufficient similarity between the marks WOODLANDS SPA
and NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS RESORT such that the apparent co-existence of
Applicant’s prior registration with the cited marks “tip[s] the scale in favor of applicant and
a finding of no likelihood of confusion.” Compare Strategic Partners, 102 at 1399 (applicant’s
prior registration for ANYWEARS in standard characters substantially similar to the
applied-for mark for identical goods) with In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC ___
USPQ2d ___ , Serial No. 87075988 (TTAB June 6, 2018) (existence of applicant’s earlier
registration for for “restaurant and bar services” with the mark for
identical services, is a “neutral factor in our determination of likelihood of confusion”).

Serial No. 86918218

- 16 -
with the registered marks THE WOODLANDS and THE WOODLANDS and design
for “hotel services,” and WOODLANDS OASIS for “health club services.”

Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed.