Nermin Celik

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2018

No. 79148589 (T.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: May 23, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Nermin Celik
_____

Serial No. 79148589
_____

Nicholas D. Wells of Legends Law Group PLLC,
for Nermin Celik.
Matt Einstein, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Shaw, Goodman, and Lynch,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Shaw, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Nermin Celik (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark GLAM COLA, in standard characters, for “Non-alcoholic beverages, namely,
cola,” in International Class 32.1 Applicant has disclaimed “COLA.”
The Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark, as used in connection
with the identified goods, so resembles the mark GLAM ENERGY, also in standard

1 Application Serial No. 79148589 based on International Reg. No. 1207344, which issued
March 7, 2014. The USPTO was notified of the request for extension on July 3, 2014.
Serial No.
- 2 -
characters, for “Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, sports drinks, energy drinks and
soft drinks,” in International Class 32, as to be likely to cause confusion.2 Registrant
disclaimed “ENERGY.”
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. The Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration, and
the appeal resumed. Both Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs. We
affirm the refusal to register the mark.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination of the issue of likelihood of confusion is based on an analysis
of all the probative facts in evidence relevant to the factors set forth in In re E. I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also, In re
Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any
likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between
the goods and the similarities between the marks. 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.”). We discuss each du Pont
factor for which there is evidence.

2 Registration No. 4207816, issued September 11, 2012; Section 8 and 15 affidavit and
declaration accepted and acknowledged.
Serial No.
- 3 -
A. The nature and similarity or dissimilarity of the goods, the established, likely-
to-continue trade channels, and the classes of purchasers.
We begin with the similarity of the respective goods. Applicant’s goods are “Non-
alcoholic beverages, namely, cola.” Registrant’s goods include “Non-alcoholic
beverages, namely . . . soft drinks.” Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are legally
identical inasmuch as “cola” is a type of “soft drink.”3 Applicant admits that
“Applicant’s goods and the goods in the cited registration may be related. . . .”4
Accordingly, we find that the respective goods are legally identical because
Applicant’s “cola” is encompassed by Registrant’s “soft drinks.”
Because the goods are legally identical, and identified without restriction, we
must presume that they are sold in all normal trade channels and to all normal
classes of purchasers for such goods. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion
Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, we
consider Applicant’s and Registrant’s trade channels and classes of purchasers to be
the same. In re Yawata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., 403 F.2d 752, 159 USPQ 721, 723
(CCPA 1968) (where there are legally identical goods, the channels of trade and
classes of purchasers are considered to be the same).
The du Pont factors regarding the similarity of the goods, channels of trade, and
classes of purchasers favor a finding of a likelihood of confusion.

3 Office Action of July 10, 2014, p. 13, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cola. “Cola” is
defined as “a carbonated soft drink colored usually with caramel and flavored usually with
extracts from kola nuts.”
4 Applicant’s Br., p. 4, 8 TTABVUE 5.
Serial No.
- 4 -
B. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods
We next consider the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods,
the sixth du Pont factor. Du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567. In an ex parte appeal, “[t]he
purpose of [an applicant] introducing third-party uses is to show that customers have
become so conditioned by a plethora of such similar marks that customers have been
educated to distinguish between different such marks on the bases of minute
distinctions.” Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en
1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Jack Wolfskin
Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797
F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS
Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1675-76 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he
strength of a mark is not a binary factor” and “varies along a spectrum from very
strong to very weak.” Juice Generation, 115 USPQ2d at 1675-76 (internal citations
omitted). “The weaker [Registrant’s] mark, the closer an applicant’s mark can come
without causing a likelihood of confusion and thereby invading what amounts to its
comparatively narrower range of protection.” Id. at 1676 (internal citations omitted).
GLAM is a short form of “glamorous,”5 which is defined as “full of glamour;
charmingly or fascinatingly attractive, especially in a mysterious or magical way.”6
Applicant argues that “the shared term ‘GLAM’ is . . . weak and is widely used in

5 Office Action of July 10, 2014, p. 10, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/
glam.
6 Request for Reconsideration of September 14, 2017, p. 368, www.dictionary.com/browse/
glamorous.
Serial No.
- 5 -
connection with health supplements, personal care products, and food and beverage
products because it is suggestive of excitement or adventure, or of something that is
‘charmingly or fascinatingly attractive.’”7 For support, Applicant submitted evidence
relating to third-party GLAM-formative marks comprising one hundred and seven
trademark registrations and fifty-nine examples of third party products.8
The vast majority of Applicant’s evidence regarding third-party use and
registration of GLAM-formative marks is of little probative value because the
evidence relates to cosmetics, hair care, or other beauty products, not non-alcoholic
beverages. When used on personal care products, GLAM (or GLAMOROUS) has a
very different connotation as compared to when it is used on non-alcoholic beverages.
Accordingly, Applicant’s examples of GLAM-formative marks used in connection with
cosmetics, hair care, and beauty products do not establish that GLAM is weak for
non-alcoholic beverages. See i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744,
1751 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (disregarding third-party registrations for goods because the
proffering party “has neither introduced evidence, nor provided adequate explanation
to support a determination that the existence of I AM marks for goods in other classes,
. . . support a finding that registrants’ marks are weak with respect to the goods
identified in their registrations.”); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1639
(TTAB 2009) (citing Key Chems., Inc. v. Kelite Chems. Corp., 464 F.2d 1040, 175

7 Applicant’s Br., p. 7, 8 TTABVUE 8.
8 Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of September 14, 2017, pp. 14–431.
Serial No.
- 6 -
USPQ 99, 101 (CCPA 1972)) (third-party registrations for unrelated goods of little
probative value)).
Some of Applicant’s additional examples of third-party GLAM-formative marks
are used in connection with various food products, such as snack foods, baked goods,
nutritional supplements, and hamburgers.9 But as explained above, the applicable
du Pont factor is the “number and nature of similar marks on similar goods.” Du Pont,
177 USPQ at 567 (emphasis added). The meaning of “similar goods” does not extend
to any and all food products, so these examples also do not establish that the term
GLAM is weak for non-alcoholic beverages. See Thor Tech, 90 USPQ2d at 1639; Hi-
Country Foods Corp. v. Hi Country Beef Jerky, 4 USPQ2d 1169, 1171-72 (TTAB 1987)
(“[N]o ‘per se’ rule that all food products are related goods by nature.”).
Only two of Applicant’s third party registrations of GLAM-formative marks are
used in connection with beverages: Registration No. 5072424 for the mark GLAM
COCKTAILS for “non-alcoholic cocktail mixes” and Registration No. 4389371 for the
mark TRUEGLAMOUR for “alcoholic beverages except beers; prepared alcoholic
cocktails; [and] distilled spirits.”10 Similarly, only four of Applicant’s examples of
third-party use of GLAM-formative marks show use in connection with beverages,
specifically, alcoholic beverages:

9 E.g., Reg. No. 5022778 for GLAM GIRL for snack foods; Reg. No. 4812316 for GLAM POP
for popcorn; Reg. No. 4680003 for GLAMOUR NUTRITION for dietary and nutritional
supplements; and Reg. No. 3890145 for GLAMBURGERS for hamburgers.
10 Reg. No. 4004936 for the mark GLAM COFFEE was cancelled on March 9, 2018.
Serial No.
- 7 -

“GLAM Fizz” for sparkling wine11

“GLAM” for sparkling wine12

“GLAMMA” for wine13

“El Rey Del GLAM” for wine14

Applicant does not explain how GLAM-formative marks used in connection with
alcoholic beverages affect consumer perceptions relating to non-alcoholic beverages.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the universe of “similar goods” at issue could include

11 Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of September 14, 2017, p. 381.
12 Id. at 402.
13 Id. at 411.
14 Id. at 431.
Serial No.
- 8 -
alcoholic beverages, we do not find the foregoing six examples to be particularly
probative. Three of the marks, TRUEGLAMOUR, GLAMMA, and EL REY DEL
GLAM, contain the term GLAM, but nevertheless create significantly different
commercial impressions because of the additional wording. Only the GLAM
COCKTAILS, GLAM FIZZ, and GLAM marks arguably are similar in structure to
Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks. But these three examples of GLAM do not
support a finding that GLAM is so weak as to warrant a reduced scope of protection
when used in connection with soft drinks. The third-party evidence here is far less
voluminous and compelling than that in Juice Generation, 115 USPQ2d at 1673 n.1,
or in Jack Wolfskin, 116 USPQ2d at 1136 n.2. See also Primrose Retirement
Communities, LLC v. Edward Rose Senior Living, LLC, 122 USPQ2d 1030 (TTAB
2016) (weakness found based on, inter alia, at least 85 actual uses of ROSE-formative
marks for similar services, eight similar third-party registrations, and expert
testimony and other evidence regarding the common nature of ROSE-formative
marks in the industry). That is, based on the paucity of third-party trademark uses
for beverages, we cannot conclude on the record before us that consumers have been
exposed to so many GLAM-formative trademarks for use in connection with soft
drinks that “customers ‘have been educated to distinguish between different [such]
marks on the bases of minute distinctions.’” Palm Bay, 73 USPQ2d at 1694 (internal
citations omitted).
Applicant also argues that “[t]he clear meaning of GLAM within both marks
suggests that it is laudatory in nature, and thus is subject to a reduced scope of
Serial No.
- 9 -
protection.” This argument too, is unpersuasive. We do not find that GLAM is
laudatory when used in connection with non-alcoholic beverages. The few examples
of GLAM-formative beverage marks do not credibly establish that soft drinks can be
described as “full of glamour; charmingly of fascinatingly attractive, especially in a
mysterious or magical way.” Rather, the term GLAM is more likely to be seen as
suggesting that the consumer drinking the beverage is “glamorous.” Moreover, even
if we were to find Registrant’s mark to be weak because it is laudatory, weak marks
are nevertheless entitled to protection against confusingly similar marks. King
Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (CCPA
1974).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the term GLAM is “relatively weak
and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” when used in connection with soft
drinks. Palm Bay, 73 USPQ2d at 1693. This du Pont factor is neutral.
C. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties in terms of
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
Next, we consider the du Pont factor relating to the similarity of the marks. In
comparing the marks we must consider their appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression. Palm Bay, 73 USPQ2d at 1692. Similarity as to any one of
these factors may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly
similar. See Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co., 390 F.2d 728, 156 USPQ 523, 526 (CCPA
1968) (“It is sufficient if the similarity in either form, spelling or sound alone is likely
to cause confusion.”); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988). The
emphasis of our analysis must be on the recollection of the average purchaser, who
Serial No.
- 10 -
normally retains a general, rather than specific, impression of trademarks. Although
we consider the mark as a whole, “in articulating reasons for reaching a conclusion
on the issue of confusion, there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational
reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark.” In re
Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Moreover, the legal identity of the goods reduces the degree of similarity between
the marks that is necessary for confusion to be likely. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671
F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Tea Leaf, 601 F.3d
1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v.
Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant’s mark is GLAM COLA in standard characters, whereas Registrant’s
mark is GLAM ENERGY, also in standard characters. COLA and ENERGY,
respectively, have been disclaimed. The Examining Attorney argues that “the marks
create the same overall commercial impression of glamour because of the shared
wording.”15 Applicant argues that, given the weakness of the term GLAM, “the
differences in the marks are sufficient to avoid any likelihood of confusion.”16 Because
we have not found that GLAM is relatively weak in connection with soft drinks, we
do not find Applicant’s argument convincing.
The marks are similar in connotation and commercial impression because, as
discussed above, they suggest the consumer is seeking to project a glamorous image.

15 Examining Attorney’s Br., 10 TTABVUE 6.
16 Applicant’s Br., p. 7, 8 TTABVUE 8.
Serial No.
- 11 -
The marks are similar in appearance and sound because they both begin with GLAM,
followed by a single descriptive term. GLAM is the dominant portion of both marks
because it appears first in the marks, and because it is likely to be used by consumers
in calling for the goods. It is well-settled that consumers have a propensity to shorten
marks and to drop descriptive wording such as “ENERGY” and “COLA” in these
marks. See Mighty Leaf Tea, 94 USPQ2d at 1260 (“ML is likely to be perceived as a
shortened version of ML MARK LEES when used on the same or closely related skin
care products.”); In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1961 (TTAB 2016)
(consumers may drop the highly descriptive term “Blonde” when calling for TIME
TRAVELER BLONDE beer); Big M. Inc. v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 228 USPQ 614, 616
(TTAB 1985) (“[W]e cannot ignore the propensity of consumers to often shorten
trademarks. . . .”); Polo Fashions, Inc. v. La Loren, Inc., 224 USPQ 509, 512 (TTAB
1984) (“Lauren” is a shorthand term for Ralph Lauren).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the marks are confusingly similar. This du
Pont factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
D. Conclusion
Having considered all the evidence and arguments on the relevant du Pont factors,
we conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark, GLAM
COLA, and Registrant’s mark, GLAM ENERGY, for overlapping goods, namely, soft
drinks.

Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d) is affirmed.