Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega LTD.)v.Derral Leon Reynolds

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

No. 91197643 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed:
September 12, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega LTD.)
v.
Derral Leon Reynolds

Opposition No. 91197643
Ser. No. 77959566
_____

Jess M. Collen, Thomas P. Gulick and Oren Gelber of Collen IP
for Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega LTD.).

Derral Leon Reynolds, pro se.
_____

Before Zervas, Gorowitz, and Lynch, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Zervas, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Derral Leon Reynolds (“Applicant”) filed an application to register the mark
for “jewelry” in International Class 14.1 The originally-filed application

1 Application Serial Number 77959566, filed March 15, 2010, on the basis of intent-to-use,
pursuant to Trademark Act § 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Opposition No. 91197643
-2-

includes the following description of the mark: “The mark consists of the Greek letter
Alpha nestled inside of the Greek letter Omega.”
Omega S.A. (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) (“Opposer”) opposed the application on
the grounds of (i) priority and likelihood of confusion pursuant to Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d); and (ii) dilution pursuant to Section 43(c) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Opposer alleges that it is the owner of, inter alia,
the following registrations for famous marks, collectively referred to as “the Omega
Marks”:
1. Reg. No. 025036 for for “watch
movements and watch cases” in International Class
14 (issued May 23, 1894; renewed July 26, 2014);
2. Reg. No. 0566370 for the stylized mark
for “watches and parts thereof” in
International Class 14 (issued November 4, 1952;
renewed November 4, 2012);

3. Reg. No. 578041 for for “watches
(including pocket watches, wrist watches with or
without straps, bands or bracelets, pendant watches,
calendar watches, and stopwatches) either stem-
wind or automatic; clocks; chronometers,
chronographs, and parts for all of the foregoing” in
International Class 14 (issued July 28, 1953;
renewed July 5, 2013);

4. Reg. No. 660541 for for “automatic
recording machines and apparatus for use in
determining the results of sporting events-namely,
Opposition No. 91197643
-3-

electrical or mechanical equipment for determining
elapsed times in games or sporting events
comprising a plurality of instruments for placement
at the starting and finishing lines of a racing course,
the same being electrically operated and connected
to and actuated by the starting gun or other signal
so as to automatically provide a permanent visible
record of the order in which one or more contestants
finish the race and of the corresponding elapsed
times” in International Class 9 (issued April 15,
1958; renewed May 9, 2008);

5. Reg. No. 1290661 for for “watch
cases” in International Class 14 (issued August 21,
1984; renewed October 17, 2014);

6. Reg. No. 1969071 for for “metal key
rings” in International Class 6; “pens and pencils;
namely, mechanical pencils and ball point and felt-
tip pens” in International Class 16; “umbrella and
parasols” in International Class 18; and “scarves
and neckties” in International Class 25 (issued April
23, 1996; renewed August 5, 2006); and

7. Reg. No. 3146117 for for “retail store
services featuring watches, clocks, horological and
chronometric instruments and their accessories,
jewelry” in International Class 35 (issued
September 19, 2006; Section 8 accepted).

In addition, Opposer alleges use of the mark OMEGA since at least as early as
1894, and use of such marks in connection with a variety of goods including jewelry
and accessories, and watches.2

2 Notice of Opposition ¶¶ 2 and 6, 1 TTABVUE 8 and 10.
Opposition No. 91197643
-4-

In his answer, Applicant denied all of the salient allegations in the notice of
opposition. The Board has received a brief only from Opposer.
Evidentiary issues.
Opposer filed a motion to strike the majority of the evidence Applicant
submitted by notice of reliance. Because Applicant did not respond to the motion, the
Board granted Opposer’s motion on April 21, 2015 and struck most of Applicant’s
evidence.3
Opposer also discusses (i) Applicant’s Exhibits 15 – 17, which consist of
material from a book apparently authored by Applicant, and (ii) Exhibits 23-24, which
consist of third-party trademark applications and registrations, and argues that this
evidence should be accorded little weight. We need not reach Opposer’s arguments
regarding the material from the book because this material is not important to the
disposition of this opposition. We discuss the third-party applications and
registrations later in this opinion.
The record.
By rule, the record includes Applicant’s application file and the pleadings.
Trademark Rule 2.122(b), 37 CFR § 2.122(b). The record also includes the following:
Introduced by Opposer:
1. The testimony deposition of Gregory Swift, Brand
Manager for the Omega division of the Swatch Group
U.S, and exhibits thereto, (Swift Test.) (public
document at 52 TTABVUE and confidential document
at 53 TTABVUE);

3 51 TTABVUE.
Opposition No. 91197643
-5-

2. Status and title copies of Opposer’s pleaded
registrations submitted with Opposer’s Notice of
Reliance (44 TTABVUE);
3. Applicant’s responses to certain Interrogatories and
Requests for Admissions submitted with Opposer’s
Notice of Reliance (44 TTABVUE);
4. Articles and advertisements from various publications
submitted with Opposer’s Notice of Reliance (44
TTABVUE);
5. Webpages from OMEGA museum website regarding
Opposer submitted with Opposer’s Notice of Reliance
(44 TTABVUE);
6. Third-party applications and registrations for OMEGA
marks submitted with Opposer’s Rebuttal Notice of
Reliance (50 TTABVUE); and
7. Pages from Opposer’s website submitted with Opposer’s
Rebuttal Notice of Reliance (50 TTABVUE).
Introduced by Applicant, by notice of reliance:
1. Opposer’s responses to certain Requests for Admissions
(48 TTABVUE);
2. A third-party application and third-party registrations
(48 TTABVUE); and
3. Pages from Opposer’s website (48 TTABVUE).
Standing
Standing is a threshold issue that must be proven by a plaintiff in every inter
partes case. To establish standing in an opposition or cancellation proceeding, a
plaintiff must show “both a ‘real interest’ in the proceedings as well as a ‘reasonable
basis’ for its belief of damage.” Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753
F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting ShutEmDown Sports,
Inc., v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036, 1041 (TTAB 2012)); Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d
Opposition No. 91197643
-6-

1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston
Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982). The Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit has enunciated a liberal threshold for determining standing
in Board proceedings. Ritchie v. Simpson, 50 USPQ2d at 1030.
Opposer has made its pleaded registrations of record, and has demonstrated
use of its pleaded marks in connection with various goods, including jewelry. Opposer
therefore has established that it has a personal stake in the outcome of this
proceeding, and we find that Opposer has established its standing.
Priority
Priority is not an issue with respect to Opposer’s pleaded registrations, which
Opposer has properly made of record through the submission of status and title copies
of such registrations with Opposer’s notice of reliance. See King Candy Co. v. Eunice
King's Kitchen, 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108 (CCPA 1974); Toro Co. v. ToroHead
Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1164, 1167 (TTAB 2001).
Opposer also asserted common law use of its marks in connection with a
variety of goods, including jewelry, prior to the filing date of Applicant’s intent-to-use
application. Through testimony and documentary evidence, Opposer has established
it has used the Omega Marks for jewelry prior to the filing date of Applicant’s
application.4 Opposer therefore has priority of use for jewelry.

4 See Swift Tr. at 10-14 and Ex. 11-12, 52 TTABVUE 12-16, 87-196; Swift Tr. at 77-80 and
Ex. 24, 52 TTABVUE 64-67, 241; App.’s NOR, Ex. 5, Request for Admission No. 30, 48
TTABVUE 39; App.’s NOR, Ex. 31, 48 TTABVUE 240.
Opposition No. 91197643
-7-

Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination of likelihood of confusion is based on an analysis of all of
the probative facts in evidence that are 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., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In
any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and the similarities between the goods and/or services. See
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA
1976). See also In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
A. Fame of Omega Marks.
When an opposer's mark is famous, that fact “plays a ‘dominant role in the
process of balancing the DuPont factors,’ ... and ‘[f]amous marks thus enjoy a wide
latitude of legal protection.”’ Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products, Inc., 293 F.3d 1367,
63 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Recot, Inc. v. Benton, 214 F.3d 1322,
54 USPQ2d 1894, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). It is settled that a strong mark “casts a long
shadow which competitors must avoid.” Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art
Industries, Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In the absence of direct evidence of fame, “fame of a mark may be measured
indirectly, among other things, by the volume of sales and advertising expenditures
of the goods traveling under the mark, and by the length of time those indicia of
commercial awareness have been evident.” Bose, 63 USPQ2d at 1305. Other relevant
factors include “length of use of the mark, market share, brand awareness, licensing
Opposition No. 91197643
-8-

activities, and variety of goods bearing the mark.” Coach Services. Inc. v. Triumph
Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1720 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Opposer has been selling its timepieces under the trademarks OMEGA and Ω
OMEGA in the United States for over 100 years.5 Opposer’s goods are sold in
Opposer’s boutiques, and through third-party authorized dealers.6
Opposer has submitted into the “confidential” record dollar figures reflecting
Opposer's sales and advertising expenses in the United States. Because they are
designated “confidential,” they therefore will not be discussed specifically herein.
Suffice it to say that from 1999 through 2009, Opposer's sales of OMEGA-branded
products, and its related advertising expenses from 2000-2009, have been
significant.7
Furthermore, Opposer has received unsolicited media attention from and
promoted its watches bearing the Omega Marks in a number of well-known
publications. For example, OMEGA-branded watches have appeared in The New York
Times, O! Oprah Magazine, GQ, Harper's Bazaar, hr., Maxim, Men's Vogue, Golf
Digest, Chronos, Guitar Aficianado, OK! Magazine, WWD (Women's Wear Daily),
Allure, Ebony, Elle, and Esquire.8

5 Swift Tr. 15-18, 52 TTABVUE 17-20.
6 Swift Confidential Tr. 21, 53 TTABVUE 6. This information has been submitted under seal,
but clearly is not confidential, as this information would be known to Applicant’s consumers.
7 Swift Tr. at 22-34, and Exs. 20-26; 53 TTABVUE 7-41, 35-51.
8 Opposer’s Notice of Reliance, Exs. 12-16, 21, 23, 26, 27, 30, 40, 52, 58, 62, 69 and 70; 52
TTABVUE 61-79, 88, 92, 98, 100, 106, 136, 165, 181, 190, 216 and 218.
Opposition No. 91197643
-9-

Opposer's Olympic and other sponsorships and timekeeping responsibilities at
significant sporting events have resulted in its Omega Marks being displayed at such
events.9 Further, Opposer's “ambassadors,” who “represent and promote the brand”
appear in Opposer's advertising, include celebrities such as George Clooney, Nicole
Kidman, Cindy Crawford, Daniel Craig, Michael Phelps and Anna Kournikova.10 As
a result of “product placement” relationships, Opposer's watches have been featured
in “James Bond” films and the film “Apollo 13.”11
Opposer has not provided any context for its advertising and sales figures, such
as how the figures for watches bearing the Omega Marks compare with other brands
of watches. See Lebanon Seaboard Corp. v. R&R Turf Supply Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1826,
1831 (TTAB 2012); see also, Bose, 63 USPQ2d at 1309 (“some context in which to place
raw statistics is reasonable”). There also is no admissible evidence of the circulation
figures for the various publications cited, or attendance/viewing figures for the movies
in which Opposer's products have appeared.
Nonetheless, we do not require evidence to recognize that The New York Times,
USA Today, Sports Illustrated, “James Bond” and “Apollo 13” films and Opposer's
celebrity endorsers are well-known and popular. Considering the totality of Opposer's
fame evidence, we find based on Opposer's century-long use of OMEGA for watches,
significant sales success, intensive advertising, widespread unsolicited media

9 Swift Tr. 58-62, 52 TTABVUE 46-50.
10 Swift Tr. 51-52 and Ex. 28, 52 TTABVUE 39-40, 362.
11 Swift Tr. 45-49 and Exs. 15-17, 52 TTABVUE 33-37, 217-225.
Opposition No. 91197643
-10-

attention and association with prominent sports events and celebrities, that
Opposer's Omega Marks are famous, but only for watches. See Inter Ikea Sys. B.V. v.
Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1740 (TTAB 2014) (recognizing similar deficiencies in
the opposer's evidence of fame, but nonetheless finding fame for the opposer's primary
service, acknowledging that context and “comparative information may be difficult,
if not impossible to obtain, because companies may view such information as
proprietary and not disclose it publicly”).
B. Similarity or dissimilarity of the goods.
Inasmuch as Applicant’s application recites “jewelry” as goods and Opposer
has established that it uses the Omega Marks on jewelry, the goods are identical. As
for Opposer’s watches and pendants, set forth in one or more of its registrations for
the Omega Marks, Opposer has not submitted evidence to show a relationship
between the two, and in fact, Opposer successfully sought to strike the evidence
Applicant submitted which demonstrates a commercial relationship between the
goods.12 Watches and jewelry are related, however, because, at a minimum, some
watches, especially those containing gemstones, may be considered a form of jewelry.
As Mr. Swift testified:
Q. “When we talk about jewelry line of products, we’re also
including watches as part of the jewelry line of products,
correct?”
A. “Correct.”13

12 See Ex. 32 to Applicant’s NOR, 48 TTABVUE 245, stricken by the Board in its April 21,
2015 order. 51 TTABVUE.
13 Swift Tr. at 84, 52 TTABVUE 69.
Opposition No. 91197643
-11-

Applicant’s goods identified as “jewelry” in its identification of goods therefore
are identical to Opposer’s jewelry, and related to Opposer’s “watches.”
C. Similarity or dissimilarity of the channels of trade.
Because Applicant has not included any trade channel restrictions in its
identification of goods, it is presumed that Applicant’s goods will move in all usual
channels of trade for jewelry, including those trade channels in which Opposer’s
jewelry moves. Such trade channels include third-party dealers authorized by
Opposer, which sell third-party jewelry in addition to Opposer’s jewelry, to members
of the general public. It is also presumed that due to the lack of any trade channel
restrictions in Applicant’s identification of goods that Applicant’s jewelry would be
purchased by the same purchasers who purchase Opposer’s jewelry. See Stone Lion
Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161-
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
As for watches, which we have found are related to jewelry, certainly both are
marketed to members of the general public, who purchase both watches and jewelry.
The record reflects that Opposer markets its watches and jewelry in its boutiques and
sells to third-party retailers who in turn sell to members of the general public.14
D. Similarity or dissimilarity of the marks at issue.
In comparing the marks in this case, we bear in mind that “[t]he Lanham Act’s
tolerance for similarity between competing marks varies inversely with the fame of

14 Swift Tr. at 80, 52 TTABVUE 65.
Opposition No. 91197643
-12-

the prior mark.” Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Ind., Inc., 963 F.2d 350,
22 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We must compare the parties’ marks “in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression.” Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (quoting du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567). That is, we may not dissect the marks into
their various components. 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).
In addition, we do not make a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but rather
consider whether their overall commercial impressions are so similar that confusion
as to the source of the goods offered under the respective marks is likely to result.
Coach Servs. Inc., 101 USPQ2d at 1721; see also Edom Laboratories Inc. v. Lichter,
102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012). Moreover, where, as here, the goods are
identical in part, the degree of similarity of the marks necessary to find likelihood of
confusion need not be as great. Coach Servs., Inc., 101 USPQ2d at 1722; In re Viterra,
671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Century 21 Real Estate
Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir.
1992)).
Further, it is not a necessary prerequisite for a finding of likelihood of confusion
that marks be found similar in all respects, i.e., in sight, sound and meaning, and a
likelihood of confusion may be found principally on similarity in one or two of these.
Opposition No. 91197643
-13-

See, e.g., In re Sarkli, Ltd., 721 F.2d 353, 220 USPQ 111, 113 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“the
[USPTO] may reject an application ex parte solely because of similarity in meaning
of the mark sought to be registered with a previously registered mark”).
Here, Opposer relies on its registrations of OMEGA marks in various formats,
including the following:
.
Each of Opposer’s Omega Marks is likely to be pronounced as “omega”; Opposer’s
marks including the Greek letter “Ω” are not likely to be pronounced as “omega
omega” even though consumers will perceive the Greek letter “Ω” within the mark;
the evidence demonstrates that Opposer’s marks are referred to in text as “Omega.”15
Thus, in the latter two marks, consumers will likely view the term “omega” as
identifying the significance of the Greek letter “Ω.”
Applicant described its mark in its initial application as “the Greek letter Alpha
nestled inside of the Greek letter Omega.” Applicant himself considers the Greek

15 See, e.g., Opposer’s NOR Ex. 31 - 33, 44 TTABVUE 109 - 118.
Opposition No. 91197643
-14-

letter “Ω” to be readily discernable within his mark.16 If he articulates the “omega”
component of his mark, as he does in his description of the mark, it is likely that his
customers will also articulate the “omega” component of his mark.”17 “Omega” is the
entire verbal portion of Opposer’s Omega Marks. While Applicant’s customers will
also articulate the Greek letter “alpha,” which is identical to the letter “A,” we find
that Applicant’s and Opposer’s marks are similar in sound because the “omega” will
be articulated in both Applicant’s and Opposer’s marks.

16 C.f., In re Serac, 218 USPQ 340, 342 (TTAB 1983). in which the Board considered, but did
not find persuasive, an applicant’s description of its mark, stating:
However, finding as we do that the natural impression of the
public in viewing the design would not be to regard it as a picture
of a ram’s head, the application notation fails to alter our
conclusion that applicant’s mark falls short of the kind of
pictorial representation of registrant’s “RAM’S HEAD” that
would be likely to cause confusion within the meaning of Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act.
We note too that the dissenting opinion, in Serac, gave great weight to Applicant’s
characterization of its mark, stating:
The fact that applicant described its mark as a “Ram Design” in
its application for registration seems to me to have some
significance. While not, of course, conclusive of what, in fact, is
the public’s perception of the design, the statement in the
application is inconsistent with appellant’s present position that
the design “would be more likely to [be verbalized] in any one of
several ways other than a ram’s head, including mountain goat,
mountain sheep, bighorn sheep, goat, sheep or even ‘ram’
alone[.]” … I would have given considerable weight to the fact
that applicant -- being in the best position to know -- first
considered the design to be that of a ram.
Id.
17 “Alpha” is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and “omega” is the last letter thereof, and
the mark would likely be pronounced as “Alpha Omega.”
Opposition No. 91197643
-15-

We find too that the Greek letter “Ω” is readily recognizable in Applicant’s mark,
surrounding the letter “A” or “alpha.” Although Applicant’s “Ω” differs somewhat in
shape from the “Ω” in two of Opposer’s Omega Marks, it is still recognizable as “Ω.”
Thus, the Omega Marks and Applicant’s mark are similar in appearance because
they both include the Greek letter “Ω.” While the dissent notes points of difference
between the appearance of Opposer’s and Applicant’s marks, marks “must be
considered … in light of the fallibility of memory” and “not on the basis of side-by-
side comparison.” San Fernando Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elecs. Components Corp., 565
F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1977). There is nothing in the record to persuade us
that any of the differences argued by the dissent sufficiently distinguishes the
appearance of the respective marks to outweigh their other similarities. Moreover,
even when consumers note the additional “alpha” element in Applicant’s mark, when
encountering the mark on goods identical and related to Opposer’s, consumers likely
would perceive Applicant’s mark as a variation of Opposer’s well known Omega
Marks.
With regard to the commercial impression of the marks, we too find them to be
similar, largely because of the manner in which the marks are verbally referred to.
The marks all refer to the Greek letter “omega,” and Applicant’s mark and some of
the Omega Marks include the symbol for that letter, increasing the similarity of
commercial impression.
For these reasons, the du Pont factor concerning the similarity of the marks
favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Opposition No. 91197643
-16-

E. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
Applicant sought to introduce samples of third-party use of marks containing the
term OMEGA. However, the Board struck Applicant’s evidence of third-party use
when it granted Opposer’s motion to strike on April 21, 2015.
Applicant did successfully introduce several third-party applications and
registrations for marks containing the term OMEGA.18 This evidence has limited
probative value because “[a]n application is not evidence of anything except that the
application was filed on a certain date,” see Wet Seal, Inc. v. FD Management, 82
USPQ2d 1629, 1634 n.11 (TTAB 2007), and the registrations are for goods unrelated
to the goods in issue in the present proceeding.
F. The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made.
Opposer correctly notes that there are no restrictions on the price of the goods in
the opposed application or any of the cited registrations, and that the Board must
consider the goods as jewelry which can be sold at high or low prices. See Octocom
Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787
(Fed. Cir. 1990). The “jewelry” therefore is presumed to include low-priced items,
which are subject to impulse purchases. Similarly, Opposer’s registrations for
“watches” encompass low-priced watches. Additionally, the applicable standard of
care for a likelihood-of-confusion analysis is that of the least sophisticated consumer.
See Stone Lion Capital Partners, 110 USPQ2d at 1163 (affirming that TTAB properly
considered all potential investors for recited services, which included sophisticated

18 48 TTABVUE 199-219.
Opposition No. 91197643
-17-

investors, but that precedent requires consumer care for likelihood-of-confusion
decision to be based “on the least sophisticated potential purchasers”); Alfacell Corp.
v. Anticancer, Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1306 (TTAB 2004). As previously noted, the
identified goods are sold to members of the general public, with no particular
sophistication. In view thereof, we resolve the du Pont factor regarding the conditions
under which and buyers to whom sales are made in favor of a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
G. Other factors.
Opposer mentions that the du Pont factor regarding actual confusion is neutral,
and we agree with Opposer; there are no instances of actual confusion in the record.
Opposer also maintains it uses the Omega Marks on a variety of goods (timepieces,
jewelry including earrings, pendants, necklaces, rings, bracelets, and cufflinks,
leather goods, accessories such as key chains or money clips, fragrances, iPad holders
and cell phone covers); and that such use on a variety of products increases the
likelihood of confusion.19 We agree with Opposer that the likelihood of confusion
increases in light of the different goods on which Opposer has used its mark. As for
the remaining factors, because there is no evidence in the evidentiary record which
bears on such factors, we consider them neutral.
H. Balancing the factors.
We have found that priority is not an issue insofar as Opposer is the owner of
certain subsisting registrations and that Opposer has used the Omega Marks on

19 Swift Tr. at 10-14, 77 and Exs. 4, 11, and 12, 52 TTABVUE 12-16, 85-196, 53 TTABVUE
25.
Opposition No. 91197643
-18-

jewelry well before the filing date of Applicant’s application. Further, we have found
that Opposer’s Omega Marks are famous for watches, and the goods involved herein
are identical with regard to jewelry, and similar with regard to watches; that Opposer
uses its Omega Marks on a variety of goods; and that the goods travel in the same
trade channels and are sold to the same purchasers. Further, we have found the
marks to be similar in appearance, sound and commercial impression. There are no
instances of third-party use in the record that we may consider, and no third-party
registrations of similar marks for relevant goods. The goods which are the subject of
Opposer’s registrations for its Omega Marks are presumed to include low cost goods
that are subject to purchase on impulse, as is Applicant’s jewelry identified in its
identification of goods. Especially in view of the “long shadow” cast by Opposer’s
famous marks, we therefore conclude that Applicant’s mark, when use on “jewelry,”
is likely to be confused with Opposer’s Omega Marks, for goods including jewelry and
watches.
Dilution.
Because Opposer has prevailed on its claim of likelihood of confusion, we need
not reach Opposer’s additional claim of dilution.
Decision: The opposition based on Opposer’s likelihood of confusion claim is
sustained. Registration to Applicant is refused.
* * *

Opposition No. 91197643
-19-

Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judge, dissenting.
The majority has found that there is a likelihood of confusion between Opposer’s
marks , , and ; and Applicant’s
mark . I respectfully disagree.
While I concur with the majority that Opposer’s marks are famous in connection
with timepieces and that fame plays a dominant role in any likelihood of confusion
decision, I believe that Applicant's mark is so different from Opposer’s registered
marks that even when used on identical goods, confusion is unlikely. See Kellogg Co.
v. Pack’em Enterprises Inc., 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The majority relies on Applicant’s description of its mark as “the Greek letter
Alpha nestled inside of the Greek letter Omega” to establish that the marks are
similar. I believe this reliance is misplaced. In the Serac case, discussed by the
majority, the Board decided that the “mark’s meaning is based upon its [sic]
impression of the purchasing public and not an applicant’s description.” In re Serac,
218 USPQ 340, 342 (TTAB 1983). In that case, the Board, in finding no likelihood of
confusion between the marks RAMS HEAD and the highly stylized depiction of a
“ram’s head,” set forth below,
Opposition No. 91197643
-20-

for related clothing items said: “(t)he critical question in
this case, however, is whether applicant’s design is a sufficient ‘picture’ of a ram’s
head that it would readily generate purchaser impressions to that effect and thereby
produce a likelihood that buyers would assume a common source for applicant’s and
registrant’s clothing products.”
I believe that this approach should be applied in this case, wherein the description
of the mark is the “Greek letter Alpha nestled inside of the Greek letter Omega.”
Although the “A” may be one way of writing the Greek letter “alpha,” it is also a
normal way to write a capital “A” in the everyday Latin alphabet that is used to write
in English in the United States today. Further, because of the manner in which the
Greek letter omega appears in the mark in conjunction with and surrounding the
letter “A,” , it is unlikely that consumers would perceive it to be an “omega.”
but would view it as merely part of a design element surrounding the letter “A,” and
the mark as a whole would be understood as a capital “A” with a slight design
element. Accordingly, Applicant’s mark does not have the meaning of “omega,” and
therefore the connotation and the commercial impressions of the marks in their
entireties are different. See Eagle Clothes, Inc. v. Robert Lewis, Inc., 165 USPQ 266
Opposition No. 91197643
-21-

(TTAB 1970) wherein the Board determined that despite use on related clothing
items, Applicant’s design of a “skua bird”20 would not likely be regarded as a “stylized
eagle”. “Regardless, even in the unlikely event that a purchaser might conceivably
associate applicant's design mark with an eagle, it would not be confused with the
pictorial representations of eagles being used and/or registered by opposer because of
the many and obvious differences in appearance there between.” Id. at 268.
The majority speculates that Applicant’s mark will be pronounced as “alpha
omega,” apparently based only on the description of the mark provided by Applicant
in the application, from which the majority has concluded that Applicant “considers
the Greek letter ‘Ω’ to be readily discernable within his mark.” Majority Opinion at
p. 13. The majority goes on to speculate that if Applicant’s mark is pronounced in this
manner, the “omega” portion of the mark makes Applicant’s mark similar to
Opposer’s mark in pronunciation. I consider this too tenuous a connection to support
a finding of likelihood of confusion. Applicant’s mark is a letter mark that partakes
of both literal and design elements, and in most cases involving such marks, it is the
appearance of the marks, not the pronunciation, that is accorded the greater weight
in the likelihood of confusion determination. Diamond Alkali Company v. Dundee

20
Opposition No. 91197643
-22-

Cement Company, 343 F2d 781, 145 USPQ 211, 213 (CCPA 1965) (“When symbol
marks, such as these, are being considered, appearance is most significant.”),21 cf. In
re Cook Medical Technologies LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (TTAB 2012) (“When, as
in the present case, the marks at issue are non-literal design marks, the similarity of
the marks must be decided primarily on the basis of visual similarity”). In view of the
fact that the marks are very different in appearance, meaning and commercial
impression, the reliance on a hypothetical articulation of the mark should not be the
basis for finding the marks to be similar.
The dissimilarities in the mark are such that they outweigh the other du Pont
factors and are dispositive. See Champagne Louis Roederer S.A. v. Delicato
Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1459, 1460-61 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Federal Circuit
affirmed Board finding of no likelihood of confusion between mark CRYSTAL CREEK
for wine and marks CRISTAL for wine and CRISTAL CHAMPAGNE for champagne,
where Board relied solely on dissimilarity of marks); Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em
Enterprises Inc., 21 USPQ2d at 1145 (“We know of no reason why, in a particular
case, a single du Pont factor may not be dispositive”). Cf. In re Covalinski, 113
USPQ2d 1166, 1169 (TTAB 2014).

21 No likelihood of confusion between stylized D marks:
.
Opposition No. 91197643
-23-

Based on the foregoing, I would find that there is no likelihood of confusion
between Opposer’s marks and Applicant’s mark.
Similarly, Opposer cannot prevail on its dilution claim. “Dilution by blurring
is [the] association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a
famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark.” Section
43(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B). “Dilution diminishes the ‘selling
power that a distinctive mark or name with favorable associations has engendered
for a product in the mind of the consuming public.’” Toro Co. v. ToroHead Inc., 61
USPQ2d 1164, 1182 (TTAB 2001) (internal citation omitted).
“[T]o prevail on a dilution claim ..., a plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns a
famous mark that is distinctive; (2) the defendant is using a mark in commerce that
allegedly dilutes the plaintiff’s famous mark; (3) the defendant’s use of its mark began
after the plaintiff’s mark became famous; and (4) the defendant’s use of its mark is
likely to cause dilution by blurring ....” Coach Servs. Inc. 101 USPQ2d at 1723-24.
In order for Applicant’s use of its mark, which notably has not yet commenced, to
cause dilution by blurring, the marks must be similar. Section 43(c)(2)(B)(i) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(2)(B)(i). As fully discussed above, the marks at
issue are not similar and thus, Applicant’s use of its mark is not likely to cause
dilution by blurring of Opposer’s marks.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the opposition.