Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 1998

No. 74560670 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 1998)

Paper No. 11
RLS/AKP
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
JULY 28, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/560,670
_______
William M. Hobby, III for Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce,
Inc.
Samuel E. Sharper, Jr., Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 101 (Christopher Wells, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Simms, Cissel and Hanak, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (applicant), a
Florida corporation, has appealed from the final refusal of
the Trademark Examining Attorney to register the mark shown
below:
Ser No. 74/560,670
2
for entertainment services in the nature of community
festivals featuring music and food.1 Pursuant to request,
applicant submitted a disclaimer of the words “Jazz ’90” and
the phrase “A Celebration of Music, Food and People.” The
Examining Attorney has refused registration under Section
2(d) of the Act, 15 USC †1052(d), on the basis of
Registration No. 1,928,893, issued October 24, 1995, for the
mark JAZZMATAZZ for entertainment services in the form of a
musical band. Applicant and the Examining Attorney have
submitted briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
We affirm.
In a likelihood-of-confusion analysis, the respective
marks must be considered in their entireties, but it is not
improper in such an analysis to give more weight to a
feature which may be more significant in creating a
commercial impression. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d
1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985). While applicant notes
that the words “Jazz” and “MATAZZ” in its mark are separate
words on separate lines and that its mark contains the
design of a saxophone as the letter “J” in the word “Jazz,”
we nevertheless believe that the most prominent literal
aspect of applicant’s mark is nearly identical in sound and
meaning to the registered mark. Also, as the Examining
Attorney has pointed out, applicant, in its promotional

1 Application Ser. No. 74/560,670, filed August 12, 1994,
Ser No. 74/560,670
3
literature, has referred to its community festival by the
name “Jazzmatazz.”
With respect to the services, applicant argues that no
one would be likely to confuse its community festival
featuring food and entertainment, including live bands, art
and children’s displays, with the name of a band. However,
there is no question that a significant part of applicant’s
services is the performance of live jazz entertainment by
one or more bands.2 Applicant’s community festival services
clearly feature music provided by bands. Musical
entertainment is also an essential part of registrant’s
services. We agree with the Examining Attorney that one who
observes and hears a musical performance at applicant’s
festival and then encounters registrant’s service mark used
in connection with registrant’s musical entertainment
services may well assume that the respective services are
connected in some way, by license or sponsorship, for
example. If we had any doubt about the conclusion that
there is a likelihood of confusion, that doubt must be
resolved in favor of the registrant, in accordance with
well-established precedent.

claiming use in commerce since April 1989.
Ser No. 74/560,670
4
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
R. F. Cissel
E. W. Hanak
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board

2 The Examining Attorney has made of record excerpts from
articles from the Nexis database showing that bands are often
featured at community festivals.
Ser No. 74/560,670
5