Pandora Jewelry, LLCv.Pandora’s Makeup Box Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2015

No. 91196078 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2015)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: April 1, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Pandora Jewelry, LLC
v.
Pandora’s Makeup Box Inc.
_____

Opposition No. 91196078
against Serial No. 77604365
_____

William R. Hansen, Bridget A. Short and Suzanna M.M. Morales of Fox Rothschild LLP,
for Pandora Jewelry, LLC.
Scott W. Johnston and Sandra Lindemeier of Merchant & Gould PC,
for Pandora’s Makeup Box Inc.
_____

Before Richey, Deputy Chief Administrative Trademark Judge, and Bucher and Lykos,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Pandora’s Makeup Box Inc., a Canadian corporation (hereinafter “Applicant”),
seeks registration on the Principal Register of the mark PANDORA’S (in standard
character format) for
cosmetics, namely, lipsticks, eye pencils, lip pencils, eye
shadow, mascara, lip gloss, blush, pressed and loose
powder, cosmetic foundations, cover sticks and nail polish
(Based upon Intent to Use and also on § 44(e)) in
International Class 6;
Opposition No. 91196078
cosmetic boxes sold containing cosmetics (Based only upon
Intent to Use) also in International Class 6; and
retail store services, online retail store services, and mail
order catalog services featuring cosmetics, cosmetic
implements and cosmetic boxes” (Based only upon Intent
to Use) in International Class 35.1
Pandora Jewelry, LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company (hereinafter
“Opposer”), having U.S. headquarters in Columbia, Maryland, by its amended
pleading, alleges that Applicant’s mark so resembles Opposer’s previously used
marks PANDORA and PANDORA JEWELRY, used on a variety of jewelry
products, men’s and women’s watches and sunglasses, and as part of Opposer’s
promotional programs, in connection with mirrored compacts, umbrellas, totes,
jewelry boxes, key rings, luggage tags, pens, t-shirts and aprons, and in connection
with retail store services, as well as the marks in the following registrations:

for “jewelry” in International Class 14;2

for “jewelry” in International Class 14;
“pamphlets, brochures, catalogs in the field of jewelry;
paperboards; non-textile paper labels; paper and plastic
packaging bags; advertisement poster boards of paper and
cardboard” in International Class 16;3 and
1 Application Serial No. 77604365 was filed on October 30, 2008. This application is based
in part on Applicant’s Canadian Registration No. TMA610307.
2 Registration No. 3065374 issued on March 7, 2006; Section 8 affidavit accepted. No claim
is made to the exclusive right to use the word “Jewelry” apart from the mark as shown.
3 Registration No. 3613181 issued on April 28, 2009. The mark consists of a stylized icon
used in the place of the letter “O” within the word “Pandora.”
- 2 -

Opposition No. 91196078

for “jewelry” in International Class 14;
“pamphlets, brochures, catalogs in the field of jewelry;
paperboards; non-textile paper labels; paper and plastic
packaging bags; advertisement poster boards of paper and
cardboard” in International Class 16; 4
that when used in connection with Applicant’s identified goods and services, it is
likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive, under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d).
I. Preliminary Matter
Applicant asserted in its amended answer that Opposer is estopped from
contending herein that the goods and services of the parties are related or that
confusion is likely between the respective marks because Opposer had submitted
arguments to the contrary to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office in
conjunction with an application pending in Canada. As we understand what
happened in the Canadian proceeding, Opposer herein (then Applicant) argued that
there was no likelihood of confusion between its PANDORA mark for jewelry and
the PANDORA’S mark of Applicant herein as applied to makeup. Specifically,
Applicant contends that Opposer made arguments then based on the contention
that makeup and jewelry were not related products.
However, “information and decisions relative to trademark disputes in foreign
jurisdictions are not controlling on a determination of a party’s right to register in
4 Registration No. 3640357 issued on June 16, 2009. The mark consists of the word
“Pandora” positioned above the words “Unforgettable Moments”; a stylized icon is used in
the place of the letter “O” within the word “Pandora.”
- 3 -

Opposition No. 91196078
the United States.” Boston Chicken Inc. v. Boston Pizza Int’l, Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1053,
1055 (TTAB 1999).
Even without this broad prohibition, if we looked into the rationale for applying
the doctrine of judicial estoppel in any given litigation in the United States,
Applicant has not demonstrated that the requirements of judicial estoppel have
been met. A requirement of the doctrine is that Opposer – the party taking the
inconsistent position herein – must have benefited from that tactic in Canada.
Inasmuch as Opposer lost in the Canadian proceeding, there is no benefit to
Opposer from its alleged inconsistent position, and hence, the doctrine seems
inapplicable here. As we read Ms. Kirsch’s testimony,5 we find no evidence of
Opposer having made a factual admission of non-relatedness of the goods and
services involved in this record. We know only that Opposer raised a challenge to
Applicant’s Canadian registration and lost. Given the timing of this Canadian
proceeding and Applicant’s U.S. filing, we find no reliance upon Opposer’s asserted
prior inconsistent statements or prejudice in this case as a result of such reliance.
Moreover, any statements made by Opposer in the Canadian case are not
treated as admissions that, for example, the parties’ goods herein are not related.
Certainly, Opposer’s litigation posture in a trademark proceeding in another
nation’s jurisdiction does not show that Opposer has in any way waived its
objections to the U.S. registration now sought by Applicant. Hence, we find that
Opposer’s previous statements in another proceeding have limited probative value
herein. Under no circumstances, may a party’s opinion, earlier or current, relieve
5 See Kirsch Dep. at 108-113 and Kirsch Ex. 20, 60 TTABVue at 314-19, 527-32 of 547.
- 4 -

Opposition No. 91196078
this panel of the burden of reaching our own ultimate conclusion on likelihood of
confusion based upon the entire evidence in the record before us. This is a duty that
cannot be delegated by adopting the prior arguments of Opposer in a foreign
proceeding. See Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta Int’l, Inc. v. Anthony’s Pizza Holding Co.,
95 USPQ2d 1271, 1281 (TTAB 2009), aff’d 415 Fed. Appx. 222 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Finally, should we consider Opposer’s prior contrary arguments to be relevant
and competent for any purpose herein, we find they would not be dispositive of the
present case. At most, we could consider these comments as facts “illuminative of
shade and tone in the total picture confronting the decision maker,” but nothing
more than that. Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 576 F.2d 926,
198 USPQ 151, 154 (CCPA 1978); see also Stabilisierungsfonds fur Wein v.
Zimmermann-Graeff KG, 209 USPQ 434, 436 (TTAB 1980) (finding opposer’s
contrary opinions in prosecution while opposition was pending “strongly illuminate
the shade and tone of the total picture”).
II. The Record
Pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.122(b), the record includes Applicant’s
application file and the pleadings.
- 5 -
Opposition No. 91196078
Opposer’s Evidence A.
Opposer properly introduced the testimony deposition of Jody Christian,
Opposer’s Director of Marketing,6 Jeffrey Taylor, Opposer’s Director of Accounting,7
and Laurie McDonald, Opposer’s Director of Sales Strategy.8
Opposer also introduced the following evidence via a Notice of Reliance filed on
February 20, 2013, consisting of certified copies of Opposer’s federal registrations
for its PANDORA mark,9 relevant excerpts from Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s
interrogatories;10 TTABVue printouts from various previous opposition
proceedings;11 copies of samples of articles, unsolicited media references and
advertisements from periodicals of general circulation and from the Internet for the
period of 2008 through 2012;12 copies of national magazines showing the scope of
Opposer’s promotional efforts;13 copies of third-party, use-based registrations
covering both cosmetics and jewelry, along with copies of actual specimens of use in
6 This deposition was conducted on February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Christian Dep.”) along
with Exhibits 1-37 (“Christian Ex.”), marked “Highly Confidential.” 49 TTABVue at 8-196,
197-928 of 928: 50 TTABVue at 2-19, 20-79 of 477.
7 This deposition was also conducted on February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Taylor Dep.”) along
with Exhibits 38-40 (“Taylor Ex.”), marked “Highly Confidential.” 48 TTABVue at 1-92, 93-
96 of 97; 50 TTABVue at 80-125, 126-69 of 477.
8 This deposition was conducted on February 14, 2013 (hereinafter “McDonald Dep.”) along
with Exhibits 41-73 (“McDonald Ex.”), marked “Highly Confidential.” 50 TTABVue at 170-
222, 223-477 of 477.
9 Opposer’s Ex. A, 38 TTABVue 38-52 of 52.
10 Opposer’s Exs. B & C, 38 TTABVue at 3-13 of 52; 33 TTABVue; 35 TTABVue; 43
TTABVue.
11 Opposer’s Exs. D-F, 31 TTABVue at 3-11 of 125.
12 Opposer’s Ex. G, 31 TTABVue at 12-121 of 125.
13 Opposer’s Ex. H, I & J, 31 TTABVue at 122-125; 36 TTABVue at 2-95 of 95; and 37
TTABVue at 3-8 of 535.
- 6 -

Opposition No. 91196078
commerce;14 copies of printouts from the webpages of third-party websites
demonstrating that Applicant’s and Opposer’s respective goods and services are of a
type that may emanate from the same source;15 copies of the covers and relevant
excerpts from magazines of general circulation displaying cosmetics and jewelry in
the same article or advertisement on adjacent pages;16 copies of decisions of the
World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Arbitration and Mediation
Center in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure (“UDRP”) matters
involving Opposer’s PANDORA trademark;17 copies of relevant excerpts from the
website of Authentic Beauty;18 and printouts of Applicant’s blog.19
Opposer also relies upon the materials submitted in its Notice of Reliance in
Rebuttal filed on May 27, 2014, including screen-prints of pages taken from
Opposer’s U.S. website; copies of mythology book excerpts discussing the fable of
Pandora; and additional parts from Opposer’s responses to Applicant’s discovery
requests based upon Opposer’s statement that these additional excerpts should in
fairness be considered so as to make not misleading what was offered by Applicant.
See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(4).20
14 Opposer’s Ex. K, 37 TTABVue at 9-535 of 535.
15 Opposer’s Ex. L, 41 TTABVue at 3-143 of 143.
16 Opposer’s Ex. M, 39 TTABVue at 2-88 of 89.
17 Opposer’s Ex. N, 40 TTABVue at 2-115 of 116.
18 Opposer’s Ex. Q, 32 TTABVue at 22-28 of 28.
19 pandorasmakeupboxblog, Opposer’s Ex. R, 34 TTABVue at 3-11 of 11.
20 Opposer’s Exs. S-U, 64 TTABVue at 13-34 of 34.
- 7 -

Opposition No. 91196078
Applicant’s Evidence B.
Applicant introduced the testimony deposition of Susan Kirsch,21 Applicant’s
president, owner, and creator, and Corinne Russell Williams, of Facade Beauty
(Houston, TX).22
Applicant properly made of record evidence via a notice of reliance filed on April
11, 2014, including copies of Certificates of Registration and status reports;23 a
screen-print of Opposer’s website24 and an entry from the online version of COLLINS
ENGLISH DICTIONARY;25 and portions of Opposer’s responses to Applicant’s discovery
requests.26
III. The Parties
Applicant A.
Susan Kirsch founded Pandora’s Makeup Box in 2000. Ms. Kirsch also owns a
professional makeup studio called Kirsch Makeup Studio. In August 2000, Ms.
Kirsch received a sample of the PANDORA’S makeup product she had developed
from a packaging manufacturer called Cosmopack, followed by shipments of a
couple thousand more units during the remainder of 2000. The PANDORA’S mark
21 On January 23, 2014, Applicant took the deposition of Susan Kirsch upon written
questions (hereinafter “Kirsch Dep.”) along with Applicant’s Exhibits 1-21[b] (“Kirsch Ex.”);
60 TTABVue at 208-510, 511-547 of 547.
22 This deposition was conducted on May 9, 2013 (hereinafter “Williams Dep.”) along with
Applicant’s Exhibits 1 and 21[a]-25 (“Williams Ex.”); 60 TTABVue at 28-134, 135-207 of
547.
23 Applicant’s Exs. A & B, 57 TTABVue at 12-89 of 97.
24 Applicant’s Ex. C, 57 TTABVue at 91 of 97.
25 Applicant’s Ex. D, 57 TTABVue at 93-94 of 97.
26 Applicant’s Exs. F & G, marked “Confidential,” 58 TTABVue at 3-353 of 353.
- 8 -

Opposition No. 91196078
was screen-printed on the top of the boxes. Shortly after receiving these products
from Cosmopack, Ms. Kirsch sent about 100 units to Ms. Corinne Williams, of
Facade Beauty in Houston, Texas, and ultimately shipped Ms. Williams a total of
500 PANDORA’S compacts. Ms. Williams sold these units from her makeup studio
in Houston. Ms. Kirsch also allegedly sold PANDORA’S makeup products to other
customers in the United States. Ms. Kirsch obtained a Canadian trademark
registration for the PANDORA’S mark in 2004, listing a first use date of 2000. Ms.
Kirsch began selling PANDORA’S makeup products to U.S. consumers at retail via
an Internet website beginning in 2009.
Opposer B.
Per Enevoldsen and his wife Winnie began making jewelry in their small
jeweler’s shop in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1982.27 From these humble beginnings,
PANDORA has grown into a world-wide enterprise. Opposer is tied into these roots
of more than thirty years through its predecessor-in-interest and affiliated
companies. In 2002, one of Pandora’s early Danish founders came to the United
States and started marketing jewelry by showing samples from the trunk of his car.
In 2003, Opposer was incorporated in the United States to market and sell
PANDORA brand jewelry through Opposer’s retail partners.28
27 49 TTABVue at 424 of 928 [PJ004810];
28 49 TTABVue at 214 of 928 [PJ005109].
- 9 -

Opposition No. 91196078
In short, Opposer concentrates on charm bracelets, rings, earrings and necklaces
of handmade Danish design, using a proprietary threading system29 that permits
charms to be placed evenly within three bracelet segments in any order desired.
Accordingly, Opposer’s customers can easily customize their bracelets by selecting
from hundreds of handcrafted sterling silver, 14K gold, and Murano glass charms.
Opposer states as its mission “To offer women across the world a universe of high-
quality, hand-finished, modern, genuine jewelry products at affordable prices.”30 In
the space of a dozen years, Opposer has grown exponentially in this country, and
has now built one of the most recognizable jewelry brands in the U.S. market.31
IV. Standing
Opposer has demonstrated that it is the owner of its pleaded registrations and
that the registrations are valid and subsisting. Because opposer’s registrations are
of record, Opposer has established its standing. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf
Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Lipton Industries, Inc.
v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982).
29 U.S. Pat. No. 7,007,507 issued on March 7, 2006; see “The Opportunist,” “No more
Pending” Pandora’s Patent is Here!” 49 TTABVue at 835 of 928 [PJ011808]; see also
“Pandora Bracelet Anatomy 101,” Id at 854 [PJ011798]; Id. at 206, 250, 304, 352, 467
[PJ005101, PJ004966, PJ002207, PJ002456, PJ004853].
30 49 TTABVue at 204, 248 of 928 [PJ005099, PJ004964].
31 49 TTABVue at 258, 262-254, 739, 744 of 928 [PJ004974, 78-80, PJ004040, 45]; 50
TTABVue at 280-85 of 477, [PJ006038-43].
- 10 -

Opposition No. 91196078
V. Priority
Priority is not in issue in view of Opposer’s ownership of several valid and
subsisting registrations as to the marks and goods identified therein. King Candy,
Inc. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108 (CCPA 1974).32
Opposer has also demonstrated its prior common law rights in the “Pandora”
service mark used in connection with retail store services featuring jewelry and
other fashion accessories. Opposer introduced PANDORA brand jewelry into thirty
retail jewelry stores in at least twenty-four states during 2003, including the
operation of “shop-in-shop” retail locations33 within larger department stores.
Opposer’s first concept store opened in 2007.34 All of this pre-dates Applicant’s filing
date, the earliest constructive use date that Applicant can claim under these
circumstances.
32 Applicant claims it used its PANDORA’S mark in the United States in 2000, giving it
priority over Opposer’s 2003 date of entry into U.S. commerce. We have reviewed carefully
the entire record herein, including combing through the testimony of Ms. Williams and Ms.
Kirsch (60 TTABVue), studying Ms. Kirsch’s sales receipts and contact information (61 and
62 TTABVue), and going over the actions taken in Ms. Kirsch’s pursuit of the design, trade
dress, manufacture and subsequent shipments of empty Pandora’s Makeup Boxes to Ms.
Williams (63 TTABVue). Even if these transactions were ones we had to consider in
reaching our determination herein, the delivery of these products to Ms. Williams in 2000
looks much more like an intra-company transfer of product rather than the type of arms-
length transaction that would constitute use in commerce under the Lanham Act. However,
as Opposer has suggested in its reply brief, Applicant would have us fall “through the
Looking Glass.” Applicant has not sought to cancel, in whole or part, any of Opposer’s
federal trademark registrations for the mark PANDORA. In a proceeding such as the one
at bar, the rule enunciated above in King Candy directs us to balance these equities by
favoring Opposer’s long-standing registrations against another party (even one claiming to
be the prior user in the U.S.) who delays too long in electing to seek registration in the
United States. See King Candy, Inc., 182 USPQ at 110-11.
33 49 TTABVue at 226 of 928 [PJ05111-13].
34 Id. at 222-25 of 928 [PJ05117-20].
- 11 -

Opposition No. 91196078
VI. Likelihood of Confusion
The critical issue in this proceeding is likelihood of confusion. Opposer must
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a likelihood of confusion.
We base our determination under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act upon an analysis
of all of the probative evidence of record 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”). See also, In re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d
1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard
Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976). We discuss all the
relevant du Pont factors below.
Fame A.
Given the dominant role that the fame of a prior mark plays in our likelihood of
confusion determination, we turn first to the fame of Opposer’s pleaded PANDORA
mark. Fame of the prior mark plays a dominant role in likelihood of confusion cases
featuring a famous mark. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Products Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63
USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54
USPQ2d 1894, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Because of the wide latitude of legal protection
accorded a famous mark and the dominant role fame plays in the likelihood of
confusion analysis, the party asserting fame must clearly prove it. Lacoste Alligator
S.A. v. Maxoly Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1594, 1597 (TTAB 2009); Leading Jewelers Guild
Inc. v. LJOW Holdings LLC, 82 USPQ2d 1901, 1904 (TTAB 2007). Fame for
likelihood of confusion purposes arises as long as a “significant portion of the
relevant consuming public … recognizes the mark as a source indicator.” See Palm
- 12 -
Opposition No. 91196078
Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d
1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1694 (Fed Cir. 2005). This type of fame may be measured
indirectly by the volume of sales and advertising expenditures of the goods and
services marketed under the mark, and other factors such as length of time of use of
the mark; widespread critical assessments; notice by independent sources of the
products identified by the marks; and the general reputation of the products and
services. Bose Corp., 63 USPQ2d at 1308.
Applicant argues that Opposer has failed to show that its PANDORA mark is
famous inasmuch as it has not submitted survey evidence demonstrating its level of
fame. Applicant also points to the suggestive nature of the term PANDORA
Opposer’s allegedly competing in a crowded field of “Pandora-formative” marks, and
that Opposer’s claimed registrations all involved marks having some degree of
stylization.
Opposer’s jewelry products are sold through a nationwide network of retailers.
This includes independent, third-party, multi-brand jewelry stores as well as
national chains such as Jared. Retailers also include gift stores and department
stores such as Nordstrom and Bloomingdale’s. Since 2007, Opposer has also been
offering PANDORA brand jewelry and merchandise exclusively through a growing
chain of franchisees operating PANDORA concept stores. Opposer’s retail presence
in the United States has grown from thirty retail outlets in 2003 to almost three
thousand outlets a dozen years later.
Opposer’s successes are built around maintaining a consistent brand image and
experience in both the multi-brand retail setting and its concept stores. Opposer
- 13 -
Opposition No. 91196078
employs cooperative advertising programs with its retailers by using local print and
television advertising as well as national television advertisements with partners
such as Jared jewelry. Opposer has sponsored the nationally-televised PANDORA
Unforgettable Holiday Moments on Ice to help raise brand awareness during the
key holiday shopping period, and finds strategic product placement opportunities
for PANDORA jewelry products in television programs and films.
Since 2004, Opposer has consistently promoted the PANDORA brand in local
magazines and newspapers and through nationally-circulating print publications
with traditional print advertisements as well as “advertorial” sections. Prominent
advertisements have been placed regularly in national magazines such as Glamour,
Elle, Vogue, Marie Claire, Oprah, People, Shape and InStyle.
Opposer has also described the myriad ways in which it promotes the PANDORA
brand through online marketing efforts. These include targeted web advertising and
Opposer’s own website. A limited number of retailers do enjoy online distribution
rights and sell PANDORA jewelry over the Internet. Opposer launched a bimonthly
digital Pandora Magazine, highlighting the complementary role Opposer’s jewelry
can play with all the latest color trends and fashions in clothing and cosmetics.
Opposer maintains the “Pandora Club” – a free-to-join Pandora jewelry enthusiast
society whose members enjoy sneak peeks at upcoming lines and are notified of
special promotions or events in their areas.35 Opposer also utilizes social media,
including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Instagram, etc., to promote the
PANDORA brand.
35 49 TTABVue at 465, 741 of 928 [PJ004851, PJ004042].
- 14 -

Opposition No. 91196078
We find that Opposer has been most successful in quickly creating an outsized
place for itself within the retail jewelry industry in the United States. Taking a
promising concept designed to capture symbolically life’s unforgettable moments
supported by fine craftsmanship, it has strategically built excellent visibility for
itself through the use of advertising, editorial coverage and celebrities, while
maintaining an Internet presence that matches well the quality of the product and
the paradigm-changing aspirations of Opposer’s founders.
Opposer has used effectively national glossy magazines directed to women.
Various places in the record one finds reports on Opposer’s planned media
campaigns projected for each upcoming month,36 followed by a review of the
resulting media coverage.37 Some hits include unsolicited media exposure tied to
awards, industry publications, store openings, etc.38 Opposer has also mastered the
use of advertorials, of which there are several in the record stressing the
affordability and fun of its charm bracelets. For example, the popular theme of “One
Charm for Every Unforgettable Moment” was the subject of an advertorial included
within an Elle magazine issue:

36 Id. at 846, 857, 881, 897 of 928 [PJ011729, 81, 90, PJ011680]; 50 TTABVue at 389-99
[PJ06146-56].
37 49 TTABVue at 899-905 of 928 [PJ014359-64]; 50 TTABVue at 401-05 PJ06159-63].
38 See e.g., 49 TTABVue at 900-28 of 928 [PJ014360-87].
- 15 -

Opposition No. 91196078

39
This approach is also coordinated seamlessly with widespread media
appearances or endorsements by celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey, Diane Von
Furstenberg, Nicole Kidman, Tyra Banks, Catherine Zeta Jones, Melissa Ethridge,
Goldie Hawn, Venus Williams, Misty May-Treanor & Kerri Walsh
Jennings, Martina McBride, Christiane Amanpour, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mary
Robinson, Thelma Golden, Jane Goodall, Mukhtar Mai, etc.40 Opposer stays in the
public eye with the PANDORA Unforgettable Holiday Moments on Ice
television show, with inter alia, silver medalist and five-time U.S. Dance Champion,
Ben Agosto.41 Similarly, Opposer partners with U.S. Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman
as a spokesperson for the PANDORA brand.42
39 49 TTABVue at 699-706 of 928. See also Opposer’s Ex. 24, 49 TTABVue at 723-39 of 928
[PJ007601-16] for another advertorial (picturing a day in the life of a woman wearing
Pandora jewelry) called “In the Moment” in another issue of Elle magazine.
40 49 TTABVue 284, 608-619, 635, 853 of 928 [PJ005001, PJ004888-99, PJ011847,
PJ011797].
41 Id. at 64, 782 of 928 [PJ012622].
42 Id. at 64 of 928.
- 16 -

Opposition No. 91196078
Opposer has managed to garner goodwill and keep itself in the limelight with its
“Charmed Giving” program,43 by supporting: various charitable causes, including:
fighting breast cancer;44 supporting the Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund for
relief after Hurricane Katrina;45 Glamour magazine’s annual Women Of The Year”
awards;46 Empowering Hands;47 Habitat for Humanity;48 Institute for One World
Health;49 Doctors without Borders; as well as cooperative efforts with retailers to
support local schools charities, and other service organizations.50
Although the actual expenditures on marketing and advertising within the
United States and the actual annual sales figures in the United States are
contained in confidential filings, suffice it to say that Opposer’s level of promotional
activity and the resulting volume of sales in recent years are quite impressive. In
the space of a dozen years, Opposer has grown in the United States from a single
person hawking items of jewelry from the trunk of a car, to become one of the most
recognizable jewelry brands in the U.S. market.51
43 Id. at 281, 742, 745 of 928 [PJ004997, PJ004043, 46-47]; 50 TTABVue at 399-401 of 477
[PJ06157-59].
44 49 TTABVue at 238, 282, 425, 682, 745, 910 of 928 [PJ005133, PJ004998, PJ004811,
PJ004072, PJ004046, PJ014270].
45 Id. at 683, 844 of 928 [PJ004073 PJ011788].
46 Id. at 239, 285, 684, 745, 853 of 928 [PJ005134, PJ005002, PJ004074, PJ004046,
PJ011797].
47 Id. at 240, 684, 745 of 928 [PJ005135, PJ004074, PJ004046].
48 Id. at 240, 683, 745 of 928 [PJ005135, PJ004073, PJ004046].
49 Id. at 283, 745 of 928 [PJ004999, PJ004046].
50 Id. at 622, 626, 682-84, 745-46, 844 & 910 of 928 [PJ004902, 06, PJ004072-74, PJ004046-
47, PJ011788 & PJ014370].
51 Id. at 216-18 of 928 [PJ005111-13];
- 17 -

Opposition No. 91196078
Along the way, PANDORA jewelry was named, in 2008, as the “Hottest Brand”
in the jewelry field by InStore magazine. The InStore methodology measures critical
categories in which Opposer excels, such as print advertising in national consumer
magazines, total unique website visitors, as well as Facebook and other social media
activity among both casual and more engaged fans.52 Huge increases in sales
volume have resulted in an equally significant growth in its base of loyal customers.
With Opposer having found ever more ways in which to engage and connect with
the buying public, the trade press has paid close attention to Opposer’s steady climb
in rankings over the past dozen years. Over the past half-dozen years, Opposer has
maximized its usage of new digital platforms with vigorous activity on all forms of
social media, including Facebook,53 Twitter,54 YouTube,55 Pinterest, etc., in order to
promote the PANDORA brand. Certainly an incredibly high volume of unique
Internet hits, Facebook likes and shares, tweets and other web postings are
compelling evidence of the fame of a retailer’s mark. See Weider Publ’ns, LLC v.
D&D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1354 (TTAB 2014).
In addition to raw statistics as to the order of magnitude of the sales and the
advertising expenditures of the goods and services traveling under the PANDORA
mark, Opposer has offered some context in which to evaluate the relative
52 Id. at 748 of 928 [PJ004049]. For a similar ranking conducted by InDesign, see also
Opposer’s Ex. 34, 49 TTABVue at 816-27 of 928 [PJ00426-37]; 49 TTABVue at 905-08
[PJ014365-68].
53 See Opposer’s Ex. 31, 49 TTABVue at 776-801 of 928 [PJ012616-41].
54 See Opposer’s Ex. 32, 49 TTABVue at 802-12 of 928 [PJ012642-52].
55 See Opposer’s Ex. 33, 49 TTABVue at 813-15 of 928 [PJ012653-55].
- 18 -

Opposition No. 91196078
positioning of Opposer within the jewelry industry and the success of its
promotional efforts.
Opposer’s brand tracking surveys (e.g., brand funnel figures from 2007 to 2011,
as well as subsequent developments) show an impressive growth in both unaided
and aided awareness of the PANDORA jewelry brand. At the time the record closed
in this case, Pandora was quite strong compared with all the national and
international brands against which it benchmarks. In fact, Opposer submitted
evidence that its PANDORA and PANDORA JEWELRY marks represent the
number two recognized brand of jewelry in the United States (behind Tiffany) based
upon an industry index of sales and overall visibility.56 These tracking surveys
appear to us to be a relevant matrix of the success of Opposer’s nation-wide efforts:
advertising in using print magazines, national television advertising, frequent
unsolicited media hits, celebrity endorsements, online media successes, cooperative
advertising with retailers, partnering with charities, the opening of a significant
number of concept stores, and the like.57
Opposer has been appropriately vigilant in protecting its PANDORA marks
against likelihood of confusion. This includes final decisions of this tribunal (e.g.,
Opposition Nos. 91201787, 91199271 and 91204261)58 as well as copies of two dozen
decisions of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Arbitration and
Mediation Center in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure
56 McDonald Dep. at 145, 50 TTABVue at 222 of 477.
57 Id. at 139-40, 50 TTABVue at 216-17 of 477.
58 Opposer’s Exs. D, E and F, 31 TTABVue at 3-11 of 125; Opp. 91201787, Opp. 91199271
and Opp. 91204261.
- 19 -

Opposition No. 91196078
(“UDRP”) matters involving Opposer’s PANDORA trademark and service mark
(with copies printed from the WIPO’s online Internet archive on February 6,
2013).59
In sum, we find that Opposer has established that its PANDORA mark is, for
purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis, famous for a variety of jewelry
products, including its signature charm bracelets, as well as for retail store services
featuring jewelry and other fashion accessories. This factor weighs heavily in favor
of a finding of likelihood of confusion.
The Marks B.
Next, we turn to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor regarding the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression. See Palm Bay Imps., 73 USPQ2d at 1692.
“The 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).
In its brief, Applicant argues that Opposer has dissected its own marks, ignoring
some features and finding others to be dominant. Moreover, Applicant finds it
significant that its own mark is in the possessive form. By contrast, Opposer asserts
59 Opposer’s Ex. N, 40 TTABVue at 3-114 of 116.

- 20 -

Opposition No. 91196078
that despite this possessive form, Applicant’s mark is virtually identical in sight,
sound and meaning to Opposer’s marks.
While Applicant is correct that the marks must be compared in their entireties.
“there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or less weight
has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion
rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.” In re National Data Corp.,
753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As argued by Opposer, although
its registered marks include additional wording or stylizations, the consistent and
dominant portion of all of Opposer’s registered marks is “Pandora.” The smaller
tagline, “Unforgettable Moments,” the highly descriptive term “Jewelry,” and the
small crown design do not detract from the prominence of the word “Pandora” in all
of Opposer’s registrations. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“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’” (quoting CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218
USPQ 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); L.C. Licensing, Inc. v. Cary Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883,
1887 (TTAB 2008) (“[I]t is well settled that if a mark comprises both a word and a
design, then the word is normally accorded greater weight because it would be used
by purchasers to request the goods.”); Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group,
Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Further, CCB’s
applications disclaim ‘Bank’ and when a mark consists of two or more words, some
of which are disclaimed, the word not disclaimed is generally regarded as the
dominant or critical term.”). In practice, Opposer’s presentation emphasizing only
- 21 -
Opposition No. 91196078
its PANDORA name and mark has remained consistent since its introduction into
the United States in 2003.
Hence, the dominant, source-indicating portions of both parties’ marks are
identical: PANDORA. We find that Applicant’s adoption of the possessive form of
PANDORA (PANDORA’S) is not a source-identifying distinction. In re Chatam Int’l
Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946-47 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he dominant
feature of Chatam’s mark, GASPAR [in JOSE GASPAR GOLD], is also the dominant
feature of the registered mark, GASPAR’S [in GASPAR’S ALE], albeit in possessive
form. Thus, the Board correctly perceived that GASPAR and GASPAR’S convey a
similar appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.”); In re
Curtice-Burns, Inc., 231 USPQ 990, 992 (TTAB 1986) (McKenzie’s vs. McKenzie).60
In addition, because Applicant applied to register its mark in standard character
format without limitations as to any particular font style, size, or color, we therefore
must consider that Applicant’s mark might be used in any stylized display or color
scheme, including one that is similar or identical to any lettering style used by
opposer. Citigroup Inc. 98 USPQ2d at 1259; Weider Publ’ns, LLC, 109 USPQ2d at
1355.
Accordingly, we agree with Opposer that in all important respects, the marks
are highly similar as to appearance, sound, connotation and overall commercial
60 While we can only consider the mark as it appears in the application, we note that a
testimony exhibit introduced through Applicant’s principal shows that on its website,
Applicant used the mark PANDORA (in the context of a named hyperlink called “SHOP
PANDORA”) without the possessive form. Kirsch Dep. at 75, Kirsch Ex. 11 [PMB000320],
60 TTABVue at 5, 281 of 547.
- 22 -

Opposition No. 91196078
impression, and this important du Pont factor weighs strongly in favor of finding a
likelihood of confusion herein.
The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade C.
channels
Opposer submitted for the record copies of what appear to be the Valentine’s Day
issue of various national women’s magazines61 that would have been available on
newsstands at the time Opposer was preparing its Notice of Reliance in January
and February of 2013:

62

61 49 TTABVue at 236, 280 of 928 [PJ05131, PJ004996];
62 InStyle, February 2013, Opposer’s Ex. M, 39 TTABVue at 29, 31-33, 36-38 of 89
[PJ013214, 16-18, 21-23].
- 23 -

Opposition No. 91196078

 Dress, earrings
and necklace, Gucci.
Before applying
color, perfect your lip
shade with Estée
Lauder Double
Wear Stay-in-Place
Lip Pencil in Red. 63

64

63 Harper’s Bazaar, February 2013, Opposer’s Ex. M, 39 TTABVue at 2, 12-14 of 89
[PJ013183, PJ013193-95].
64 Elle, February 2013, Opposer’s Ex. M, 39 TTABVue at 19-27 of 89 [PJ013204-12].
- 24 -

Opposition No. 91196078
65

66

65 Allure, January 2013, Opposer’s Ex. M, 39 TTABVue at 63-66 of 89 [PJ013279-82].
66 Marie Claire, February 2013, Opposer’s Ex. M, Opposer’s Ex. 23; 39 TTABVue at 39, 42-
43, 45, 47, 49-50, and 54 of 89, and 49 TTABVue at 707-23 of 928 [PJ013240, 43-44, 46, 48,
50-51, & 55].
- 25 -

Opposition No. 91196078

67

67 Lucky, February 2013, Ex. M, 39 TTABVue 73-88 of 89 [PJ013224-39].
- 26 -

Opposition No. 91196078

68

69

Neither Applicant nor Registrant has placed any restrictions on their respective
channels of trade. The record confirms that both are available in retail stores,
68 Cosmopolitan, February 2013, Opposer’s Ex. M, 39 TTABVue at 55-61 of 89 [PJ013196,
PJ013199-202)].
69 Shape, January/February 2013, Ex. M, 39 TTABVue at 67, 71-72 of 89 [PJ013256, 60-61].
- 27 -

Opposition No. 91196078
whether online or through traditional brick-and-mortar shops within department
stores or in Opposer’s concept stores. Hence, we find that this du Pont factor favors
a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made D.
The parties agree that the retail prices of Applicant’s products are not
expensive.70 However, Applicant argues that the vast majority of Opposer’s
products are expensive, creating discerning consumers. There is certainly ample
evidence in the record that Opposer’s best customers have relatively high levels of
disposable income,71 and many of the end-product bracelets can cost several
thousand dollars.72 The concept behind Opposer’s classic yet modern bracelet is “one
charm for every unforgettable and charmed moment in your life.”73 It seems that
many consumers have quickly embraced Opposer’s concept of “affordable luxury”
products. Opposer posits that its individual charms cover a wide array of price
points from $25 to over $500 (e.g., gold with diamonds or precious stones).74
The way the product is created, a woman buying for
herself, another woman, a man buying for a woman can
buy small pieces of product over time. So if you’re
spending $50 on a specific occasion, it seems like a much
smaller purchase but in the end a woman can end up with
70 See Kirsch Dep. at 120-121.
71 49 TTABVue at 234, 278 of 928 [PJ005129, PJ004994].
72 Id. at 649-63 [PJ002271-84].
73 Or “Life has its Moments, Make them Unforgettable.” 49 TTABVue at 53 of 928
[PJ002457].
74 49 TTABVue at 741 of 928 [PJ004042]; McDonald Dep. at 115, 50 TTABVue at 206 of
477.
- 28 -

Opposition No. 91196078
a bracelet for several hundred dollars. She can end up
with a bracelet for several thousand dollars.75
In any case, this extensive record confirms that the “sweet spot” of the majority of
Opposer’s sales is in the $35 to $50 range.76 This system allows consumers to make
multiple purchases – each of which is relatively small – but that then add up over
time into a customized bracelet incorporating numerous individual charms chosen
from among more than 800 unique pieces.77 Since most of the involved products of
both parties are relatively inexpensive, we find that they could be deemed
individually to be impulse purchases.
Similarly, both Applicant and Opposer have targeted as their primary
demographic women aged 18 to 55. As noted earlier, Opposer partnered with U.S.
Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman as a spokesperson for the PANDORA brand.
Meanwhile, Applicant has featured Ms. Raisman and her Olympic teammates in its
blog.78 This episode further demonstrates that both parties seek to promote their
products through similar channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.
Accordingly, the parties are offering their goods and services to the same classes
of ordinary consumers. Hence, this du Pont factor weighs in favor of a finding of
likelihood of confusion herein, as contended by Opposer.
75 Id.
76 Id.
77 McDonald Dep. at 114-115, 50 TTABVue at 205-06 of 477; 49 TTABVue at 246 of 928
[PJ04962].
78 See pandorasmakeupboxblog. Christian Dep. at 114-115; Christian Ex. 23; Opp. NOR, Ex.
R at PJ012795.
- 29 -

Opposition No. 91196078
The Goods and Services E.
We turn next to the du Pont factor that focuses on the relationship of the goods
and services described in the affected application to the goods and services
identified in Opposer’s pleaded registrations and for which Opposer has shown prior
common law usage. Cunningham, 55 USPQ2d at 1846; Canadian Imperial Bank v.
Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
It is well established that the goods and services of the parties need not be
similar or competitive, or even offered through the same channels of trade, to
support a holding of likelihood of confusion. 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d
1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007). It is sufficient that the respective goods and services of the
parties are related in some manner, or that the conditions and activities
surrounding the marketing of the goods and services are such that they would or
could be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that could, because
of the similarity of the marks, give rise to the mistaken belief that they originate
from the same source. Id., In re Peebles, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1795 (TTAB 1992); In re
Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991). The issue, of course, is not
whether purchasers would confuse the goods or services, but rather whether there
is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods and services. See In re Rexel,
Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); see also J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.,
340 F.2d 960, 144 USPQ 435, 438 (CCPA 1965) (“The confusion involved, of course,
is not a confusion of goods but a confusion of business … .”).
Applicant in briefing the case has focused primarily on the absence of any
cognizable relationship between jewelry and makeup. In fact, it appears as if
- 30 -
Opposition No. 91196078
Applicant would have us conclude that there is an established rule in U.S.
trademark law that makeup and jewelry cannot be related goods. And that retail
store services in the field of cosmetics are obviously not related to retail store
services in the field of jewelry. There is no such legal tenet, and based on all of our
legal precedent, the answer to this question is one of fact, not one determined by
way of a per se rule.
Specifically, Applicant posits that jewelry is a fashion accessory totally unrelated
to makeup, which is a personal care item that could be said to be closely related to
other personal care items, such as face wash, lotion, and the like. Applicant cites to
American Hygienic Laboratories, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 12 USPQ2d 1979 (TTAB
1989) for the proposition that usage in connection with products such as jewelry,
crystal, and china could not be relied upon to establish priority with respect to the
specific cosmetic and toiletry products in its application. As in American Hygienic,
Applicant argues that Opposer’s priority in the case at bar rests solely upon
registrations for jewelry and other closely related goods – all of which Applicant
argues are totally unrelated to its makeup. Applicant concludes in its brief that
Opposer’s alleged proof of a relationship between makeup product and jewelry rests
on several instances where third-party registrations cover both goods. Applicant
argues that this showing is insufficient to conclude that consumers in the
marketplace would regularly expect such a combination for such disparate goods.
By contrast, Opposer argues that it is common for cosmetics and jewelry to
originate from the same source. In support of this position, Opposer placed into the
record representative third-party registrations where the same companies – from
- 31 -
Opposition No. 91196078
discount outlets to department stores to haute couture labels –were offering both
types of goods under the same mark:

for “cosmetics and fragrances” in International Class 3;
“jewelry, jewelry made of precious metal, costume jewelry,
watches, rings, necklaces, bracelets and earrings” in International
Class 14;79
CHANAV for “colognes, perfumes and cosmetics” in International Class 3; “real and imitation jewelry” in International Class 14;80
FOREIGN
EXCHANGE
for “fragrances, eau de toilette, perfume, face and body lotions and
creams, cosmetics, body and beauty care cosmetics, non-
medicated skin care preparations” in International Class 3;
“jewelry, watches, clocks” in International Class 14;81

for “cosmetics, including night and day creams, cleaning
preparations for the care of the face and body, bath-foam, shaving
foam, aftershaves, foundation makeup, nail polish, deodorants for
men and women, hand and body soaps, hair shampoos and rinses,
hair spray, toothpaste, and fragrances, namely perfume, toilet
water and essential oils for personal use for men and women” in
International Class 3;
“articles made of precious metals and alloys of precious metals,
with or without precious stones, namely rings, necklaces,
bracelets, brooches, earrings, tie clips, cuff-links, diamonds, jewel
cases, watches, clocks, chronometers, watch cases, costume
jewelry, parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods” in
International Class 14;82

for “cosmetics, including night and day creams, cleaning
preparations for the care of the face and body, bath-foam, shaving
foam, aftershaves, foundation makeup, nail polish, deodorants for
men and women, hand and body soaps, hair shampoos and rinses,
79 Registration No. 4168095 issued on July 3, 2012. The mark consists of a stylized stamp in
the shape of a circle with the words “Henri Bendel” in a stylized font in the center and the
words “New York” underneath. No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the term
“New York” apart from the mark as shown.
80 Registration No. 4006732 issued on August 2, 2011.
81 Registration No. 4216919 issued on October 2, 2012. No claim is made to the exclusive
right to use the word “Foreign” apart from the mark as shown.
82 Registration No. 3199127 issued on January 16, 2007; Section 71 affidavit accepted &
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
- 32 -

Opposition No. 91196078
hair spray, toothpaste, and fragrances, namely perfume, toilet
water and essential oils for personal use for men and women” in
International Class 3;
“articles made of precious metals and alloys of precious metals,
with or without precious stones, namely rings, necklaces,
bracelets, brooches, earrings, tie clips, cuff-links, diamonds, jewel
cases, watches, clocks, chronometers, watch cases, costume
jewelry, parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods” in
International Class 14;83

for “perfumery articles, namely, perfumes, essential oils for
personal use, eau-de-toilette, eaux de cologne, cosmetics, namely,
body creams, toning lotions for the body, face and hands, soap,
shaving creams, foams and gels, after-shave lotions, shaving
soaps, bath lotions, bath gels, bath milks, bath oils, bath beads,
bath crystals, bath powders, and bath salts” in International
Class 3;
“precious metals and their alloys and items made from precious
metals or coated with precious metals, namely, craftwork objects
in the nature of figures and figurines, smokers articles of precious
metals, namely, ashtrays, cigar and cigarette cases, snuffboxes,
dinnerware excluding cutlery, tie pins, cufflinks, belt buckles,
pendants, key rings, jewelry, bijouterie, precious stones,
timepieces, and chronometric instruments, namely, clocks,
watches, pocket watches, pendulum clocks, small clocks, alarm
clocks, stopwatches, dials for clock-and-watch-making, watch
glasses, boxes for timepieces, chests for timepieces, caskets and
cases for timepieces and jewelry, and buckles for watchstraps of
precious metals” in International Class 14;84

for “cosmetics and skin care products, namely, face cream, night
face cream, lip dye, lip gloss, body lotion, face spray, room
fragrance spray, perfume, cologne, skin creams and skin lotions,
scented lip gloss” in International Class 3;
“jewelry, jewelry bracelets, rings, earrings, necklaces and jewelry
chains, brooches, and charms” in International Class 14;85
83 Registration No. 3194501 issued on January 2, 2007; Section 71 affidavit accepted &
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
84 Registration No. 3112215 issued on July 4, 2006; Section 71 affidavit accepted & Section
15 affidavit acknowledged.
85 Registration No. 3084865 issued on April 25, 2006; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged. The mark consists of a stylized flower design.
- 33 -

Opposition No. 91196078
BROOKS
BROTHERS
for, inter alia, “cosmetics and toiletries, namely, emery boards,
cologne, cologne spray, after-shave lotion, after-shaving balms,
shaving cream, shampoo, body lotion, body gel, fragrances for
personal use, body creams, shower gels, skin cleansing cream, and
skin and body lotions for personal use” in International Class 3;
“watches, watchbands, clocks, key chains made of precious metal,
and jewelry” in International Class 14;86

for “shampoos; hair conditioners; body lotions; cosmetics;
foundations; face powders; compacts containing makeup; facial
concealers; lipsticks; lip balms; eye shadow; eye liners; mascara;
blush; eye-makeup remover; skin cleansers; lotions for face and
skin; creams for face, body and skin; moisturizers for face, body
and skin; masks and facial and body scrubs; bath foams; bubble
baths; body scrubs; exfoliant creams; perfumery; colognes;
essential oils for personal use; non-medicated toiletries; shaving
preparations” in International Class 3;
“jewelry, imitation jewelry and jewelry of precious metal and
stones, namely, necklaces, bracelets, ankle bracelets, earrings,
rings, lockets, chains, watches, pocket watches, charms, cuff links,
tie pins” in International Class 14;87

for “perfumes, toilet water, perfume water, colognes; pre-shave
and aftershave lotions” in International Class 3;
“Jewelry and costume jewelry; articles made of precious metals or
coated therewith, namely, rings, bracelets, necklaces, earrings;
clocks and watches; watch straps and watch bracelets; lapel pins,
cufflinks, tie clips, tie pins, tie fasteners, namely, tie slides and tie
bars; replacement parts for all the aforesaid goods” in
International Class 14;88
86 Registration No. 3029206 issued on December 13, 2005; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
87 Registration No. 3372858 issued on January 22, 2008; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
88 Registration No. 3290811 issued on September 11, 2007; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
- 34 -

Opposition No. 91196078

for, inter alia, “soaps, perfumes, cosmetics, hair lotions” in
International Class 3;
“jewelry and watches; bracelets, earrings, rings, necklaces, tie
clips, lapel pins, cuff links, key rings, watch bands, wrist watches”
in International Class 14;89

for, inter alia, “toilet soaps; perfumes; essential oils for personal
use; cosmetics; namely, mascaras, lipsticks, foundations and eye
liners; and dentifrices” in International Class 3;
“jewelry; costume jewelry; clocks and watches” in Int. Class 14;90
DISNEY for “non-medicated toiletries, cosmetics, dentifrices” in International Class 3;
“jewelry, watches, clocks, jewelry boxes not made of precious
metals” in International Class 14;91
Bella Couture for “bar soap; bath crystals; bath oil; bath oils; bath soaps; blush; body creams; body lotions; body powder; body scrub; bubble bath;
cologne; cosmetics; eau de toilette; essential oils; essential oils for
personal use; eye shadow; face powder; foundation; lip gloss;
lipstick; liquid soap; make-up; mascara; perfume; perfumery;
room fragrances; shower gel; skin moisturizer; toilet water” in
International Class 3;
“bracelets; cufflinks; earrings; gemstones; jewelry; necklaces;
pendants; pins; precious stones; rings; jewelry chains” in
International Class 14;92
ATSURO TAYAMA for “soaps, namely, facial, hand and body soaps and shampoos; perfumery; cosmetics, namely, face lotion, face cream, lipstick,
eyeliner and rouge, hair lotions; dentifrices” in International
Class 3;
“jewelry, namely, earrings, cuff-links, belt buckles, tie pins,
necklaces, pendants, bracelets and rings; precious and semi-
precious stones, namely, emeralds, sapphires, corals, pearls,
89 Registration No. 3261860 issued on July 10, 2007; Section 8 affidavit accepted and
Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
90 Registration No. 1724877 issued on October20, 1992; second renewal.
91 Registration No. 4042815 issued on October 18, 2011.
92 Registration No. 3549267 issued on December 23, 2008; Section 8 affidavit accepted.
- 35 -

Opposition No. 91196078
crystals, diamonds, jade and rubies; watches and clocks” in
International Class 14;93

for “perfumes, toilet water, personal and body deodorants,
essential oils for personal use, body lotions, shower gel, bubble
bath, hair shampoos, hair sprays, hair lotions, bath oils, bath
pearls, skin soaps, aftershave lotions, cosmetic pencils, foundation
make-up, face powders, talcum powder, rouges, lipsticks,
mascaras, skin cleansing creams, skin cleansing lotions, sun
screen reparation, nail polish remover, face creams, body creams,
hand creams, dentifrices, dental gels, non-medicated salts for
bath and shower, toilet soaps, shampoos” in International Class 3;
“earrings, jewelry rings, pendants, jewelry chains, jewelry pins,
diadems, medallions, cufflinks, tie clips, watches, clocks,
chronometers, watch straps; jewelry and watch cases made of
precious metals, trays and ashtrays of precious metals, cigarette
boxes of precious metals, napkin rings of precious metals” in
International Class 14;94

for, inter alia, “soaps, namely, skin soap, and body soap,
perfumery, and cosmetics” in International Class 3;
“jewelry” in International Class 14;95
YANBAL for “cologne, perfume, after shave lotion, talcum powder, bath gel and bath foam lotion, toilet soap, lipstick, lip pencil, eyeliner
pencil and applicator, eye shadow, mascara, compact containing
face powder, compact containing powder blush, rouge pencil, gel
and cream rouge, nail enamel and nail polish remover, cuticle
remover and cuticle cream, skin cleansing cream, lotion and gel,
liquid facial cleanser, skin cleansing grains, liquid
astringent/toning lotion, cream and lotion moisturizer, massage
cream, facial masque, eye and hand cream, body lotion, facial line
smoother, hair shampoo, lotion and cream hair conditioner,
deodorant/anti-perspirant, mouth wash, feminine deodorant spray
and foot talc” in International Class 3;
“jewelry-namely, necklaces, earrings, bracelets, rings and pins” in
International Class 14;96
93 Registration No. 2598214 issued on July 23, 2002; renewed.
94 Registration No. 2296365 issued on November 30, 1999; renewed. The design element of
the mark consists of a stylized eagle. The English translation of the word “Emporio” is
“Store.”
95 Registration No. 3069625 issued on March 21, 2006; Section 8 affidavit accepted.
96 Registration No. 1241758 issued on June 14, 1983; second renewal.
- 36 -

Opposition No. 91196078
See e.g., Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100 (TTAB 2007)
(finding that third-party registrations have probative value to suggest that the
goods are a type that emanate from a single source). See also In re Mucky Duck
Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988). In addition to the above
copies of the registrations, Opposer placed into the record images of third-party
specimens of use filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (for
example, by Henri Bendel, Versace, Société Civile, Repossi, Alex and Ani, Kimora
Lee Simmons, Brooks Brothers, Stella McCartney, Atsuro Tayama, Emporio
Armani, Jun Ashida, and Yanbal), showing the same registered marks used in
connection with labels or trade dress of goods in both the cosmetics and jewelry
fields.97
Additionally, Opposer included screen-prints of websites from national retailers
(limited to the first half of the alphabet) that offer both jewelry and cosmetics under
the same brand98 such as Aéropostale (cosmetics and charm bracelets),99 Armani
(lip stains, cosmetic cases and bracelets),100 Avon (lipstick and bracelets), 101
97 Opposer’s Ex. K, 37 TTABVue.
98 Opposer’s Ex. L, 41 TTABVue.
99 aeropostale.com/ as captured by Opposer on January 16, 2013.
100 armani.com/ as captured by Opposer on January 15, 2013, and giorgioarmani as
captured by Opposer on January 23, 2013.
101 shop.avon.com/1 and shop.avon.com/2 as captured by Opposer on January 16, 2013. 49
TTABVue 123-24 of 928. Jody Christian of Pandora, who has years of experience in the
jewelry industry and has frequently attended trade shows confirmed that celebrity brands
(e.g., Jessica Simpson) as well as Avon and other nationally-known gift brands offered
cosmetics and personal care products along with jewelry. Christian Dep. 50 TTABVue at
115-117 of 427. For various references to the trade shows in which Opposer participates, see
also 49 TTABVue at 242, 286-87, 636-48, 837-38, 855, 861-62 of 928 [PJ05137, PJ005003-
- 37 -

Opposition No. 91196078
Burberry (cosmetics and jewelry),102 Chanel (makeup, cosmetics, bracelets, jewelry
and watches),103 Christian Dior (makeup, beauty, jewelry),104 Dolce & Gabbana
(makeup, beauty, jewelry),105 Forever 21 (makeup, beauty, jewelry),106 H&M
(cosmetics, makeup and jewelry),107 and Nordstrom (cosmetics, makeup and
jewelry).108
Furthermore, as seen above in our discussion of trade channels where we
reproduced copies of advertisements in glossy, national women’s magazines, the
Cosmopolitan page called “Jewel Rush” (reproduced above) discusses a series of
personal and beauty care items inspired by metallic themes (e.g., platinum, , gold,
silver and diamonds) drawn from jewelry. In fact, it highlights the “Chanel’s 1932
collection (a new jaw-dropping take on its very first fine jewelry line, created 80
years ago) – and the new scent … inspired by it. The Allure magazine above
contains adjoining advertisements for Chanel as well as Dior bracelets, eye shadow,
eyeliner and lipsticks.
The graphic evidence of the close relationship of cosmetics and beauty care
products to jewelry seen repeatedly in the pages of these magazines is corroborated
04, PJ005407-11, PJ004903-04, PJ004219-22, PJ003628-29, PJ011811-12, PJ011799
PJ011785-86].
102 us.burberry.com/jewellery/, us.burberry.com/lips/ and us.burberry.com/skin/, as captured
by Opposer on January 16, 2013.
103 chanel.com/, as captured by Opposer on January 16, 2013.
104 dior.com, as captured by Opposer on January 16, 2013.
105 dolcegabbana.com/ and dolcegabbanamakeup.com/ as captured by Opposer on January
16, 2013.
106 forever21.com/, as captured by Opposer on January 16, 2013.
107 hm.com/, as captured by Opposer on January 16, 2013.
108 nordstrom.com/, as captured by Opposer on January 16, 2013.
- 38 -

Opposition No. 91196078
by the testimony of witnesses for both parties who agreed that in many large
department stores (Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, and Saks Fifth Avenue etc.), the
makeup counters are often located quite closely to the jewelry counters. Perfume is
a natural progression for all jewelry brands.109 We note that Opposer’s “Pandora
magazine” contains beauty tips on makeup, nails, lips, and hair styling. Moreover,
Opposer’s parent Pandora A/S is currently attempting to extend protection of its
International Registration to the United States for the mark PANDORA for a
variety of goods and services including “perfumery.”110
Given the fame of Opposer’s PANDORA Brand and the virtual identity of the
parties’ marks, the relatedness of the goods weighs heavily in favor of Opposer. See
In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Com., 222 USPQ 355, 1983 (TTAB 1983) (“[I]t is
important to note that the greater the degree of similarity in the marks, the lesser
the degree of similarity that is required of the products or services on which they
109 McDonald Dep. at 107, 50 TTABVue at 199 of 477.
110 Opposer’s Ex. P, 32 TTABVue at 3-21 of 28. Opposer is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Pandora A/S. We note that Registration No. 4333461 issued to Opposer’s parent, Pandora
A/S, on May 14, 2013, for the mark PANDORA for “sunglasses; spectacles; spectacle cases;
optical articles, namely, eyeglass chains, eyeglass cords” and “goods in precious metals and
alloys thereof, namely, diamonds, brilliants, precious stones, jewelry, cufflinks, tie pins,
watches, clocks, watch straps, cases and boxes especially designed for clocks and jewelry;
diamonds; brilliants; precious stones; ornaments in precious metals or coated therewith not
included in other classes; jewelry; cufflinks and tiepins; watches; clocks; watch straps;
bijouterie coated with precious metals; cases and boxes especially designed for clocks and
jewelry” in International Class 14.
This ’461 Reg. was the child application of Opposer’s Application Serial No. 79069628 for
the mark PANDORA for “perfumery” in International Class 3, and “advertising and
promotional activities; assistance with business management and business administration;
assistance with the handling of office functions; wholesale and retail store services
featuring jewelry and other fashion accessories; sales promotion for others” in International
Class 35. This ’628 application is suspended in the Trademark Examining Operations
pending the outcome of the involved Application Serial No. 77604365.
- 39 -

Opposition No. 91196078
are being used in order to support a holding of likelihood of confusion.”); Kohler Co.,
82 USPQ2d at 1110; Weider Publ’ns., 109 USPQ2d at 1355.
Opposer’s retail store services – through its concept stores in shopping malls and
its shop-in-shop locations in large department stores – are at the heart of Opposer’s
operations. The record shows that: there is a close relationship between makeup,
cosmetics and beauty care products on the one hand and jewelry on the other; that
these respective types of goods are marketing in the same magazines and
merchandised through the same trade channels; that makeup counters in
department stores are often located quite closely to jewelry counters, and that in the
virtual world of online shopping, even these physical spatial differences disappear;
and that the parties are targeting the same demographic for gifts and purchases
from the same pot of discretionary income. Accordingly, we find that Applicant’s
recited retail store services are related to Opposer’s retail store services featuring
jewelry and other fashion accessories.
Accordingly, this du Pont factor also favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
The variety of goods on which a mark is used F.
As noted above, we find that makeup is indeed related to jewelry. We have
seen that other well-established brands offer both jewelry and cosmetics under
the same brand. Perhaps not surprisingly, Opposer has followed the example of
other leading brands in this field by enhancing its jewelry universe and then
- 40 -
Opposition No. 91196078
planning to add new categories of products by embracing, inter alia, cosmetics
and fragrances as natural expansions to its core business.111
Over the years, Opposer has noted a broadening of the scope of its competition as
well as a perceptible shift to men buying its jewelry items during the holidays112:
“We compete against flowers, chocolates, perfumes,
cosmetics, books, lingerie. We’re in a much larger gifting
market. Initially, when Pandora was introduced, women
were buying this product for themselves. Now, we can see
that the majority of purchases are driven through gifts. So
its women buying for other women and men buying for
women.113
As seen in Mr. McDonald’s testimony, Opposer sees itself as competing in the
“gift industry.” Opposer explains that the gift industry includes a large category of
products dependent upon consumers having sufficient discretionary income. For
example, other personal style items often advertised and sold in close proximity to
jewelry and perfume include boutique apparel, scarves and other clothing
accessories, other bath and body product, and handbags.114
In fact, Opposer itself has already extended the use of its PANDORA brand to
market a range of non-jewelry goods. In the past, Pandora has introduced
111 McDonald Dep. at 105-08, 50 TTABVue at 197-200 of 477. See also Mission 1: Product
Development, Id. at 292 of 477 [PJ006050].
112 McDonald Dep. at 114, 50 TTABVue at 205 of 477.
113 Id.
114 See 49 TTABVue at 671, 675 of 928 [PJ004061, 65].
On the other side of this litigation, we note that Applicant itself claims to have moved
into the fragrance area by marketing a perfume in combination with its nail polish product,
and has allegedly sold scarves as well. Kirsch Dep. at 116, 188, 60 TTABVue at 322, 394 of
547; Opp. Ex. R , 34 TTABVue at 4-7 of 11, [PJ012789-92].
- 41 -

Opposition No. 91196078
sunglasses,115 watches116 and apparel117 into its product mix. Related goods such as
women’s accessories, cosmetics and fragrances are also natural points of expansion
for a jewelry brand – not only because of their typical close proximity at common
points of sale such as department stores, but also because they all compete in this
larger “gift market.” Inasmuch as the majority of Opposer’s goods are purchased as
gifts, such expansions simply make good business sense.118
As to promotional products, Opposer has also developed and offers a variety of
non-jewelry items for sale to its retail partners.119 Opposer has distributed as
promotional items mobile tags,120 umbrellas,121 jewelry rolls122 and purse
hangers,123 jewelry cases,124 aprons,125 pens126 and key rings.127 As for one high
volume promotional item of relevance to the case at bar, we note that Pandora has
115 49 TTABVue at 893 of 928 [PJ011676]. McDonald Dep. at 97-98, 104-05, 50 TTABVue at
193-94, 196-87 of 477.
116 49 TTABVue at 527-37, 781 of 928 [PJ012023-32, PJ012621]; McDonald Dep. at 104-05,
50 TTABVue at 196-97 or 477.
117 49 TTABVue at 850, 858 of 928 [PJ011782, 94].
118 McDonald Dep. at 104-107, 113-15, 50 TTABVue at 196-99, 204-06 of 477.
119 50 TTABVue at 415 of 477 [PJ006173]; Christian Dep. at 130-139; Christian Exs. 29-30.
120 50 TTABVue at 198 of 477.
121 49 TTABVue at 774 of 928 [PJ013953], 50 TTABVue at 198 of 477.
122 49 TTABVue at 757, 874 of 928 [PJ013938, PJ011722].
123 Id. at 874 of 928 [PJ011722].
124 Id. at 760 of 928 [PJ013941], McDonald Dep. at 104-05, 50 TTABVue at 196-97 of 477;
50 TTABVue at 198 of 477.
125 49 TTABVue at 756 of 928 [PJ013937].
126 Id. at 772 of 928 [PJ013953].
127 McDonald Dep. at 104-05, 50 TTABVue at 196-97 of 477.
- 42 -

Opposition No. 91196078
distributed hundreds of thousands of mirrored compacts as premiums to its
customers.128

Hence, consumers in the marketplace having a relatively high awareness of
Opposer’s house mark on jewelry have also seen the PANDORA mark used in
connection with a wide array of non-jewelry items, including most significantly for
our purposes herein, a mirrored compact.
The number and nature of similar marks in use on related goods G.
This du Pont factor focuses on the usage by third-parties of similar marks in
connection with related goods or services in the marketplace. Such evidence
demonstrates that customers have become conditioned by a plethora of similar
marks to distinguish between different marks on the basis of minute distinctions.
Palm Bay Imps, 73 USPQ2d at 1694.
In this context, Applicant argues that “[m]any third parties use marks
containing the term PANDORA.” Applicant argues that its copies of many of these
registrations involve statements of use, as well as a search report detailing the
numerous uses of the term PANDORA on the Internet and as registered business
128 Opposer’s Ex. 30, 49 TTABVue at 775, 866 of 928 [PJ011774]; Christian Dep. at 139, 50
TTABVue at 14 of 477.
- 43 -

Opposition No. 91196078
names. As a result, Applicant argues that these sources are reflective of wide-
spread actual use, thereby diminishing the commercial strength of Opposer’s
PANDORA mark.
By contrast, Opposer points out that most of the registrations on which
Applicant relies have expired or been cancelled, and that furthermore, third-party
registrations are not evidence of third-party use. We agree with Opposer that
absent evidence of actual use, third-party registrations have little relevance since
they are not proof that the marks are in use on a commercial scale or that the public
has become familiar with them. See Smith Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Stone Mfg. Co., 476
F.2d. 1004, 177 USPQ 462, 463 (CCPA 1973) (the purchasing public is not aware of
registrations reposing in the United States Patent and Trademark Office);
Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana Inc., 98
USPQ2d 1921, 1934 (TTAB 2011); In re Hub Distributing Inc., 218 USPQ 284, 286
(TTAB 1983). At best for Applicant’s position of no likelihood of confusion, this is a
neutral factor.
An absence of actual confusion H.
Applicant argues that contemporaneous usage of the parties’ respective marks
within the United States over the past decade without any evidence of actual
confusion is powerful evidence that its trademark has not resulted in a likelihood of
confusion.
By contrast, Opposer points out that under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, it is
required to show a likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. Evidence of actual
confusion is notoriously difficult to prove. Time Warner Enter. Co. v. Jones, 65
- 44 -
Opposition No. 91196078
USPQ2d 1650, 1662-63 (TTAB 2002). Accordingly, it is not necessary for Opposer,
as a plaintiff in this inter partes proceeding, to show instances of actual confusion in
order to establish likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, we agree with Opposer that
the extent of Applicant’s actual use in the United States is most unclear. Applicant’s
evidence supporting its claim of use in the United States is incomplete as to the
nature, duration, manner and extent of any such use of Applicant’s mark on the
goods and services covered by the involved application. As Ms. Kirsch concedes,
Applicant is a “small brand building a business, so our product is not so easy to
find.”129 During the course of this litigation, Applicant has made no proffer as to the
monetary amount it has spent to promote the sale of its goods and services in the
United States. Similarly, we cannot determine the volume of Applicant's sales of its
goods or services within the United States during this period, but do question
whether Applicant’s goods have been advertised and distributed in such numbers
that the alleged absence of actual confusion is legally significant in this case. Under
these circumstances, the absence of any proof of actual confusion is not surprising.
At best for Applicant, this du Pont factor is also neutral in our final determination
of likelihood of confusion.
The extent of potential confusion I.
Although Applicant continues to argue there is no showing in this record of a
likelihood of confusion, in the alternative, Applicant contends that even if there
were such a showing, the extent of such confusion would be minimal. By contrast,
129 Kirsch Dep. at 68, 60 TTABVue at 274 of 547.
- 45 -

Opposition No. 91196078
Opposer argues that should Applicant’s mark proceed to registration, the potential
harm to Opposer is great.
In this vein, Opposer paints a scenario where one of Applicant’s retail stores
“featuring cosmetics, cosmetic implements and cosmetic boxes,” and trading as
PANDORA’S, could be located in the same shopping mall as one of Opposer’s
PANDORA concept stores. Or both could find themselves leasing a shop-in-shop
space adjacent to each other within a large department store.
As seen above, over the past dozen years, Opposer has invested a great deal of
time, effort, and money in building its famous PANDORA brand. From the humble
beginnings in 2002 of sales out of the trunk of a car, Opposer has built one of the
most recognized jewelry brands in the United States.130 Should Applicant’s mark –
nearly identical to Opposer’s famous mark – be allowed to register for related goods
and services, the potential for consumer confusion and damage to Opposer is
manifest.
VII. Conclusion
We disagree with Applicant’s vocal remonstrations that it represents a tiny
David caught up in a battle to the death with Goliath. We have indeed seen
corporate bullying, and this is not such a case. Rather, on this record, we find that
in the relatively short time frame of a dozen years, Opposer has streaked upward
along a remarkable trajectory. It has timely registered its marks, and played by the
rules. At the time Applicant filed the involved application in the United States,
Opposer’s epic ascent here was well on its way.
130 McDonald Dep. at 145, 50 TTABVue at 222 of 477.
- 46 -

Opposition No. 91196078
We remind Applicant that our primary reviewing court has held repeatedly that
whenever fame exists, it “plays a ‘dominant’ role in the process of balancing the
du Pont factors.” Recot, 54 USPQ2d at 1897. Famous marks enjoy wide latitude of
legal protection since they are more likely to be remembered and associated with a
single source in the public mind than is the case with weaker marks. For this
reason, a famous mark “casts a long shadow which competitors must avoid.’” Palm
Bay Imps., 73 USPQ2d at 1694; Recot, 54 USPQ2d at 1897 (quoting Kenner Parker
Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)); Loreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1437 (TTAB 2012)
(“[E]xtreme deference [is] accorded to a famous mark in terms of the wide latitude
of legal protection it receives … ”). As a corollary, well-settled law teaches that as
the fame or strength of a mark increases, the closeness of the relationship between
the respective goods and services necessary to support a conclusion of likelihood of
confusion declines. Bose 63 USPQ2d at 1308-10.131
Here, Opposer has established that it has a conceptually strong and famous
mark. Applicant’s mark is substantially the same as Opposer’s famous mark. The
131 Applicant is convinced that Opposer chooses to litigate cases like this one against the
much smaller Applicant rather than taking on Pandora Internet radio, for example (see
Applicant’s brief at 9), because Applicant is an easier target. In this context, we note that
Opposer does not own proprietary rights to the English-language word “Pandora” in gross.
This fits with the oft-quoted aphorism in trademark law about the distance between
“bananas and bulldozers.” In keeping with that fact, Opposer may not fear a loss in
revenues from its U.S. operations should Pandora Internet radio do exceedingly well, or
contrariwise, fall totally out of favor with its online listeners or advertisers. By contrast, it
is a different story to contemplate that the goodwill that Opposer has built in the United
States around its PANDORA jewelry brand over the past dozen year could well be
diminished or damaged by likely confusion with the registration of Applicant’s PANDORA’S
mark covering makeup and retail services in the field of cosmetics.
- 47 -

Opposition No. 91196078
parties’ actual channels of trade and marketing conditions are the same, Applicant’s
goods and services are related to Opposer’s registered goods, and finally, Opposer
has demonstrated its common law usage on a variety of non-jewelry goods and on
retail store services as of a date prior to Applicant’s constructive date of first use. To
the extent Applicant points to other du Pont factors such as the absence of any
showing of actual confusion, this factor is, at best for Applicant’s position herein,
neutral. In weighing all of the du Pont factors, we find that should Applicant’s mark
proceed to registration, the potential harm to Opposer is great.
Decision: The opposition is hereby sustained, and registration of Applicant’s
PANDORA’S mark under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act is refused.
- 48 -