Petroleum Technology, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2008

No. 76663951 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2008)

Mailed: March 6, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Petroleum Technology, Inc.
________

Serial No. 76663951
_______

Myron Amer of Myron Amer, P.C. for Petroleum Technology,
Inc.

Elizabeth L. Beyer, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 102 (Karen M. Strzyz, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Walters, Bucher and Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Petroleum Technology, Inc. seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark PETROTECH (in standard
character form) for goods ultimately identified as “oil
reclamation machinery, namely, oil separatory system
comprised of a mesh strainer and high surface filter, a
pump, a low-watt density heater, a pressure-switch gauge, a
valve, a liquid-gas separation column, a condenser, a
condensate collection chamber with a level control switch
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76663951
2
and a vacuum discharge pump to treat hydraulic and
industrial oils” in International Class 7.1
Registration has been refused under Section 2(d) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the ground that
applicant’s mark, when used with its identified goods, so
resembles the registered mark PETROTEC for “process
chemicals used in hydrocarbon refining and petrochemical
processing” in International Class 1, as to be likely to
cause confusion, mistake or deception.2
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed
and briefs have been filed. We affirm the refusal to
register.
Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination of the issue 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

1 Application Serial No. 76663951, filed August 1, 2006, alleging
first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce on January 1, 2002
under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051(a).

2 Registration No. 1507639, issued October 11, 1988, Sections 8
and 15 affidavits accepted and acknowledged.

Serial No. 76663951
3
(Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis,
two key considerations are the similarities between the
marks and the similarities between the goods. See
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
In comparing the marks, we must determine whether they
are sufficiently similar that there is a likelihood of
confusion as to source and, in doing so, we must consider
the recollection of the average purchaser who normally
retains a general, rather than specific, impression of
trademarks. Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ
106, 108 (TTAB 1975). The marks PETROTECH and PETROTEC are
phonetically identical and nearly identical in appearance
with only the addition of the letter H at the end of
applicant’s mark. See RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty
Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980) (similarity in
sound sufficient for likely confusion). The addition of
this letter does not change the connotation or commercial
impression of the mark and does not distinguish the
appearance of the mark to obviate a finding of similarity.
Thus, we find the marks to be highly similar when compared
in their entireties in terms of appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression, and the factor of
Serial No. 76663951
4
the similarity of the marks weighs in favor of likelihood
of confusion. Applicant does not argue to the contrary.
In traversing the refusal, applicant relies solely on
its contention that the goods are not related and the
channels of trade are different. Specifically, applicant
argues that “the respective goods are [not] marketed in a
way that they would be encountered in a situation that
would create the incorrect assumption that they originate
from the same source.” Br. p. 3. In addition, applicant
argues that the third-party registrations submitted by the
examining attorney do not demonstrate that “machines and
chemicals are of a kind that emanate from a single source.”
Reply Br. p. 4.
In support of her argument that the goods are related,
the examining attorney submitted printouts of webpages
retrieved from the Internet that show that applicant’s and
registrant’s goods, as identified in the application and
registration, are likely to be used together and that
“chemicals are used to clean oil reclamation machinery and
are added to oil reclamation machinery to replenish
depleted additives in the oil during or in connection with
the oil reclamation process.” Br. p. 5.
In addition, she submitted evidence in the form of
third-party use-based registrations to show that other
Serial No. 76663951
5
entities have adopted a single mark for applicant’s “oil
reclamation machinery” and registrant’s “process chemicals
used in hydrocarbon refining and petrochemical processing.”
See In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB
1993). While the third-party registrations do show that
entities have adopted a single mark for use in connection
with various types of machinery and various types of
chemicals, none of the third-party registrations contain
precisely the goods in issue here. See, e.g., Reg. No.
2575840 (HALLIBURTON for, inter alia, chemicals for use in
the construction, treatment, servicing, completion, and
working of oil, gas, geothermal, and water wells, and for
use in cleaning of industrial facilities, and machines and
machine tools used in well drilling and well working,
namely, pumps, injectors, coiled tubing, engines for
machine operation, transmissions for machine operation,
workover drill string, etc.) and Reg. No. 2830183 (ACCELON
for, inter alia, chemicals for use in the manufacture of
liquid admixture compounds, namely, fuels, alcohol fuel
additives, and hydrocarbon blends, and mechanical mixing
machine). Therefore, these registrations are of limited
probative value. Further, while there is evidence in the
record that registrant itself provides both chemicals and
related processing equipment, again the “processing
Serial No. 76663951
6
equipment” is not specifically listed as reclamation
machinery. See www.business.com.
We first note that where the marks are identical, the
relationship between the goods need not be as close to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion as would be
required in a case where there are differences between the
marks. Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70,
78 (TTAB 1981). Further, the issue is not likelihood of
confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of
confusion as to the source of those goods. In re Shell Oil
Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir.
1993). Finally, in making our determination, we must
consider the cited registrant’s and applicant’s goods as
they are described in the registration and application, and
we cannot read limitations into those goods. See Hewlett-
Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d
1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); and Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston
Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
To better understand applicant’s goods, the examining
attorney submitted an online article entitled “Turbine Oil
Reclamation and Refortification” which includes the
following excerpt:
Serial No. 76663951
7
Reclamation refers to cleaning and reconditioning
of a lubricant, thereby rendering it suitable for
continued use in the same application for which
it was originally formulated. In the industry
today, reclamation normally refers to the removal
of water and solid particles from the lubricant.
Refortification refers to the act of adding a
predetermined amount of additive to a clean, dry,
used lubricant to replenish some of the depleted
additives. In most cases, refortification and
reclamation are used together.

www.machinelubrication.com.

In addition, applicant submitted its own product
literature which includes the following excerpt:
Petrotech’s patented oil reclamation process is
not just limited to the mobile MORS-300 or MORS-
800 ... Whatever your choice you’ll get the same
Petrotech advantages: significant savings over
oil replacement; elimination of hazardous waste
disposal problems; and the increased productivity
that comes from proper fluids maintenance ...
Typical Oils Reclaimed By The Petrotech Process
... turbine ...

With regard to registrant’s goods, we begin by taking
judicial notice of the dictionary definitions from The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th
ed. 2006) for the words PETROCHEMICAL, HYDROCARBON,
REFINING, PROCESSING and ADDITIVE:3
Petrochemical n. A chemical derived from
petroleum or natural gas;

3 The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions.
University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.,
213 USPQ 594, 596 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
Serial No. 76663951
8
Hydrocarbon n. Any of numerous organic compounds,
such as benzene and methane, that contain only
carbon and hydrogen;

Refine, Refining, Refines v. 1. To reduce to a
pure state; purify. 2. To remove by purifying;

Processed processing processes 2. To repair,
treat, or convert by subjecting to a special
process: process ore to obtain minerals; and

Additive n. A substance added in small amounts
to something else to improve, strengthen, or
otherwise alter it.

Based on these definitions, the phrase “petrochemical
processing” in registrant’s identification of goods is
quite broad and would include chemical additives.
Moreover, the printout from the webpage Business.com
submitted by the examining attorney which discusses
registrant’s products as including “specialty chemical
treatment programs, performance-enhancing additives and
related process equipment ... includ[ing] demulsifiers,
corrosion inhibitors, drilling fluids, waxes and water
treating chemicals,” further supports a finding that the
identification of goods “process chemicals used in
hydrocarbon refining and petrochemical processing” would
include the additives used in conjunction with oil
reclamation. For example, additives in turbine oil include
antioxidants, rust inhibitors and corrosion inhibitors.
Serial No. 76663951
9
See “Turbine Oil Reclamation and Refortification,”
www.machinelubrication.com.
In view of the above, applicant’s goods, as
identified, can be used in conjunction with registrant’s
goods, as identified, to the extent that after applicant’s
machinery reclaims the oil, the used oil is refortified by
replenishing it with registrant’s additives. See
www.machinelubrication.com.
Reviewing the record as a whole, we find the evidence
taken together to be sufficiently persuasive to support a
finding that the goods as identified are complementary and,
as such, related.
Finally, inasmuch as there are no limitations in
registrant’s identification of goods, we must presume that
registrant’s goods will be offered in some of the same
channels of trade and will be used by some of the same
purchasers as applicant’s goods. See Canadian Imperial
Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
In conclusion, we find that because the marks are
nearly identical, the goods are related, and the channels
of trade and purchasers overlap, confusion is likely
between applicant’s mark and the mark in the cited
registration. To the extent there are any doubts, we
Serial No. 76663951
10
resolve them, as we must, in favor of the registrant. In
re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 840, 6 USPQ2d 1025
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.