PumpTek Asia Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2015

No. 85849476 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2015)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: July 15, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re PumpTek Asia Ltd.
________

Serial No. 85849476
_______

Sunisha S. Choksi of Law Office of Sunisha S. Choksi for PumpTek Asia Ltd.

Maureen Dall Lott, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105 (Susan
Hayash, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Cataldo, Lykos and Greenbaum,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cataldo, Administrative Trademark Judge:

PumpTek Asia Ltd. (“Applicant”) seeks registration the Principal Register of the
mark TEKLINE (standard characters) for the following goods, as amended: “power
cables for use in oil and gas exploration, drilling and production” in International
Class 9.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued a final refusal of registration of
Applicant’s mark on the ground of a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the

1 Application Serial No. 85849476 was filed on February 14, 2013, based upon Applicant’s
assertion of its bona fide intent to use the mark anywhere and in commerce.
Serial No. 85849476

- 2 -
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), in view of Registration No. 3745957 for the
mark TECHLINE MFG. (standard characters, MFG. disclaimed) for “electrical
raceway and metal cable trays not for use in building construction” in International
Class 9,2 and Registration No. 4103536 for the mark TECHLINE (standard
characters) for
electric and electronic actuators and structural parts not included in
other classes therefore [sic]; electrical and electronic controllers and
microprocessor controls for electrical motors, actuators and lifting
columns; electric and electronic power supplies, namely, power
supplies based on rechargeable batteries, transformers and rectifiers;
software for operating, monitoring and controlling actuators and lifting
columns; electric operating and control panels, wired and wireless
hand remote controls, electrical remote controls and foot remote
controls for electrical motors, actuators and lifting columns; electric
contact switches; electric contact limit switches; electronic limit
switches, electronic safety limit switches; encoders, optical encoders;
extension cables and cords, none of the aforementioned goods including
motor vehicle diagnostic computers

in International Class 9.3
Applicant filed a request for reconsideration and appealed the final refusal to
register. The Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration. The
refusal has been fully briefed by Applicant and the Examining Attorney.4

2 Issued on the Principal Register on February 9, 2010, currently owned after assignment
by Techline International, Inc. Section 8 affidavit accepted; Section 15 affidavit
acknowledged.

3 Issued on the Principal Register on February 28, 2012 to current owner Linak A/S. The
registration also identifies goods in International Class 7.

4 Applicant submitted its reply brief in single-spaced format. All printed submissions to the
Board, including briefs, must be double-spaced. Trademark Rule 2.126(a)(1), 37 C.F.R. §
2.126(a)(1). See also TBMP § 801.03 (2015) and authorities cited therein. Nonetheless,
Applicant’s reply brief is of sufficient brevity that, if double-spaced, it would fall within the
Serial No. 85849476

- 3 -
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 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
Registration No. 4103536
For purposes of the du Pont factors that are relevant to this appeal we will
consider Applicant’s involved mark and the mark that is the subject of cited
Registration No. 4103536. If likelihood of confusion is found as to the mark and
goods in this registration, it is unnecessary to consider the other cited registration
because the mark in Registration No. 3745957 is slightly less similar to the mark in
the involved application.5 Conversely, if likelihood of confusion is not found as to the
mark and goods in this registration, we would not find likelihood of confusion as to
the mark and goods in the other cited registration. See, e.g., In re Max Capital
Group Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010).
Similarities and Dissimilarities of the Marks
First we turn to the du Pont factor of the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks
at issue as to appearance, sound, meaning, and overall commercial impression.

applicable page limit. See Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(b)(2). Accordingly,
we will exercise our discretion to consider Applicant’s reply brief.

5 We observe that the two cited registrations are owned by different entities. However, we
are not privy to the facts surrounding the registration of these marks, including any
agreements that may exist between the owners thereof.

Serial No. 85849476

- 4 -
Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396
F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Regarding the first du Pont
factor, we recognize that the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks is determined
based on the marks in their entireties, and the analysis cannot be predicated on
dissecting the marks into their various components; that is, the decision must be
based on the entire marks, not just part of the marks. In re National Data Corp.,
753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also Franklin Mint Corp. V.
Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 212 USPQ 23, 234 (CCPA 1981) In addition, we
observe that while we have placed the two marks next to one another for
comparison purposes, consumers may not necessarily encounter the marks in such
proximity and must rely upon their recollections thereof.
As noted above, Applicant’s mark is TEKLINE in standard characters and the
mark in the cited registration is TECHLINE in standard characters. The marks are
nearly identical in appearance, differing only in the presence of the letter “K” in
Applicant’s mark in place of the letters “CH” in that of Registrant. Furthermore, the
substitution of the letter “K” in Applicant’s mark for the “CH” in the cited mark has
little, if any, effect on their pronunciation such that the marks are likely to sound
identical when pronounced, regardless of their pronuniciation. Regarding
connotation, both marks suggest a source of a line of technical or technological
equipment. Finally, we observe that Applicant acknowledges the similarities
between the marks:
Though the marks in the Cited Registrations are not identical to
Applicant’s Trademark, there are similarities among the marks, in
Serial No. 85849476

- 5 -
that each mark incorporates the word elements “LINE” and a
formative of “TECH”, including “TEC” or “TEK”.6

Viewed as a whole, Applicant’s mark is nearly identical to the mark in the cited
registration in appearance, sound and connotation. As a result, we find that the
marks convey commercial impressions that are nearly identical.
Relationship of the Goods
We turn now to the du Pont factor involving the similarity or dissimilarity of
Applicant’s “power cables for use in oil and gas exploration, drilling and
production”, and Registrant’s
electric and electronic actuators and structural parts not included in
other classes therefore [sic]; electrical and electronic controllers and
microprocessor controls for electrical motors, actuators and lifting
columns; electric and electronic power supplies, namely, power
supplies based on rechargeable batteries, transformers and rectifiers;
software for operating, monitoring and controlling actuators and lifting
columns; electric operating and control panels, wired and wireless
hand remote controls, electrical remote controls and foot remote
controls for electrical motors, actuators and lifting columns; electric
contact switches; electric contact limit switches; electronic limit
switches, electronic safety limit switches; encoders, optical encoders;
extension cables and cords, none of the aforementioned goods including
motor vehicle diagnostic computers.

It is settled that in making our determination, we must look to the goods as
identified in the application vis-à-vis those recited in the cited registration. See
Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d
1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computers Servs., Inc.,
918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Giovanni Food Co., 97

6 11 TTABVUE 6. Record citations are to TTABVUE, the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board’s publically available docket history system, by entry and, where applicable, page
number. See, e.g., Turdin v. Trilobite, Ltd., 109 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6 (TTAB 2014).
Citations to the prosecution history are by date and page numbers.
Serial No. 85849476

- 6 -
USPQ2d 1990, 1991 (TTAB 2011). It is not necessary that the respective goods be
competitive, or even that they move in the same channels of trade to support a
holding of likelihood of confusion. It is sufficient that the respective goods are
related in some manner, or that the conditions and activities surrounding the
marketing of the goods are such that they would or could be encountered by the
same persons under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that
they originate from the same producer. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning
LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Melville
Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991).
In support of the refusal to register, the Examining Attorney introduced into the
record with her January 7, 2014 Office Action evidence from commercial Internet
websites suggesting that the same third parties provide both Applicant’s goods and
certain of Registrant’s goods under the same marks. These include:7
AWC Allied Wire and Cable provides power cables for oil and gas
drilling rigs and remote controls
Awcwire.com;

Cypress Industries provides power cables and cable assemblies for the
oil and gas industry and hand held remote controls
Cypressindustries.com;

Horizon Oil & Gas Services provides power cables for the oil and gas
industry and control panels
Horizonoilgas.com;

Oasis Oilfield Services & Supplies provides power cables and switches
for the oil industry
Oasisoilfield.com; and

7 January 7, 2014 Office Action at 25-76.

Serial No. 85849476

- 7 -
TPC Wire & Cable Corp. provides power cables for the oil and gas
industry and portable extension cables and cords
Tpcwire.com.

The foregoing evidence suggests that Registrant’s goods may emanate from the
same sources as those of Applicant, and may be provided under the same marks.
Based upon the evidence of record, we find that consumers are likely to believe
that Applicant’s goods are related to certain of Registrant’s goods. Moreover, it is
not necessary for the Examining Attorney to prove likelihood of confusion with
respect to each item of goods identified in Applicant’s single-class application; if
there is likelihood of confusion with respect to any of Applicant’s identified goods,
the refusal of registration must be affirmed. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General
Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981). The evidence of
record in this case indicates that goods of a type identified in Applicant’s application
and Registrant’s registration are commercially related goods that may be marketed
and sold together under a common designation by third parties, and thus may be
encountered together by consumers.
Channels of Trade and Classes of Purchasers
Where the goods in an application or cited registration are broadly described,
such that there are no restrictions as to trade channels and purchasers, it is
presumed that the identification of goods encompasses not only all goods of the
nature and type described therein, but that the identified goods are offered in all
the normal channels of trade, and that they would be purchased by all the usual
customers. See, e.g., In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981).
Serial No. 85849476

- 8 -
Applicant’s goods, as identified in its application, are “for use in oil and gas
exploration, drilling and production.” However, Registrant’s goods are limited only
to the extent that “none of the aforementioned goods including motor vehicle
diagnostic computers,” and thus we must assume they are available in all other
trade channels, including those in which goods used for oil and gas exploration,
drilling and production may be found, and also are available to all usual consumers
of such goods. In other words, even if Applicant’s goods move in discrete trade
channels, the trade channels for Registrant’s goods, limited only to exclude motor
vehicle diagnostic computers, are broad enough to include those in which
Applicant’s goods may be found. In addition, the evidence of record discussed above
supports a finding that both Applicant’s goods and Registrant’s goods will be
marketed toward consumers of equipment for oil and gas exploration, drilling and
production.
Conditions of Sale and Sophistication of Purchasers
Applicant argues that its goods are marketed to sophisticated consumers who
will exercise care in their selection. Applicant did not submit any evidence in
support of this contention; however, we recognize that given the specialized nature
of the goods, they are likely to be subject to careful purchase. Nonetheless, even if
we accept that consumers of Applicant’s goods are knowledgeable and sophisticated
purchasers, that does not necessarily mean that they are immune from source
confusion because the marks are nearly identical. In re Decombe, 9 USPQ2d 1812
(TTAB 1988).
Serial No. 85849476

- 9 -
Conclusion
We have considered all of the du Pont factors for which Applicant and the
Examining Attorney have introduced evidence and arguments. The rest we treat as
neutral. After considering all of the evidence properly of record, including any
evidence not specifically discussed herein, and arguments pertaining to the du Pont
likelihood of confusion factors, we find that the marks are nearly identical, and the
goods are related and appear to be offered to the same class of purchasers. While
Applicant’s goods are offered in discrete trade channels, Registrant’s trade channels
are broad enough to encompass them, and evidence of record suggests the goods are
offered in some of the same channels of trade. While the purchasers of Applicant’s
goods may be sophisticated, they are still likely to be subject to confusion due to the
near identity of the marks. In view thereof, we find that Applicant’s mark, if used in
association with the goods identified in the application, is likely to cause confusion
with the mark in Registration No. 4103536 used in connection with the goods
recited in the registration.
Decision: The likelihood of confusion refusal to register Applicant’s mark is
affirmed.