RIIP, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

No. 85674156 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: December 28, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re RIIP, INC.
_____

Serial No. 85674156
_____

Joseph Agostino of Greenberg Traurig LLP,
for RIIP, Inc.
Katerina D. Medvedev, Trademark Examining Attorney,1 Law Office 120,
Michael W. Baird, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Cataldo, Wolfson and Gorowitz,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
RIIP, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the mark
SECURELOCK (in standard characters) for
Electrical connectors; electrical plugs; electrical outlets;
electrical plug device enabling connection and

1 In this proceeding, Katerina Medvedev represented the Office with respect to the
application at briefing. Miah Rosenberg is the Examining Attorney that was responsible for
the application during prosecution.
Serial No. 85674156
- 2 -

disconnection of power and/or control cables, in
International Class 9.2
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the
ground that Applicant’s mark, when used in connection with Applicant’s goods, so
resembles the previously registered mark SECURE-LOK (in standard characters)
for “push-on electrical connectors” in International Class 9 as to be likely to cause
confusion.3
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed to this
Board. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Applicable Law
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors 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); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d
1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (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, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated

2 Application Serial No. 85674156 was filed on July 11, 2012, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act.
3 Reg. No. 4471503, issued January 21, 2014.
Serial No. 85674156
- 3 -

by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics
of the goods and differences in the marks.”).
II. Analysis
A. The similarity of the marks.
We turn first to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on “the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression.” Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (quoting du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567). “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)
(citing Leading Jewelers Guild, Inc. v. LJOW Holdings, LLC, 82 USPQ2d 1901,
1905 (TTAB 2007); see also San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics
Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons Restaurants
Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d mem., 972 F.2d
1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Because a comparison of the marks is determined based on the marks in their
entireties, our 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 Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751
Serial No. 85674156
- 4 -

(Fed. Cir. 1985); see also Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 212
USPQ 233, 234 (CCPA 1981) (“It is axiomatic that a mark should not be dissected
and considered piecemeal; rather, it must be considered as a whole in determining
likelihood of confusion.”). The “touchstone of this factor is consideration of the
marks in total.” Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH KGAA v. New
Millenium Sports, S.L.U., 707 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a
general rather than a specific impression of trademarks. Joel Gott Wines LLC v.
Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (TTAB 2013); L’Oreal S.A. v.
Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012).
Applicant’s mark is the term SECURELOCK. The cited mark is the term
SECURE-LOK. Viewing the marks in their entireties, it is readily apparent that
both marks are composed of the two common English words “secure” and “lock” (or
its phonetic equivalent, “lok”). Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to
support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re 1st USA Realty
Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007) (FIRST USA and 1ST USA phonetic
equivalents); In re White Swan, 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988) (“In appropriate
cases, a finding of similarity as to any one factor (sight, sound or meaning) alone
‘may be sufficient to support a holding that the marks are confusingly similar.’”)
(citing Trak, Inc. v. Traq Inc., 212 USPQ 846, 850 (TTAB 1981)). That the
registered mark contains a hyphen and misspells “lock” as “lok” does not sufficiently
distinguish the marks. The hyphen simply reinforces a consumer’s natural
Serial No. 85674156
- 5 -

inclination to recognize the individual components of the mark and has no
independent source-indicating significance. See, e.g., Thymo Borine Laboratory v.
Winthrop Chemical Co., Inc., 155 F.2d 402, 69 USPQ 512, 514 (CCPA 1946) (the
hyphen in applicant’s mark THY-RIN has no significance); Charette Corp. v.
Bowater Communication Papers Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2040, 2042 (TTAB 1989) (PRO-
PRINT and PROPRINT are identical except for the division of registrant’s mark by
a hyphen between the syllables); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dayco Corp., 201
USPQ 485, 488 n.1 (TTAB 1978) (FAST-FINDER with a hyphen is substantially
identical to the mark FASTFINDER without a hyphen). As for the terms “lok” and
“lock,” the slight misspelling in Registrant’s mark does not affect the mark’s
commercial impression in any significant way. See, e.g., Contour Chair-Lounge Co.
v. Englander Co., 324 F.2d 186, 139 USPQ 285, 288 (CCPA 1963) (“Contur” but a
slight misspelling of “Contour,” with identical pronunciation and meaning);
Fleetwood Co. v. Mende, 298 F.2d 797, 132 USPQ 458, 460 (CCPA 1962) [TINTZ
merely a phonetic spelling of “tints”].
The marks are phonetic equivalents, the slight differences in appearance are not
particularly significant, and the marks have identical connotations, that of a secure
locking device. Applicant provided extrinsic evidence showing that both Applicant’s
and Registrant’s electrical connectors can be securely locked to the socket or outlet
into which they are plugged. As this evidence shows, when viewed in the context of
the goods (electrical connectors), the marks have the identical meaning of a secure
Serial No. 85674156
- 6 -

locking device in relation to those goods, and create the same overall commercial
impressions.
Viewing the marks in their entireties, we find that the similarities in sight,
sound, connotation and commercial impression outweigh the slight differences in
the marks, and this du Pont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of
consumer confusion.
B. The relatedness of the goods.
It is well settled that the issue of likelihood of confusion between marks must be
determined on the basis of the goods as they are identified in the application and
the registration at issue. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP,
746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys., Inc.
v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Under this du Pont factor, the Trademark Examining Attorney need not
prove, and we need not find, similarity as to each and every product listed in the
description of goods. It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion that the
relatedness is established for any item encompassed by the identification of goods
within a particular class in the application. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General
Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981) (likelihood of
confusion must be found if there is likely to be confusion with respect to any item
that comes within the identification of goods in the application); Baseball America
Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004).
Serial No. 85674156
- 7 -

Applicant is seeking to register its mark for “electrical connectors; electrical
plugs; electrical outlets; electrical plug device enabling connection and
disconnection of power and/or control cables.” The goods in the cited registration are
“push-on electrical connectors.” Applicant’s “electrical connectors” encompass
Registrant’s more narrowly worded “push-on electrical connectors.” The goods are
thus legally identical in part.
Because both Applicant’s and Registrant’s identifications of goods include
electrical connectors, we need not consider the relatedness of the remaining goods
listed in Applicant’s identification. Nonetheless, the record evidence shows that
electrical plugs and outlets are closely related to electrical connectors, including
push-on electrical connectors. The Examining Attorney submitted evidence from
Internet websites that establishes that the same entity commonly provides
Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods and markets the goods under the same mark.
For example, Lowe’s advertises “electrical plugs & connectors,”4 Electric Generators
Direct sells “generator Plugs & Connectors,”5 and AutomationDirect offers “locking
plugs, connectors & receptacles.”6 The Examining Attorney has also submitted over
30 use-based, third-party registrations for marks covering electrical plugs, outlets
and connectors.7 Third-party registrations which individually cover a number of

4 At http://www.lowes.com; attached to May 21, 2014 Office Action.
5 At http://www.electricgeneratorsdirect.com; attached to May 21, 2014 Office Action.
6 At http://www.automationdirect.com; attached to May 21, 2014 Office Action.
7 For example, BUILDING A CONNECTED WORLD, Reg. No. 3069624, for “home and
industrial electrical connectors,” “electric outlets, electrical receptacles and outlet boxes,”
and “home and industrial electrical plugs” (attached to May 21, 2014 Office Action);
HUBBELL and design, Reg. No. 1019302, for “wiring devices of various types namely,
Serial No. 85674156
- 8 -

different items and which are based on use in commerce serve to suggest that the
listed goods and/or services are of a type which may emanate from a single source.
In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988), aff’d, 864
F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783,
1785 (TTAB 1993).
Given that the marks are extremely similar, “it is only necessary that there be a
viable relationship between the goods or services in order to support a holding of
likelihood of confusion.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Sunlyra Int’l Inc., 35
USPQ2d 1787, 19790 (TTAB 1995) (citing In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Corp.,
222 USPQ 355, 356 (TTAB 1983)). Here, the goods are legally identical in part and
otherwise closely related. Accordingly, the second du Pont factor favors a finding of
likelihood of confusion.
C. The channels of trade and classes of purchasers.
Our consideration of the trade channels and classes of consumers is bound by the
goods as identified in the application and registration. Cunningham v. Laser Golf
Corp., 222 F3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he identification of
goods/services statement in the registration, not the goods/services actually used by
the registrant, frames the issue.”); Genesco Inc. v. Martz, 66 USPQ2d 1260, 1268
(TTAB 2003). Because neither Applicant nor Registrant has limited the products

receptacles, plugs, adapters, connectors, connector bodies, flanged inlets and outlets, [and]
motor bases” (attached to November 24, 2014 Office Action); LEVITON and design, Reg.
No. 3858339, for “electrical connectors,” “electrical wiring devices, namely, switches, electric
sockets, outlet boxes,” and for “electrical plugs.” (attached to November 24, 2014 Office
Action).
Serial No. 85674156
- 9 -

identified in its respective identification of goods to any particular channels of trade
or classes of purchasers, we must deem the goods to travel in all appropriate trade
channels to all potential purchasers of such goods, which include residential as well
as commercial buyers of electrical connectors. See Cunningham, 55 USPQ2d at 1847
(Federal Circuit found substantial evidence supported Board determination that
parties’ goods would be offered to same purchasers in same channels of trade, based
on “identical in part” and otherwise closely related goods); In re Smith and
Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994) (“Because the goods are legally identical,
they must be presumed to travel in the same channels of trade, and be sold to the
same class of purchasers”). Moreover, the Examining Attorney has submitted
evidence showing that electrical connectors are sold not only for industrial
applications, but to home improvement enthusiasts for residential applications. For
example, Lowe’s sells a Hubbell brand electrical plug for home use;8 Iboats.com
offers “shore power plugs & connectors” for boating enthusiasts;9 Hubbell advertises
that its Valise Series of plugs and connectors “are especially easy to wire”;10 and a
Home Improvement Blog article discusses purchasing push-in connectors for home
use.11
Applicant has submitted promotional data sheets for each company’s products,
and based on these sheets argues that the goods are sold through specialized trade

8 At http://www.lowes.com; attached to May 21, 2014 Office Action.
9 At http://www.iboats.com; attached to May 21, 2014 Office Action.
10 At http://www.iboats.com; attached to May 21, 2014 Office Action.
11 At http://diy.blogoverflow.com, attached to November 24, 2014 Office Action.
Serial No. 85674156
- 10 -

channels to sophisticated purchasers, thus obviating any likelihood that buyers
would be confused as to the source of the goods. However, this extrinsic evidence is
unavailing, as none of Applicant’s purported limitations have been included in the
identification of goods of either the application or cited registration. In any event,
Applicant’s data sheet describes Applicant’s product as an “Integrated Locking
System of Power Cords and Rack iPDU Outlets,”12 which includes outlets that are
designed to operate not only with Applicant’s “SecureLock AC power cords,” but
with “standard AC power cords as normal.”13 Thus, they are not confined to
“modern data centers” as argued by Applicant but could exist in a multiplicity of
environments. The goods described in Registrant’s data sheet are “SMP-L
connectors and cables”14 that Applicant contends are used in “RF/Microwave
systems”15 and marketed to “specialized military personnel, engineers, and
government agency workers.” We decline to read the text: “The introduction of
push-on blindmateable connectors, such as the SMP, galvanized the RF/Microwave
industry as their use enabled designers to increase package density” as a statement
that Registrant sells only within the RF/Microwave industry. As to Registrant’s
purported target industries, we note that the data sheet suggests Registrant’s
target market includes the military and government agencies, but IT professionals

12 Applicant attached data sheets to its November 21, 2014 Response and to its appeal brief.
Exhibits attached only to an appeal brief will not ordinarily be considered. See Trademark
Rule 2.142(d) (the record in the application should be complete prior to the filing of an
appeal); TBMP § 1203.02 (2015) and authorities cited in that section.
13 Id.
14 Id. Applicant indicates that SMP stands for “symmetric multiprocessing.”
15 Appeal Brief, p. 5.
Serial No. 85674156
- 11 -

exist in the military and in government agencies as well as in data centers. For
these reasons, we find that the classes of purchasers of Applicant’s “electrical
connectors, plugs, outlets, and electrical plug device enabling connection and
disconnection of power and/or control cables” and Registrant’s “push-on electrical
connectors” overlap and may include ordinary purchasers. Further, even if the
purchasers are sophisticated, the fact that purchasers are sophisticated or
knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are
sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source
confusion. Stone Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1163-64; Top Tobacco LP v. N. Atl. Operating
Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1170 (TTAB 2011). Moreover, when the relevant consumer
includes both professionals and the general public, the standard of care for
purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated potential purchaser. Stone
Lion, 110 USPQ2d at 1163; Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer, Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301,
1306 (TTAB 2004).
III. Conclusion
The marks are phonetic equivalents, have similar appearances and identical
meanings. They form overall similar commercial impressions. The goods are in-part
legally identical. Because there are no limitations in the identification of goods of
either the application or the cited registration, the goods are presumed to travel
through the same trade channels and be purchased by the same classes of
consumers, which may include ordinary consumers. Taking into account all
arguments and evidence pertinent to the relevant du Pont factors, we find that use
Serial No. 85674156
- 12 -

of Applicant’s mark SECURELOCK would be likely to cause confusion with
Registrant’s cited mark SECURE-LOK for the goods listed with respect to
Applicant’s application and Registrant’s registration.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark SECURELOCK is affirmed.