Sage’s Reloading Supply LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

No. 86784726 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: March 10, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Sage’s Reloading Supply LLC
_____

Serial No. 86784726
_____

Eugene Beliy of Breanlaw LLC,
for Sage’s Reloading Supply LLC.
Melissa Vallillo, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105,
Jennifer Williston, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Quinn, Ritchie and Pologeorgis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Pologeorgis, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Sage’s Reloading Supply LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark SAGE’S RELOADING SUPPLY and design (“RELOADING
SUPPLY” disclaimed), as displayed below, for “Retail store services featuring
reloading supplies, namely, bullets, spent shell casings, and projectiles” in
International Class 35.1

1 Application Serial No. 86784726, filed on October 12, 2015, based on an allegation of use in
commerce under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming September
15, 2014 as the date of first use and October 15, 2014 as the date of first use in commerce.
The application includes the following description of the mark: “The mark consists of a thin
Serial No. 86784726
- 2 -

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground of
likelihood of confusion with the two registered marks identified below owned by the
same Registrant:
SAGE AERO-SOK, in standard characters, for “ammunitions for firearms” in
International Class 13;2 and

SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE, INC. (in standard characters; CONTROL
ORDNANCE, INC. disclaimed) for “wholesale store services featuring
ammunition and less-lethal munition launchers” in International Class 35.3

When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed. We affirm the refusal as to
both of the cited registrations.
I. Procedural Issue
Before proceeding to the merits of the refusal, we address a procedural matter.

rectangular outline with three shell casings standing up vertically inside the rectangle on the
left hand side. The middle casing is slightly larger than the two which are surrounding it. To
the right of the casings is the phrase ‘SAGE'S RELOADING SUPPLY’ in all capital letters,
written in three lines, with ‘SAGE’S’ on top, ‘RELOADING’ below and ‘SUPPLY’ all the way
on the bottom, with all of the words left aligned.”

2 Registration No. 4974418, issued on June 7, 2016, claiming March 31, 2014 as the date of
first use and April 30, 2015 as the date of first use in commerce.
3 Registration No. 5015585, issued on August 9, 2016, claiming December 31, 2012 as both
the date of first use and the date of first use in commerce.
Serial No. 86784726
- 3 -
Applicant attached copies of portions of the evidentiary record, previously
submitted during prosecution of the involved application, to its appeal brief. Because
this evidence is already of record as part of the application file, its re-submission with
Applicant’s brief was unnecessary. See ITC Ent. Group Ltd. v. Nintendo of America
Inc., 45 USPQ2d 2021, 2022-23 (TTAB 1998) (submission of duplicative papers is a
waste of time and resources, and is a burden upon the Board).
Parties to Board cases occasionally seem to labor under the misapprehension that
attaching previously-filed evidence to a brief and citing to the attachments, rather
than to the original submissions, is a courtesy or a convenience to the Board. It is
neither. The entire record is readily available to the panel. Because we must
determine whether such attachments are properly of record, citing to the attachments
requires us to examine the attachments and then attempt to locate the same evidence
in the record developed during prosecution of the application, requiring more time
and effort than would have been necessary if citations were directly to the prosecution
history.
II. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all 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., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201,
1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, however, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between
Serial No. 86784726
- 4 -
the goods and/or services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544
F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by
§ 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of
the goods and differences in the marks.”).
A. Comparison of the Marks
We first address 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 Imps., 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)
(quotation omitted).
Because the similarity or dissimilarity 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 (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
Serial No. 86784726
- 5 -
determining likelihood of confusion.”). On the other hand, 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 a consideration of the
marks in their entireties. In re Nat’l Data, 224 USPQ at 751.
Applicant’s mark is SAGE’S RELOADING SUPPLY with a rectangular border
carrier and a design consisting of three ammunition shell casings. The cited marks
are SAGE AERO-SOK and SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE, INC., both in standard
characters.
Applicant argues that the inclusion of the design element and the “highly distinct”
wording RELOADING SUPPLY in its applied-for mark, as well as the use of the
possessive form of the term SAGE, is sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion with
the cited marks. We disagree.
The rectangular border in Applicant’s mark is a common geographic shape.
Common geometric shapes that are not sufficiently distinctive to create a commercial
impression separate from the word and/or design marks with which they are used,
are not regarded as indicators of origin absent evidence of distinctiveness of the
design alone. See In re Benetton Group S.p.A., 48 USPQ2d 1214, 1215-16 (TTAB
1998); TMEP § 1202.11 (Jan. 2017). Thus, the rectangle design in the applied-for
mark is not sufficiently distinctive and is unlikely to be perceived by consumers as
an indicator of origin. Moreover, the design portion of Applicant’s mark also includes
a pictorial representation in the form of the silhouette of three ammunition shell
casings. As Applicant’s retail store services feature spent shell casings, such a design
Serial No. 86784726
- 6 -
is, at best, highly suggestive in relation to the services. As such, the addition of the
shell casing design is also insufficient to distinguish the applied-for mark from either
of the cited registered marks. Further, the use of the possessive form of the term
SAGE does not avoid confusion because the additional matter (i.e., the apostrophe “S”
in the wording SAGE’S) has little, if any, trademark significance and does not
otherwise affect the overall similarity of the marks in terms of commercial
impression. See In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (TTAB 2009) (noting that “[t]he
absence of the possessive form in applicant’s mark . . . has little, if any, significance
for consumers in distinguishing it from the cited mark”); In re Curtice-Burns, Inc.,
231 USPQ 990, 992 (TTAB 1986) (finding the marks McKENZIE’S and McKENZIE
“virtually identical in commercial impression”); Winn’s Stores, Inc. v. Hi-Lo, Inc., 203
USPQ 140, 143 (TTAB 1979) (noting that “little if any trademark significance can be
attributed to the apostrophe and the letter ‘s’ in opposer’s mark”).
Finally, Applicant’s argument that the phrase “RELOADING SUPPLY” contained
in its applied-for mark is “highly distinct” is without merit. As Applicant’s retail store
services feature reloading supplies, such wording is highly descriptive if not generic
in relation to the services.4 Moreover, Applicant has disclaimed such wording.
Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services

4 A term that is generic for a type of goods has been held generic for the service of selling
primarily those goods. See In re Tires, Tires, Tires, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1153, (TTAB 2009)
(holding TIRES TIRES TIRES generic for retail tire store services); In re A La Vieille Russie,
Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 2001) (holding RUSSIANART generic for art dealership
services in the field of Russian art); In re Log Cabin Homes Ltd., 52 USPQ2d 1206 (TTAB
1999) (holding LOG CABIN HOMES generic for architectural design of buildings and retail
outlets featuring kits for constructing buildings, especially houses).
Serial No. 86784726
- 7 -
is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. See In re Dixie
Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Nat’l Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii) and (c)(ii) (Jan. 2017).
We further note that the wording “CONTROL ORDNANCE, INC.” in one of the
cited registrations is descriptive and has also been disclaimed and, therefore, is less
dominant in our likelihood of confusion analysis. Thus, because RELOADING
SUPPLY and CONTROL ORNDANCE, INC. are descriptive or generic terms that
have been disclaimed from the applied-for mark and the registered mark,
respectively, the wording SAGE’S in Applicant’s mark and the term SAGE in the
cited SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE, INC. marks are the dominant elements of these
two marks.
The term SAGE in the cited SAGE AERO-SOK mark is the first element in this
mark, while the wording AERO-SOK appears after the word SAGE. Consumers are
generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark
or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., 73 USPQ2d at 1692 (“VEUVE . . . remains a
‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the
label”); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he
dominance of BARR in [a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is reinforced by its location
as the first word in the mark.”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d
1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to
be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making
purchasing decisions). Thus, because SAGE is the first element in this registered
Serial No. 86784726
- 8 -
mark, consumers are more likely to focus on this element, rendering it more dominant
than the wording AERO-SOK.
Applicant contends, however, that the wording CONTROL ORDNANCE, INC.,
evokes a sense of wisdom and experience as it applies to specialized aspects of warfare
and arms.5 Applicant further asserts that the wording AERO-SOK “appears as a
scientific or technical compound term...” suggesting that “Registrant’s products are
of professional grade, manufactured with precision, and scientifically refined to be
suited for use by those professional organizations to which they are being sold.”6
However, Applicant’s statements are merely conclusory and unsupported by evidence
that consumers would perceive the referenced wording in the manner suggested by
Applicant.
Because the design elements in a mark are less dominant than its literal elements,
because disclaimed matter is less dominant than matter that has not been disclaimed
and because the first word in a mark is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s
mind, we find that the wording SAGE’S and SAGE are the dominant elements in the
marks at issue.
In view thereof, we find that, when considered in their entireties, the similarities
in the marks outweigh their differences, including the differences noted by Applicant.
Thus, the first du Pont factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.

5 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, pp. 9-10, 4 TTABVUE 10-11.
6 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 10, 4 TTABVUE 11.

Serial No. 86784726
- 9 -
B. Comparison of the Goods and Services
We next compare Applicant’s services and the Registrant’s goods and services. In
making our determination under this second du Pont factor, we look to the goods and
services as identified in the involved application and cited registrations. See Octocom
Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The authority is legion that the question of registrability of an
applicant’s mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth
in the application regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature
of an applicant’s goods, the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to
which the sales of goods are directed.”). See also Paula Payne Products v. Johnson
Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76, 77 (CCPA 1973) (“Trademark cases
involving the issue of likelihood of confusion must be decided on the basis of the
respective descriptions of goods.”).
In determining whether Applicant’s services are related to Registrant’s goods and
services, it is not necessary that the goods and services of Applicant and Registrant
be similar or competitive in character to support a holding of likelihood of confusion;
it is sufficient for such purposes to establish that the goods and services are related
in some manner and/or that conditions and activities surrounding marketing of these
goods and services are such that they would or could be encountered by same persons
under circumstances that could, because of similarities of marks used with them, give
rise to the mistaken belief that they originate from or are in some way associated
with the same producer. Coach Servs., Inc., 101 USPQ2d at 1722; Edwards
Serial No. 86784726
- 10 -
Lifesciences Corp. v. VigiLanz Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1399, 1410 (TTAB 2010); Schering
Corp. v. Alza Corp., 207 USPQ 504, 507 (TTAB 1980); Oxford Pendaflex Corp. v.
Anixter Bros. Inc., 201 USPQ 851, 854 (TTAB 1978).
As noted above, Applicant’s identified services are “retail store services featuring
reloading supplies, namely, bullets, spent shell casings, and projectiles.” The goods
identified in the cited registration for the mark SAGE AERO-SOK are “ammunitions
for firearms” and the services identified in the cited registration for the mark SAGE
CONTROL ORIDANCE, INC. are “wholesale store services featuring ammunition
and less-lethal munition launchers.”
The Examining Attorney made of record numerous active third-party, used-based
registrations showing that the same entity has registered a single mark identifying
both retail and wholesale store services featuring ammunition. By way of illustration,
we note the following:7
THE ARMORY (Reg. No. 4736841) for “wholesale, retail and online store
services featuring firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories” in
International Class 35;

CHEAPER THAN DIRT (Reg. No. 3435750) for “retail store, mail order
catalogue, & wholesale distributorships in the field of firearms,
ammunition, parts and accessories for firearms, and sporting goods” in
International Class 35;

OMB GUNS and design (Reg. No. 3813723) for “mail order services
featuring pistols, rifles, shotguns, gun magazines and parts,
ammunition, holsters, magazine pouches, tactical lights, lasers,
suppressors, gun cleaning kits, gun grips, tactical optics for guns; On-
line wholesale and retail store services featuring pistols, rifles,
shotguns, gun magazines and parts, ammunition, holsters, magazine

7 See October 23, 2016, Office Action.
Serial No. 86784726
- 11 -
pouches, tactical lights, lasers, suppressors, gun cleaning kits, gun
grips, tactical optics for guns” in International Class 35;

WEAPONS SCIENCE (Reg. No. 3939011) for “on-line retail store
services featuring firearms, ammunition, and accessories; on-line
wholesale and retail store services featuring firearms, ammunition, and
accessories; retail shops featuring firearms, ammunition, and
accessories; retail sporting goods stores; retail store and on-line retail
store services featuring firearms, ammunition, and accessories;
wholesale and retail store services and on-line retail and wholesale store
services featuring firearms, ammunition, and accessories” in
International Class 35;

TACTICAL DEFENSE SOLUTIONS (Reg. No. 3916645) for “on-line
wholesale and retail store services featuring firearms, ammunition,
targets” in International Class 35;

EQUIPPING YOU TO MASTER THE WORLD (Reg. No. 4076603) for
“wholesale and retail store services and on-line retail and wholesale
store services featuring law enforcement and military tactical
equipment, ammunition, apparel and firearms and the components
thereof” in International Class 35.

Additionally, the Examining Attorney submitted active third-party registrations
demonstrating that a single entity provides both retail services for ammunition as
well as the ammunition itself under the same mark.8 As example:
PIERCE (Reg. No. 3958470) for “ammunition, ammunition casings” in
International Class 13 and “retail store services featuring ammunition
and ammunition casings” in International Class 35;

BALLISTIC PRODUCTS (Reg. No. 3212290) for “shot shell
ammunition; shot shell ammunition components, namely empty shot
shell hulls, plastic wads, card wads, buffering materials, shot pellets,
slugs, powder, spreader/shot inserts, primers, cushion wads; loading
tools for weapons ammunition, namely, tapering/skiving tools, shell
reshaping tools, crimping tools, trimming tools, shell vise tools, shot
counting/measuring tools, loading blocks” in International Class 13 and
“mail order catalog and on-line retail store services featuring shot shell
ammunition, shot shell ammunition components, loading tools for

8 See October 23, 2016, Office Action.
Serial No. 86784726
- 12 -
weapons ammunition, and ammunition industry guides and loading
data” in International Class 35;

CAI (Reg. No. 4511719) for “restricted and non-restricted firearms and
component parts thereof; ammunition for firearms; firearms
components and shooting accessories, namely, firearm cases, firearms
scopes, ammunition bags and cases, firearm stocks, hand grips for
firearms, firearm barrels, firearm sights, firearm sling straps, cartridge
belts, holsters, gun locks, stands for firearms” in International Class 13
and “distributorship services in the field of firearms, related parts and
accessories, and ammunition and related components; retail store
services featuring firearms and related parts and accessories,
ammunition, and related components” in International Class 35; and

ORCA ARMS (Reg. No. 4839271) for, among other things, “firearms;
ammunition; magazines for weapons; firearm slings; sling straps for
firearms; firearm hand guards; gun barrels; grips for small arms; rifle
hand grips; pistol grips; trigger guards for guns and rifles; rifle scope
rings; ammunition bags; bags specially adapted to hold firearms; sniper
drag bags; belts, namely, belts adapted for ammunition, belts adapted
for holding firearms; gear belts, namely, gun belts; assembly of firearms
for others” in International Class 13 and “retail store services featuring
firearms and firearms accessories” in International Class 35.

As a general proposition, although use-based third-party registrations alone are
not evidence that the marks shown therein are in use or that the public is familiar
with them, they nonetheless may have probative value to the extent they may serve
to suggest that the goods and services are of a kind that emanate from a single source.
See In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert
Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck
Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988).
Serial No. 86784726
- 13 -
The Examining Attorney also submitted internet evidence demonstrating that
entities often provide both retail and wholesale services featuring ammunition, as
well as ammunition itself, under the same brand name.9 As example:
www.gunsgunsguns.com – featuring a list of retailers from which consumers can
purchase ammunition, with such retailers also being described as “wholesale
ammunition suppliers.”

www.beikirchs.com – website retailer that specializes in guns, ammunition, clay
targets, reloading supplies, and refers to its “retail and wholesale customers.”

www.range365.com – websites of an ammunition retailer that “will open a 2,100-
square foot retail and wholesale store in Fairbanks.”

www.nereloading.com – website of retail and wholesale store featuring projectiles
and bullets.

www.remington.com – website of entity that provides both retail services
featuring ammunition as well as ammunition itself under the brand name
Remington.

www.homady.com - website of entity that provides both retail services featuring
ammunition as well as ammunition itself under the brand name Homady.

www.freedommunitions.com website of entity that provides both retail services
featuring ammunition as well as ammunition itself under the brand name
Freedom Munitions.

The foregoing evidence demonstrates that consumers may expect to find both
Applicant’s retail store services featuring various ammunition products and
Registrants’ goods and services offered under the same or similar brand name.
Applicant argues that the goods featured in its retail store services differ from the
goods and services offered by the Registrant. Specifically, Applicant maintains that

9 See October 23, 2016, Office Action.
Serial No. 86784726
- 14 -
it provides an online retail service through which it sells recycled and repurposed
spent shells and bullets, which have been specifically collected, processed and sold for
multiple uses.10 In contrast, Applicant contends that Registrant sells third-party and
proprietary less-lethal munitions launchers, as well as a variety of proprietary
ammunition, and that munitions sold are “ready to shoot” as compared to the recycled
spent shell casings and bullets sold in Applicant’s retail store which are not ready-to-
shoot and must be loaded by the purchaser.11 As such, Applicant argues that the
goods it sells through its retail store services are not competitive to the goods and
wholesale services provided by the Registrant.12
Applicant’s arguments are unavailing. As noted above, we look to the goods and
services as identified in the involved application and the cited registrations in
determining whether the goods and services are related. Here, neither the
identification of services in Applicant’s application nor the identifications in the cited
registrations provide any restrictions as to the type of ammunition products offered
by the parties, as argued by Applicant. Specifically, Applicant’s online retail store
services feature “bullets” and “projectiles,” without limiting such goods to those that
are recycled and repurposed or that are not “ready-to-shoot.” Conversely, the
“wholesale store services featuring ammunition and less-lethal munition launchers”
provided under the cited mark SAGE AERO-SOK and/or the “ammunition for

10 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, pp. 11-12, 4 TTABVUE 12-13.
11 Id.
12 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 11, 4 TTABVUE 12.
Serial No. 86784726
- 15 -
firearms” provided under the cited mark SAGE CONTROL ORIDANCE, INC have
no limitation as to the type of ammunition, thus encompassing those that may have
been recycled or repurposed. Similarly, the identifications set forth in the cited
registrations do not limit the identified ammunition to those that are provided by
third parties or those that are proprietary in nature.
Moreover, as noted above and contrary to Applicant’s argument, the goods and/or
services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See
On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475
(Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not
related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the
consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
In view thereof, we find that the evidence of record sufficiently demonstrates that
the services identified in Applicant’s application and the goods and services identified
in the cited registrations are related. Thus, the second du Pont factor also weighs in
favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
C. Similarity of Trade Channels and Class of Purchasers
Applicant argues that Applicant and Registrant are targeting entirely distinct
consumers.13 Specifically, Applicant maintains that it sells its products to
individuals, whereas Registrant is selling ammunition to law enforcement and

13 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 12 4 TTABVUE 13.
Serial No. 86784726
- 16 -
military organizations.14 Additionally, Applicant contends that, “by selling reusable
bullets and casings, Applicant is targeting high-volume shooters seeking to save on
ammunition costs by reloading spent bullets, rather than purchasing additional
costly, ready-to-shoot ammunition.”15
However, we base our determination regarding the similarities between the
channels of trade and classes of purchasers on the goods and services as they are
identified in the application and the cited registrations. Octocom Sys. Inc., 16
USPQ2d at 1787; Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1
USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Mini Melts, 118 USPQ2d at 1471. Applicant’s
application and cited registrations contain no limitation as to channels of trade or
classes of customers, and we decline to read any such limitation into them. Squirtco
v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983) quoted in In re Mr.
Recipe, 118 USPQ2d at 1091. The only evidence relating to the trade channels
through which the goods and services at issue travel is the third-party website
evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney, discussed above. This evidence shows
that a variety of ammunition products identified in Applicant’s application, as well
as the cited registrations, may be sold via the same virtual marketplace to all relevant
classes of purchasers, i.e., individuals interested in purchasing ammunition for
firearms. Thus, the respective goods and services, as identified, would be provided in
the same or at least overlapping channels of trade to the same or overlapping classes

14 Id.
15 Id.
Serial No. 86784726
- 17 -
of purchasers. Thus, the third du Pont factor also weighs in favor of finding a
likelihood of confusion.
D. Sophisticated Consumers
Applicant argues that the relevant consumers of the respective goods and services
are sophisticated.16 Even assuming that purchasers of at least Registrant’s wholesale
services are sophisticated, when it comes to their buying decisions, it is settled that
even sophisticated purchasers are not immune from source confusion, especially in
cases such as this one involving similar marks and related goods and services. See
Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746, F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d
1157, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (although the services recited in the application also
encompass sophisticated investors, Board precedent requires the decision to be based
on the least sophisticated potential purchasers who will exercise care when making
financial decisions but who are not immune from source confusion where similar
marks are used in connection with related services). We find this factor to be neutral.
E. Balancing the Factors
We have considered all of the arguments and evidence of record, including those
not specifically discussed herein, and all relevant du Pont factors. Because we have
found that the marks at issue are similar and that Applicant’s identified services are
related to Registrant’s goods and services and that they would move in the same or
overlapping trade channels and are offered to the same class of purchasers, we
conclude that Applicant’s mark, as used in connection with the services identified in

16 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 12, 4 TTABVUE 13.
Serial No. 86784726
- 18 -
the application, so resembles each of the cited marks for the identified goods and
services as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s SAGE’S RELOADING SUPPLY and
design mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.