Semco, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 1998

No. 74709177 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 1998)

Hearing: Paper No. 24
August 4, 1998 HANAK/md
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE
AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB NOV. 20, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Semco, Inc.
________
Serial Nos. 74/484,309 and 74/709,177
_______
Devon A. Rolf for Semco, Inc.
Anthony R. Masiello, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 104 (Sidney Moskowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hanak, Quinn and Wendel, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hanak, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Semco, Inc. (applicant) seeks registration of FLO-
TRONICS for “machines for conveying and blending powdered,
pelletized and granular materials, namely gravity blenders,
rotary airlocks, airlock feeders, line diverters,
elutriators and cyclones.” The application was filed on
January 31, 1994 with a claimed first use date of June 30,
1960. Serial No. 74/484,309.
Ser No. 74/484,309 and 74/709,177
2
In addition, applicant seeks registration of MAC
FLOTRONICS for essentially the same goods which are
described in a very slightly different fashion as follows:
“Machinery for conveying and blending powdered, pelletized
and granular materials through a conduit, namely, gravity
blenders, rotary airlocks, airlock feeders, line diverters,
elutriators and cyclones.” This second application is an
intent-to-use application which was filed on July 31, 1995.
Serial No. 74/709,177.
In both cases, the same Examining Attorney refused
registration pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Lanham
Trademark Act on the basis that applicant’s marks, as
applied to applicant’s goods, are likely to cause confusion
with two marks previously registered to two different
companies. The first mark is FLOTRONICS registered for
“filter apparatus used for filtering solids from gases and
liquids or filtering liquids from gases, and for filtering
one immiscible liquid from another.” Registration No.
1,016,806. The second mark is FLOTRONICS and design
registered for, among other goods, “pneumatic system
controls, namely regulated valves … for precision control
and/or change of pneumatic pressure, rate of flow and/or
direction that are used in pneumatically operated
Ser No. 74/484,309 and 74/709,177
3
manufacturing and other apparatus …” Registration No.
1,412,804.
When the two refusals were made final, applicant took
separate appeals to this Board. In both appeals, applicant
and the Examining Attorney filed briefs. In addition, in
the appeal involving the refusal to register MAC FLOTRONICS
an oral hearing was held before the Board on August 4,
1998.
Because these two appeals involve common questions of
law and fact, they will be decided in this one opinion.
There can be no dispute that both of applicant’s marks
share certain similarities with both of the cited marks.
However, because applicant’s goods are quite different from
registrants’ goods and because applicant’s and registrants’
goods are not consumer products but rather are sold only to
professional buyers, we find that there exists no
likelihood of confusion. In addition, we note that as
described in the applications, applicant’s goods are
expensive and would be purchased only after significant
study.
In arguing that applicant’s goods are similar to
registrants’ goods, the Examining Attorney is in error by
focusing not on applicant’s conveying and blending system
in its entirety, but rather by focusing on the individual
Ser No. 74/484,309 and 74/709,177
4
components of applicant’s system. With regard to the goods
of cited Registration No. 1,016,806 (filter apparatus), the
Examining Attorney makes the following argument:
“Applicant’s elutriators are ‘apparatus for filtering solid
from gases.’ An elutriator is ‘an apparatus for separating
particles … according to size by elutriation.’ See
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1986).”
(Examining Attorney’s brief pages 3 and 4). With regard to
the goods of Registration No. 1,412,804 (pneumatic system
controls), the Examining Attorney argues that “applicant’s
rotary airlocks are goods of the type described in
[Registration No. 1,412,804].” (Examining Attorney’s brief
pages 5 and 6).
Even assuming for the sake of argument that certain
components of applicant’s conveying and blending machines
are identical to or extremely similar to the goods of the
two cited registrations, this does not mean that
applicant’s conveying and blending machines are related to
the goods of the two cited registrations. For example, an
automobile has literally thousands of components. However,
this does not mean that automobiles are commercially
related to, for example, radios or the components of
radios.
Ser No. 74/484,309 and 74/709,177
5
Moreover, in this case there is an additional flaw in
the reasoning of the Examining Attorney in that the two
components of applicant’s goods singled out by the
Examining Attorney (elutriators and airlocks) are simply
not that similar to the goods described in the two cited
registrations. As the Examining Attorney has noted, an
elutriator is an apparatus for separating particles
(solids) according to size. Thus, an elutriator is not
that similar to the goods set forth in Registration No.
1,016,806, namely, “filter apparatus used for filtering
solids from gases and liquids or filtering liquids from
gases, and for filtering one immiscible liquid from
another.” As described, the goods of Registration No.
1,016,806 do not include elutriators which are devices for
separating solids (particles) according to size.
Likewise, there is nothing in the record to indicate
that the other mentoined component of applicant’s conveying
and blending machines (rotary airlocks) are encompassed by
the description of goods set forth in Registration No.
1,412,804.
Given the significant dissimilarities between, on the
one hand, applicant’s conveying and blending machines and,
on the other hand, the goods described in the two cited
registrations, we find that there is no likelihood of
Ser No. 74/484,309 and 74/709,177
6
confusion. Moreover, as previously noted, the purchasers
of applicant’s and registrants’ goods are not ordinary
consumers, but rather are somewhat sophisticated
professional buyers. As our primary reviewing Court has
noted, in determining whether confusion is likely,
purchaser “sophistication is important and often
dispositive because sophisticated consumers may be expected
to exercise greater care.” Electronic Design & Sales v.
Electronic Data Systems, 954 F.2d 713, 21 USPQ2d 1388, 1392
(Fed. Cir. 1992). Finally, the Examining Attorney has
never disputed the contention that applicant’s goods, as
described in the application, are expensive and are
designed to the individual needs of particular customers.
As has been stated on many occasions, “there is always less
likelihood of confusion where goods are expensive and
purchased after careful consideration.” Electronic Design
& Sales, 21 USPQ2d at 1392.
Ser No. 74/484,309 and 74/709,177
7
Decision: The two refusals to register are reversed.
E. W. Hanak
T. J. Quinn
H. R. Wendel
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board
Ser No. 74/484,309 and 74/709,177
8