Sierra Madre Products, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

No. 87461038 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: March 26, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Sierra Madre Products, LLC
_____

Serial No. 87461038
_____

Kyle T. Peterson of Patterson Thuente Petersen, PA,
for Sierra Madre Products, LLC.
Nicole Nguyen, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 107,
J. Leslie Bishop, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Wolfson, Kuczma and Masiello,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Masiello, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Sierra Madre Products, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark ZÉA (in standard characters) for “makeup remover, namely,
disposable wipes impregnated with makeup removing compounds,” in International
Class 3.1 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

1 Application Serial No. 87461038 was filed on May 23, 2017, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Serial No. 87461038
- 2 -

that Applicant’s mark, as used in connection with Applicant’s goods, so resembles the
marks shown below as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive. The cited marks are registered on the Principal Register, in the name of a
single owner, for the goods set forth in the table below.
Reg.
No.
Mark Goods
3470661 ZIA Cosmetics, skin care products and facial care
products, namely, skin moisturizing, softening,
conditioning, smoothing, contouring, and firming
lotions, creams and gels; lotions, creams and gels
to smooth wrinkles and diminish the appearance
of wrinkles; skin toners; skin cleansers; eye
creams and gels; sun block and sunscreen
preparations; facial masks; skin exfoliants; non-
medicated microdermabrasion skin scrub creams,
skin balancing tonics and moisture infusion
serums; liquid and powder make-up; self sun-
tanning creams; shaving creams and gels;
aftershave lotion for men.2

3470660 ZIA
TREATMENTS
Cosmetics, skin care products and facial care
products, namely, skin moisturizing, softening,
conditioning, smoothing, contouring, and firming
lotions, creams and gels; lotions, creams and gels
to smooth wrinkles and diminish the appearance
of wrinkles; facial masks; skin exfoliants; non-
medicated microdermabrasion skin scrub creams,
skin balancing tonics and moisture infusion
serums.3

3452667 ZIA SKIN BASICS Cosmetics, skin care products and facial care
products, namely, skin moisturizing, softening,
conditioning, smoothing, contouring, and firming
lotions, creams and gels; creams to smooth
wrinkles and diminish the appearance of
wrinkles; skin toners, skin cleansers; eye creams

2 Issued on July 22, 2008. Section 8 affidavit accepted; Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
3 Issued on July 22, 2008. Section 8 affidavit accepted; Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
Serial No. 87461038
- 3 -

and gels; skin exfoliants; sun block and sunscreen
preparations.4

3452456 ZIA ULTIMATES Cosmetics, skin care products and facial care
products, namely, skin moisturizing, softening,
conditioning, smoothing, contouring, and firming
lotions, creams and gels; lotions, creams and gels
to smooth wrinkles and diminish the appearance
of wrinkles; skin toners; skin cleansers; eye
creams and gels; sun block and sunscreen
preparations; facial masks; skin exfoliants; self
sun-tanning creams.5

2422418

Cosmetics, namely, skin moisturizing lotions,
creames and gels, enzyme peels, liquid and
powder make-up, cleansers, toners, essential oils
for personal use, facial masks, hydrating cremes,
tanning cremes, sun block cremes and lotions, eye
oils and body lotions.6

When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed to this Board and requested
reconsideration. The Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration and
this appeal proceeded. Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs. We
affirm the refusal to register.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
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 as set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d

4 Issued on June 24, 2008. Section 8 affidavit accepted; Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
5 Issued on June 24, 2008. Section 8 affidavit accepted; Section 15 affidavit acknowledged.
6 Issued on January 23, 2001. Section 15 affidavit acknowledged; renewed.
Serial No. 87461038
- 4 -

1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). 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). In our analysis, we will focus on the standard
character mark ZIA in Reg. No. 3470661, because this mark is most similar to
Applicant’s mark and is registered for essentially the same goods as the other cited
marks. If confusion is found likely in view of this mark, it will be unnecessary to
consider Registrant’s other marks; and if confusion is found not likely with respect to
this mark, it would be unlikely with respect to the other cited marks. See In re Max
Capital Group Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1245 (TTAB 2010).
A. The goods.
We first consider the similarity or dissimilarity of the goods as identified in the
application and the cited registration for the standard character mark ZIA. Stone
Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157,
1161-62 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Houston Computers Servs. Inc., 918
F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because there are no limitations
or restrictions in the goods identified in either the application or the cited
registration, we presume that the goods encompass all goods of the type identified. In
re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006). “[L]ikelihood of confusion
can be found if the respective products are related in some manner and/or if the
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the
mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs. Inc. v.
Serial No. 87461038
- 5 -

Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Applicant’s goods are makeup remover in the form of disposable wipes
impregnated with makeup remover. The goods in Reg. No. 3470661 are various
“[c]osmetics, skin care products and facial care products,” including “skin cleansers.”
Arguably, makeup remover contained in impregnated wipes is a type of “skin
cleanser.” Viewed in this light, Applicant’s goods could be considered legally identical
to Registrant’s goods. However, we need not rely upon this logic in order to find that
the goods at issue are related, because the Trademark Examining Attorney, in order
to demonstrate that the goods at issue are related, submitted evidence showing that
online retailers of cosmetics offer makeup-removing wipes and skin cleansers under
the same mark. The evidence shows that both types of goods are offered under the
marks LANCER;7 CLINIQUE;8 FAB FIRST AID BEAUTY;9 AVEENO;10 BURT’S
BEES;11 NEUTROGENA;12 and OLE HENRIKSEN.13 The Trademark Examining
Attorney has also shown that makeup-removing wipes and skin cleansers are
sometimes offered together as components of a kit. See NEUTROGENA “Hydrating
Double Cleansing Set,” “Acne Prone Double Cleansing Set,” “Sensitive Skin Double

7 Office Action of September 28, 2017 at 10 .
8 Id. at 19, 21 .
9 Id. at 24, 26-28 .
10 Office Action of November 3, 2017 at 5-7 .
11 Id. at 10-14 .
12 Id. at 17, 20, 23-25, 28 .
13 Id. at 31, 34-35 .
Serial No. 87461038
- 6 -

Cleansing Set,” and “Naturals Double Cleansing Set,” each consisting of makeup-
removal towelettes paired with a liquid skin cleanser.14 We find the evidence
discussed above sufficient to persuade us that skin cleansers and makeup-removing
wipes are related in such a way that customers would readily believe they could
emanate from the same source when sold under the same or similar mark.
Applicant argues that “Applicant’s Mark does not cover any products closely
related to the goods covered by the Cited Marks”; and that “a consumer searching for
the goods offered under the Cited Marks is unlikely to come across Applicant’s
disposable makeup removing wipes.”15 We find this contention implausible in view of
the evidence, which shows not only that wipes and skin cleansers are offered together
under the same mark but that many types of cosmetics are offered alongside and
under the same mark as makeup wipes.16 Accordingly, we find that the du Pont factor
relating to the similarity of the goods weighs in favor of a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
B. Trade channels; customers.
Because there are no limitations or restrictions as to trade channels in the
application and the cited registration, we presume that the goods at issue would be
marketed in all normal trade channels for such goods. See, e.g., Coach Servs. v.

14 Id. at 25 .
15 Applicant’s brief at 7, 6 TTABVUE 8.
16 See footnotes 7-14 above, and evidence referenced therein, showing makeup wipes and skin
cleansers offered alongside other cosmetics such as eye creams, facial masks, and makeup,
under marks such as LANCER, CLINIQUE, and AVEENO.
Serial No. 87461038
- 7 -

Triumph Learning, 101 USPQ2d at 1722. The Trademark Examining Attorney has
shown at least one example of a retail trade channel through which skin cleansers
and makeup wipes are available, i.e., the SEPHORA website.17 The evidence
discussed above in Part A also shows that the branded websites of cosmetics makers
are a normal trade channel for both types of products. Although the evidence
addresses only online trade channels, it shows that customers would encounter the
goods of Applicant and Registrant in close proximity in these channels.
Applicant contends that the goods of Applicant and Registrant would travel
through separate trade channels, arguing that “[t]he owner of the Cited Marks …
markets its goods in the high-end beauty market, which is a very different class of
consumers. Thus, what constitutes a ‘normal’ trade channel for each of these product
categories is different.”18 To the extent that Applicant contends that the goods are
actually sold at different price points, we note that the cited registrations are not
limited to “high-end” products and we therefore must presume that Registrant’s
goods include all goods of the types identified, at all normal price ranges for such
goods. In any event, the evidence indicates that internet retailers are a normal
channel of trade for both makeup removing wipes and skin cleansers, even when such
goods are costly. See, e.g., LANCER The Method: Cleanse ($55.00), Makeup Removing
Wipes ($40.00).19

17 Office Action of September 28, 2017 at 8-18, .
18 Applicant’s brief at 9, 6 TTABVUE 10.
19 Office Action of September 28, 2017 at 10, .
Serial No. 87461038
- 8 -

With respect to the customers for the goods, Applicant suggests that the goods of
Applicant and Registrant are marketed to different classes of purchasers,20 but does
not explain or demonstrate why this would be so. Applicant also suggests, in a
heading, that customers for cosmetics are “Sophisticated Purchasers.”21 Nothing in
the record supports these contentions. The goods at issue are common consumer
items, and the customers for such goods are ordinary consumers who have no
particular sophistication. We must base our analysis “on the least sophisticated
potential purchasers.” Stone Lion Capital v. Lion Capital, 110 USPQ2d at 1163
(internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the goods at issue are often very
moderately priced. See, e.g., BURT’S BEES Skin Nourishment Gentle Foaming
Cleanser ($10.00) and Eye Makeup Remover Pads ($6.00);22 NEUTROGENA Deep
Clean Gentle Scrub ($7.49) and Makeup Remover Cleansing Towelettes ($7.99).23
Considering the moderate cost of the goods, customers would exercise only an
ordinary degree of care in selecting the goods.
Overall, we find that the du Pont factors of trade channels and the customers to
whom and the conditions under which sales are made favor a finding of likelihood of
confusion.

20 Applicant’s brief at 8-9, 6 TTABVUE 9-10.
21 Id. at 8, 6 TTABVUE 9.
22 Office Action of November 3, 2017 at 11-12.
23 Id. at 24.
Serial No. 87461038
- 9 -

C. The marks.
We consider next the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as
to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. See Palm Bay
Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73
USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “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.” In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315,
123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning,
101 USPQ2d at 1721) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The marks are similar in appearance because each consists of three letters,
beginning with Z and ending with A. Their different second letters, É and I,
respectively, are points of difference in appearance. Moreover, the accent mark over
the second letter in Applicant’s mark is also a point of difference in appearance. With
respect to sound, Applicant contends that its mark would be pronounced “ZEE-
Ahh.”24 This is also a likely pronunciation for the registered mark ZIA. Applicant
argues that ZIA should be pronounced “Z-iah,”25 presumably so that the first syllable
would rhyme with “try” or “eye.” However, “there is no correct pronunciation of a
trademark, and consumers may pronounce a mark differently than intended by the

24 Applicant’s brief at 14, 6 TTABVUE 15. See also id. at 15 (“The accent over the letter ‘E’
designates a specific pronunciation in this instance, namely a long e, which is pronounced as
with an ‘E’ sound.”).
25 Applicant’s brief at 14, 6 TTABVUE 15.
Serial No. 87461038
- 10 -

brand owner.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir.
2012). There is, in fact, no evidence of record as to how the marks would be
pronounced, and we find that they could be pronounced the same.
With respect to meaning or connotation, neither Applicant nor the Trademark
Examining Attorney has suggested that either mark has any meaning. Each of them
might be perceived as a given personal name. However, on the present record, it is
likely that customers would perceive both marks as fanciful terms having no literal
meaning.
In sum, the two marks are partly similar in appearance, they are likely to be
pronounced the same, and they cannot be distinguished on the basis of different
meanings because, on this record, they would both be perceived as arbitrary or
fanciful coined terms. Overall, we find that the marks’ similarities outweigh their
differences, and that they create similar overall commercial impressions.
Accordingly, the du Pont factor of the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks favors
a finding of likelihood of confusion.
D. Similar marks in use.
Applicant argues that “given the widespread registration and weak nature of the
prefix ‘Z’ and the suffix ‘A’ in Class 3, Applicant’s mark ZEA should be deemed capable
of coexisting” with the cited mark.26 In support of this contention, Applicant has

26 Applicant’s brief at 13, 6 TTABVUE 14.
Serial No. 87461038
- 11 -

submitted evidence to show that the following marks have been registered by the
USPTO for goods in Class 3:27
Reg. No. Mark Goods
4402071 RITA & ZIA Perfumery; Jewelry, precious stones; horological
and chronometric instruments; parts for clocks and
watches; parts of jewelry, namely, jewelry chains,
jewelry settings being rings and pendants; Goods of
leather and of imitation leather not included in
other classes, in particular bags, travelling bags,
handbags, suitcases, wallets, purses, document
cases, umbrellas.

4810883 ZIJA Cosmetics; face cleanser; skin moisturizer; skin
lotion; non-medicated skin care preparation,
namely, re-hydrating body mist, re-hydrating skin
mist; anti-aging cream; skin oil; non-medicated
beauty eye serum; facial masque.

2296606

Eye makeup, face powder, foundation makeup, lip
gloss, cleansing cream, moisturizer.
1863005 ZOYA Cosmetics; namely, nail polish top coats, nail polish
drying preparations, nail polishes, nail polish base
coats, nail strengtheners, and cuticle softener
solutions.

2269066 ZEVA Personal care preparations, namely, non-medicated
hair care preparations, skin lotion, skin soap, facial
moisturizer, make-up and nail preparations.

2814691 ZINKA Non-medicated skin care preparations, namely,
moisturizing creams and lotions, sun tanning, sun
screening, and sunblocking preparations.

Clothing, namely, T-shirts and hats

27 Response of August 25, 2017 at 22-27; 29-40; 61-94.
Serial No. 87461038
- 12 -

Reg. No. Mark Goods
3542415 ZELA Cosmetics, toilet preparations, namely, eau-de-
toilette and perfumery, lipsticks, nail enamels, nail
polish, lip glosses, lip liners, lip balms, lip palettes,
makeup kits comprising of lipstick, lip gloss,
mascara, lip liner, eye liner, eye shadow, and blush,
makeup palettes, eye shadows, eye liners, lip and
eye palettes, liquid eye liners, eye makeup,
mascara, eyebrow pencils, artificial eyelashes,
blushers, multi-use cosmetic sticks, foundation
makeup, pressed face powder, loose face powder,
makeup remover, facial concealers, eye creams,
non-medicated skin care creams, lotions, oils,
sprays, and gels for the face and body; lotions,
serums, and sprays for the face and body, nail
polish remover; fragrances for personal use, suncare
lotions, shampoos, hair conditioners, hair gels, hair
sprays, hair styling preparations.

3170621

After-sun lotions, almond soaps, aromatherapy
creams and lotions, bath gel, bath lotion, bath salts,
bath soaps liquid or in gel form, bathing lotions,
creams, beauty lotions, beauty masks, body and
beauty care cosmetics, body lotions, body masks,
body oils, body scrub, body spray used as a
fragrance, bubble bath, cosmetic soaps, cosmetic
sun protecting preparations, cosmetics, creams and
lotions for cellulite reduction, eye compresses for
cosmetic purposes, eye cream, eye gels, eye lotions,
face and body beauty creams, face and body lotions,
facial cleanser, facial lotion, facial scrubs, facial
washes, fragrances for personal use, hair
conditioner, hair gels, hair lotions, hair mousse,
hair nourishers, hair oils, hair shampoo, hair spray,
hair styling gel, hand soaps, incense, lipsticks,
liquid bath soaps, liquid soaps, massage oil,
personal care and beauty products, sachet-like eye
pillow containing fragrances, scented room sprays,
shower and bath gel, skin cleansers, skin
moisturizer, skin toners, sun block, sun care lotions,
sun creams, sun screen preparations, topical skin
sprays for cosmetic purposes, wrinkle removing skin
care preparations.
Serial No. 87461038
- 13 -

Reg. No. Mark Goods
4173436 ZADTA Body and beauty care preparations, namely, skin
lotions.

4673384 Soap for personal use, perfumery, perfumes, eau-de-
Cologne, lavender water, scented linen water, toilet
water, essential oils, oils for perfumes and scents,
skin oils for cosmetic use, massage oils, cosmetics,
hair lotions, hair spray, hair gels and waxes,
shampoos, sunscreens and cosmetics for skin
tanning, cosmetic preparations for baths, bath salts,
not for medical use, face and body moisturizers,
cleansing milks, beauty masks, cosmetics for skin,
foot and hand care, cosmetic creams, make-up,
cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes;
cosmetics for tanning, cosmetic pencils, make-up,
lipsticks, mascara, make-up powder, eyebrow
pencils, false eyelashes and nails, make-up
removing preparations, deodorants for personal use,
being perfumery, varnish-removing preparations,
deodorant soap, talcum powder for toilet use, nail
polish, nail care preparations, cosmetic hair dyes,
after-shave lotions, shaving preparations, tissues
impregnated with cosmetic lotions.

4903212 ZADDA bleaching preparations for laundry use; cleaning
and polishing preparations; degreasing
preparations for steel, ceramic, wood, leather;
abrasive preparations; perfumery; essential oils;
cosmetics; hair lotions; body lotions; dentifrices;
depilatories; lipstick; beauty mask; shaving
products, namely, shaving foam, shaving cream,
aftershave lotions.

4929896 ZOEVA Adhesives for cosmetic use; cosmetic preparations;
compacts containing make-up; make-up; eye make-
up; facial make-up; lipstick; blush; skin bronzer;
eyeliner; eye shadow; make-up primer; false
eyelashes; cleaner for cosmetic brushes; reeds and
scented oils sold as a unit for use in room scent
diffusers; body and beauty care cosmetics; cosmetic
preparations for skin care; cosmetic preparations
for bath and shower; fragrances and perfumery;
Serial No. 87461038
- 14 -

Reg. No. Mark Goods
hair care preparations; soaps; cosmetic tanning
preparations; depilatory preparations and
substances; cosmetic self-tanning preparations; nail
care preparations; nail polish; room fragrances; hair
styling preparations; skin and body topical lotions,
creams and oils for cosmetic use; dry shampoos;
cosmetic pads; deodorant for personal use;
cosmetics; essential oils; none of the aforesaid goods
including household and hygienic wipes.

4862431 ZARA Fragrances, perfumes and colognes; essential oils
for personal use; toothpaste; cosmetics; make-up;
facial cleansers; soaps for personal use.

The Federal Circuit has held that evidence of the extensive registration and use
of a term by others can be powerful evidence of the term’s weakness. Jack Wolfskin
Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. v. Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363,
116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC,
794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Use evidence may reflect
commercial weakness, while third-party registration evidence that does not equate
to proof of third-party use may bear on conceptual weakness if a term is commonly
registered for similar goods or services. “[A] real evidentiary value of third party
registrations per se is to show the sense in which … a mark is used in ordinary
parlance. … Third party registrations are relevant to prove that some segment of the
[mark] has a normally understood and well recognized descriptive or suggestive
meaning, leading to the conclusion that that segment is relatively weak.” Juice
Generation, 115 USPQ2d at 1675 (citations and internal quotations omitted). See also
Serial No. 87461038
- 15 -

Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 917 (CCPA 1976). We find that most
of the third-party marks that Applicant has adduced are so different in appearance,
sound, meaning, and commercial impression from Registrant’s mark ZIA that their
existence in the marketplace (were it proven) would have little meaningful impact on
the commercial strength of Registrant’s mark. Customers are unlikely to perceive two
marks as similar merely because they both begin with the letter Z and end with the
letter A.
The marks RITA & ZIA, ZIJA, and ZA (stylized) do have some similarity to the
cited mark ZIA. Applicant has not demonstrated that these registered marks are in
actual use in the marketplace; accordingly, these three registrations do not
demonstrate that the cited mark ZIA is commercially weak. Palm Bay Imports, 73
USPQ2d at 1693 (“The probative value of third-party trademarks depends entirely
upon their usage.”) As for conceptual weakness, the most that we can derive from
these three registrations regarding the meaning or commercial impression created by
the cited mark is that ZIA might be a given name (like the common given name RITA
with which it is paired in Reg. No. 4402071). However, given names are not generally
regarded as lacking in conceptual strength; and Reg. No. 4402071 is insufficient,
alone, to persuade us that the term ZIA is suggestive in any way of the goods listed
in the registration (let alone of the cosmetics at issue in this case). Neither do the
other registrations persuade us that the feature of an initial letter Z and a final letter
A “has a normally understood and well recognized descriptive or suggestive meaning,
leading to the conclusion that that segment is relatively weak.” Juice Generation, 115
Serial No. 87461038
- 16 -

USPQ2d at 1675. We find the third-party registration evidence submitted by
Applicant does not demonstrate that the cited mark ZIA is commercially or
conceptually weak or that it is entitled to a narrow scope of protection.
II. Conclusion.
We have considered all of the arguments and evidence of record, including those
not specifically discussed herein, and all relevant du Pont factors. Applicant’s mark
ZÉA is similar in appearance and sound to the cited mark ZIA. Although the marks
are not identical, marks must be considered in light of the fallibility of memory. In re
St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The
differences between these marks are minor and could be overlooked or
misremembered. We find that the marks create similar commercial impressions. The
goods at issue are similar in nature, closely related, and sometimes marketed
together in kits as complementary goods. They are marketed through some of the
same trade channels, are often moderately priced, and would be selected with only
ordinary care on the part of customers. Finally, no evidence of record suggests that
we should afford the cited mark a narrow scope of protection. We find that Applicant’s
mark, as intended for use on Applicant’s goods, so resembles the cited registered
mark ZIA as to be likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or to deceive.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed.