Societe de Conception et de Manage-ment d’Appli-catifs-S.C.M.A.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2000

No. 75303256 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2000)

Paper No. 17
PTH
8/7/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Societe de Conception et de Management
D’Applicatifs-S.C.M.A.
________
Serial No. 75/303,256
_______
Lawrence E. Abelman of Abelman Frayne & Schwab for Societe
de Conception et de Management D’Applicatifs-S.C.M.A.
Kathleen M. Vanston, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 103 (Michael A. Szoke, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Hairston and Wendel, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
This is an appeal from the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s final refusal to register the mark LOGISTAR for
goods which were subsequently described as: “computer
software for database management operations, inventory
management, sales forecasting, product planning and
management, financial accounting, tracking transportation
of merchandise and purchasing orders; computers; data
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/303,256
2
processors; optical discs; optical scanners; computer
terminals; barcode readers; computer monitors; laser
printers; modems.”1
Registration has been refused under Section 2(d) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the ground that
applicant’s mark, if used in connection with the identified
goods, would so resemble the registered mark LOGI-STAR for
“leasing access time to an on-line computer database
featuring information regarding business operations,
business management, and business news,” as to be likely to
cause confusion.2
Both applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed
briefs, but an oral hearing was not requested.
With respect to the similarity of the marks, we note
that applicant’s brief is silent on this factor. We find
that this amounts to a tacit concession that the marks are
essentially identical, as the Examining Attorney maintains.
The fact that the registered mark contains a hyphen between
“LOGI” and “STAR” is virtually of no consequence.

1 Serial No. 75/303,256 filed June 4, 1997, which alleges a bona
fide intention to use the mark in commerce, and under Section
44(e), based on French Registration No. 92435622 expiring
September 21, 2002.
2 Registration No. 2,044,526 issued March 11, 1997.
Ser No. 75/303,256
3
We turn our attention, as have applicant and the
Examining Attorney, to the relationship between applicant’s
goods and registrant’ services. Applicant, in urging
reversal of the refusal to register, argues that its
computer software and related computer products are
different in nature from registrant’s services, and that
the goods and services travel in different channels of
trade to different purchasers. Further, applicant argues
that the involved goods and services are bought by careful
purchasers.
The Examining Attorney, on the other hand, maintains
that applicant’s computer software for database operations,
inventory management, sales forecasting, product planning
and management, financial accounting, tracking
transportation of merchandise and purchasing orders, and
registrant’s services of leasing access time to an on-line
computer database featuring information regarding business
operations, business management, and business news are
related because the goods and services may be used in the
context of business operations and business management. In
support of her position that the involved goods and
services are related, the Examining Attorney submitted
eight third-party registrations for marks which cover
computer software in a specific business field and the
Ser No. 75/303,256
4
services of leasing access time to an on-line computer
database in the same field.
As has been frequently stated, it is not necessary
that the goods and services of parties be similar or
competitive, or even that they move in the same channels of
trade to support a likelihood of confusion. It is
sufficient that the respective goods and services of the
parties are related in some manner, and/or that the
conditions and activities surrounding the marketing of the
goods and services are such that they would or could
encountered by the same persons under circumstances that
could, because of the similarity of the marks, give rise to
the mistaken belief that they originate from the same
producer. In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.,
197 USPQ 910, 911 (TTAB 1978). Further, the Board has
stated in the past that “[i]f the marks are the same or
almost so, it is only necessary that there be a viable
relationship between the goods or services in order to
support a likelihood of confusion.” In re Concordia
International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355, 356 (TTAB
1983).
In this case, we find that there is a viable
relationship between applicant’s computer software for
database management operations, inventory management, sales
Ser No. 75/303,256
5
forecasting, product planning and management, financial
accounting, and tracking transportation of merchandise and
purchasing orders and registrant’s services of leasing
access time to an on-line computer database featuring
information regarding business operations, business
management, and business news. Both are specifically
designed to aid businesses in their operations and
management. Although applicant maintains that there is no
overlap among purchasers because its computer software is
targeted to businesses involved in the distribution of
goods, we note that the recitation of services in the cited
registration contains no restrictions as to the purchasers.
In the absence of any restrictions, we must assume that
registrant’s services of leasing access time to an on-line
computer database may also be purchased by business owners
who are involved in the distribution of goods. Such
business owners may well believe that registrant has
expanded from computer software designed to aid businesses
in their operations and management to the services of
leasing access time to an on-line computer database
featuring information regarding business operations and
business management.
The third-party registrations submitted by the
Examining Attorney are additional evidence of the
Ser No. 75/303,256
6
relatedness of the involved goods and services because they
show that computer software in a specific business field
and the services of leasing access time to an on-line
computer database in the same field may emanate from the
same source under the same mark. In re Mucky Duck Mustard
Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 1988).
With respect to applicant’s argument that the goods
and services involved herein are bought by sophisticated
purchasers, we would point out that purchasers of these
goods and services are not immune to source confusion,
especially in cases like the present one, where related
goods and services would be marketed under virtually
identical marks.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that purchasers
familiar with registrant’s services of leasing access time
to an on-line computer database featuring information
regarding business operations, business management, and
business news offered under the mark LOGI-STAR are likely
to believe, upon encountering applicant’s mark LOGISTAR for
computer software for database management operations,
inventory management, sales forecasting, product planning
and management, financial accounting, tracking
transportation of merchandise and purchasing orders, that
Ser No. 75/303,256
7
the goods and services originated with or were somehow
associated with the same source.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
H. R. Wendel
P. T. Hairston
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board