Sovitech Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2001

No. 75578649 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2001)

1/12/01
Paper No. 8
DEB
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Sovitech Corporation
________
Serial No. 75/578,649
_______
Douglas J. McEvoy of Gifford Krass Groh Sprinkle Anderson &
Citkowski for Sovitech Corporation.
William G. Breckenfeld, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
114 (Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Seeherman, Bucher and Holtzman, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Sovitech Corporation has appealed the refusal of the
Trademark Examining Attorney to register the mark depicted below
with the word “System” disclaimed, for “metal locks for doors
and doorways,” in International Class 6.1 Registration has been
refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s mark, if applied to
1 Serial No. 75/578,649 filed on October 28, 1998, asserting a bona
fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/578,649
2
applicant’s identified goods, would so resemble the previously
registered mark MACLOCK registered for “mechanical metal door
edge retractable blade locks,” also in International Class 6,2 as
to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive.
The case has been fully briefed but applicant did not
request an oral hearing.
We affirm the refusal of registration.
In the course of rendering this decision, we have followed
the guidance of In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d
1357, 1362, 177 USPQ 563, 567-68 (CCPA 1973). This case sets
forth the factors that should be considered, if relevant, in
determining likelihood of confusion. In any likelihood of
confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and the similarities between the goods and/or
services. Federated Food, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 554
F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976).
As to the goods, applicant has conceded that the goods
identified in the cited registration and recited in the instant
application are “substantially related.” There is nothing in
the record to suggest these respective goods would not move
through identical channels of trade, or would not be marketed to
the same class of ordinary purchasers. Hence, applicant’s use
2 Reg. No. 2,155,325 issued on May 5, 1998.
Serial No. 75/578,649
3
of a confusingly similar mark on its goods is likely to cause
confusion.
We turn next to a consideration of the similarity or
dissimilarity of the marks. The test is not whether the marks
can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side
comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently
similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that
confusion as to the source of the goods offered under the
respective marks is likely to result. See Sealed Air Corp. v.
Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975). Furthermore,
although the marks at issue must be compared in their
entireties, it is well settled that one feature of a mark may be
more significant than another, and it is not improper to give
more weight to this dominant feature in determining the
commercial impression created by the mark. See In re National
Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1f056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Registrant’s mark is MACLOCK. We find that the dominant
feature in applicant mark is the term MAXLOK. The disclaimed
word SYSTEM in applicant’s mark is obviously descriptive. As to
the remaining elements of applicant’s mark, the word THE and the
black background device are devoid of any source-indicating
significance.
When spoken, the first syllable of registrant’s mark (Mac-)
and of applicant’s mark (Max-) begin with the letters M-A-
Serial No. 75/578,649
4
followed by a similar, hard consonant sound, and the second
syllables of MACLOCK and MAXLOK are pronounced the same way.
Hence, the marks are extremely similar in pronunciation.
As to appearance, MAXLOK is visually the largest element in
applicant’s mark, and as noted above, it is also the element
with source-indicating significance. However, applicant asserts
that there is no likelihood of confusion because of the
cumulative differences in the two marks, and specifically the
differences between MACLOCK and MAXLOK, and the addition of the
black background in its mark. Applicant argues that even if we
were to find that MAXLOK is the dominant term in applicant’s
mark, it differs from the cited mark, MACLOCK, by two letters –
i.e., replacing the letter “C” in the first syllable with the
letter “X,” and dropping the letter “C” from the second
syllable. However, under actual marketing conditions, consumers
do not necessarily have the luxury of making side-by-side
comparisons between marks, and must rely upon their imperfect
recollections. Dassler KG v. Roller Derby Skate Corporation,
206 USPQ 255 (TTAB 1980). As a result, consumers are not likely
to note or remember these minor differences in appearance.
As to meaning, the term “lock,” and its phonetic
equivalent, “lok,” are descriptive of these goods. While there
may well be some difference in connotation between the
respective first syllables, this difference is more than
Serial No. 75/578,649
5
outweighed by the similarities noted above in sound and
appearance. Hence, when compared in their entireties, these two
marks have a similar overall commercial impression.
Finally, as to the du Pont factor that directs our
attention to the strength of registrant’s mark, we note that
there is no evidence of third-party registrations for this type
of product, or even in related fields.
Accordingly, when applicant applies its confusingly similar
mark to closely related goods, we find that there will be a
likelihood of confusion.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.