T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2012

No. 85192286 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2012)

Mailed: March 23, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
________

Serial No. 85192286
_______

Andrew D. Price, Michael E. Hall of Venable LLP for T. Rowe
Price Group, Inc.

Emily Chuo, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101
(Ronald R. Sussman, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Kuhlke, Taylor and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On December 7, 2010, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. applied
to register the standard character mark MAP YOUR FUTURE on
the Principal Register under Section 1(a) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), alleging first use and use in
commerce since March 2, 2009, for services identified as
“financial administration of retirement plans for
retirement plan providers and retirement plan participants”
in International Class 36.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 85192286
2
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, when used with its identified services,
so resembles the registered mark MAPPING YOUR FUTURE for
“providing information about money management via a global
computer network” in International Class 41, as to be
likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception.1
Applicant has appealed the final refusal and the
appeal is fully briefed.
When there is a question of likelihood of confusion,
we analyze the facts as they relate to the relevant factors
set out in 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., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and the similarities between the goods
and services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard
Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
The marks MAP YOUR FUTURE and MAPPING YOUR FUTURE are
very similar, “in their entireties as to appearance, sound,

1 Registration No. 3243913, issued on May 22, 2007. The
registration also includes the following services: “providing
career information via a global computer network,” in
International Class 35; and “providing information about colleges
via a global computer network,” in International Class 41.
Serial No. 85192286
3
connotation and commercial impression.” Palm Bay Imports
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. Applicant does not dispute this and
we find the marks to be essentially identical.
Applicant focuses its arguments on the issue of the
relatedness of the services. In making our determination,
we are constrained to make our determination based on the
services as identified in the cited registration and the
application. Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computers
Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press
Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Further, our analysis is not whether the services will be
confused with each other, but rather whether the potential
consumers will be confused about their source. See Safety-
Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 186
USPQ 476, 480 (CCPA 1975). It is sufficient that the
services of the applicant and the registrant are so related
that the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such
that they are likely to be encountered by the same persons
under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken
belief that they originate from the same source. See,
e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229
Serial No. 85192286
4
F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Finally, where
the marks are nearly identical the relationship between the
services need not be as close to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion as would be required in a case
where there are differences between the marks. In re Shell
Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examining attorney takes the position that the
phrase “money management” in registrant’s mark encompasses
providing “information on managing assets.” Br. p. 9.
Based on this determination as to the scope of the
identification, she argues that the evidence of record
“establishes that in the financial services industry, the
same entity often provides information on money management
as well as retirement planning and/or the financial
administration of retirement plans services and markets the
goods and/or services under the same mark.” Br. pp. 6-7.
Continuing, she argues that “viewing the mark MAP YOUR
FUTURE with respect to applicant’s services, these same
consumers may mistakenly assume that they are related to
the registrant who provides information on money management
under a virtually identical name MAPPING YOUR FUTURE, or
vice versa. In fact, applicant itself provides information
and advice on money management, further evidencing the fact
that the services are clearly related in the instant case.”
Serial No. 85192286
5
Br. p. 7. Specifically, she points to page 3 of
applicant’s specimen of use where applicant suggests a
saving of ‘at least 15% of your salary’ towards a
retirement plan.” Id. In further support of the refusal,
the examining attorney submitted third-party registrations
and excerpts from third-party websites.
Applicant contends that “money management” has
different meanings depending on the context. With regard
to registrant’s information services, applicant argues that
the term “money management” means “awareness of how one
earns, spends, and saves money.” Br. p. 3. Applicant
argues that registrant’s services “are not money management
services themselves (such as those provided by a financial
institution), but rather might be described as “the
provision of information about ‘fiscal responsibility.’”
Br. p. 5.
Applicant argues that registrant’s identification of
services “uses the term money management to mean something
entirely different from the meaning of money management as
a term of art for the act of managing and investing others’
assets.” Br. p. 6. Applicant relies on In re Trackmobile
Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1152, 1154 (TTAB 1990) to present
“extrinsic evidence to show that registrant’s
identification has a specific meaning to members of the
Serial No. 85192286
6
trade.” This evidence includes third-party websites that
provide information on “fiscal responsibility” under the
term “money management” and excerpts from registrant’s
website that show the same meaning for “money management.”
Pertinent excerpts are shown below.

Serial No. 85192286
7

Based on this evidence, applicant concludes that “the
term money management, when used in the sense in which it
is used in Registrant’s identification of services is about
Serial No. 85192286
8
awareness of how one earns, spends, and saves money.” Br.
p. 3. Applicant also points to the following
identification in the U.S. Acceptable Identification of
Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual):2
Providing financial services with respect to
securities and other financial instruments and
products, namely, money management services.

Applicant argues that the term money management in the
examples of third-party registrations and website pages
submitted by the examining attorney is used as “a term of
art that refers to the act of managing and investing
others’ assets” (br. p. 2) and registrant’s “identification
of services uses the term money management to mean
something entirely different” (br. p. 6).
We first note that the ID Manual is a guide and does
not include the universe of all possible identifications.
The existence of this specific identification, has no
effect on whether or not applicant’s services are related
to registrant’s services. When the nature of the services
is unclear, extrinsic evidence may be used to demonstrate
what a specific term means in an industry. In this case,
we do not find the term money management to be unclear.
Based on the common meaning of the words comprising the

2 The Board may take judicial notice of entries from the ID
Manual.
Serial No. 85192286
9
term money management it encompasses “managing and
investing another’s assets” and “awareness about how one
earns, spends, and saves money.” Moreover, saving money is
directly related to managing and investing assets and while
registrant may only engage in the “earn, spend and save”
aspect, applicant’s services overlap by providing advice on
saving for retirement. Thus, even if we restricted the
services of the registration to that end of the spectrum of
money management, we would still find the services related.
The record reflects the inherent relationship between
providing information about money management, including
ways to be fiscally responsible and the administration of
retirement plans. The website for Massachusetts Mutual
Life Insurance Company, while it does not show registrant’s
exact service, it does include general information as to
financial planning, including “Top Ten Questions When
Planning for Financial Security” and “Estimating College
Costs.” See www.massmutual.com. (attached to Final Office
Action p. 32). One of the third-party registrations of
record is owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company and includes in its services “financial planning
for retirement” and “retirement plan administration.” In
another example, The Vanguard Group has a registration that
includes “administration of employee benefit plans ...
Serial No. 85192286
10
employee pension plans” and electronic and printed
publications in the field of finance, including the topic
of saving. Reg. No. 3830178 (attached to Final Office
Action pp. 2-3).3 See In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29
USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993).
We further note that, in the BalanceTrack website
provided by applicant shown above, the need to save for
retirement is included in the discussion regarding
budgeting and fiscal responsibility:
Money management is the process of knowing where
you are spending your money today and having a
well-thought plan in place for where you want it
to go in the future. ... Financial goals should
be specific. For example, wanting to save
$1,000,000 for retirement by age 60, is a goal,
but wanting to be rich is just a wish.

In addition, the “Managing Your Money” website
references information on estate planning. Similarly, in
applicant’s brochure, submitted as its specimen of use,
applicant, as part of its administration of retirement
services, includes advice for plan participants under the
headings “Why save for retirement?” and “How much should
you save?” As noted in BalanceTrack, saving for retirement
is part of budgeting or managing one’s money. Thus, while

3 We note that the Section 66 registration and application have
no probative value on this point. In re 1st Realty Prof’ls, Inc.,
84 USPQ2d 1581, 1583 (TTAB 2007); Interpayment Servs. Ltd. v.
Doctors & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463, 1467 n.6 (TTAB 2003).

Serial No. 85192286
11
applicant’s retirement plan administration services may be
different from registrant’s provision of information about
how to manage a budget, applicant’s services overlap on at
least one aspect of registrant’s services, by providing
advice on saving for retirement. At a minimum, these
services are complementary. While applicant’s advice
pertains more specifically as to how to invest to grow and
maintain your retirement fund, it requires participants to
budget and understand how to manage money to achieve that
goal. Thus, we find these services to be related, and
given the near identity of the marks, consumers who
received registrant’s services on budgeting, when presented
with the essentially identical mark as a possible
retirement plan participant, likely would confuse the
source.
Thus, in view of the near identity of the marks and
the related and complementary nature of the services, we
find that confusion is likely between applicant’s mark for
its identified services and the mark in the cited
registration.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.