Tempting Brands Netherlands B.V.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2017

No. 79161682 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2017)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: April 11, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In Tempting Brands Netherlands B.V.
_____

Serial No. 79161682
_____

Lawrence Abelman and Arrielle S. Millstein of Abelman Frayne & Schwab,
for Tempting Brands Netherlands B.V.
Christopher M. Law, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103,
Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Taylor, Bergsman and Shaw,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Tempting Brands Netherlands B.V. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark MARIE-ANTOINETTE (in standard characters) for
the goods listed below:
Eyeglasses, sunglasses, protective eyewear, sports
eyewear, anti-glare glasses, 3D spectacles, binoculars,
contact lenses, containers for contact lenses, eyeglass
cases, spectacle cases, eyewear cases, cases for spectacles
and sunglasses, eyeglass chains, eyeglass cords, eyeglass
frames, spectacle frames, frames for spectacles and
sunglasses, spectacle lenses, lenses for sunglasses, optical
lenses, pince-nez, pince-nez cases, goggles for sports,
Serial No. 79161682
- 2 -
monocles, magnifying glasses optics; protective helmets;
bags adapted for laptops; sleeves for laptops, in Class 9;
Animal skins; trunks luggage and travelling bags;
umbrellas; parasols and walking sticks; whips and
saddlery; bags, namely, handbags, travelling bags, bags for
sports, school bags, book bags, reusable shopping bags,
leather shopping bags, briefcases and rucksacks; collars for
animals; purses, credit card cases, wallets, and pocket
wallets; bags in the nature of envelopes of leather, for
packaging, and pouches, of leather, for packaging; vanity
cases, not fitted; clothing for pets, in Class 18; and
Clothing for men, women and children, namely, socks,
stockings, jeans, trousers, breeches for wear, leggings
trousers, boxer shorts, combinations, suits, skirts,
petticoats, dresses, dressing gowns, blouses, shirts, tee-
shirts, sweaters, pullovers, vests, clothing jerseys,
cardigans, shawls, scarves, neckties, clothing gloves,
clothing belts, suspenders, panties, coats, waistcoats,
overcoats, raincoats, parkas, ponchos, pelerines, cloaks,
saris, clothing jackets, overalls, pockets for clothing,
clothing collars, nightwear, lingerie, underwear, bathing
suits, bath robes, masquerade costumes, fur stoles,
footwear, headwear, in Class 25.1
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 that
Applicant’s mark so resembles the registered mark BREGUET MARIE-
ANTOINETTE (standard characters) for the goods listed below as to be likely to cause
confusion:
Precious metal and their alloys; goods and precious metals
or coated therewith, namely, rings, bracelets, brooches, ear
rings, necklaces; jewellery, bijouterie, precious stones;

1 Application Serial No. 79161682 was filed on December 5, 2014, under Section 66(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1141f, based upon Applicant’s International Registration No.
1238820, registered December 5, 2014.
Serial No. 79161682
- 3 -
diamonds; horological and chronometric instruments, in
Class 14.2
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We affirm the refusal to register.
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. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,
177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“du Pont”) (cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis
Ind., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1293, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015)); see also In re Majestic
Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have
considered each du Pont factor that is relevant and for which there is evidence of
record. See M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944,
1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006); ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232,
1242 (TTAB 2015) (“While we have considered each factor for which we have
evidence, we focus our analysis on those factors we find to be relevant.”). In any

2 Registration No. 3127067, registered August 8, 2006; Section 71 declaration accepted.
15 U.S.C. § 1141k.
“Horological” is defined as “of or relating to horology.” “Horology” is defined as “the art or
science of making timepieces or of measuring time.” A “chronometer” is defined, inter alia, as
“any timepiece, especially a wristwatch, designed for the highest accuracy.” Dictionary.com
based on the Random House Dictionary (2017). The Board may take judicial notice of
dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries that exist in printed format. In re Cordua
Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.4 (TTAB 2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632
(Fed. Cir. 2016); Threshold.TV Inc. v. Metronome Enters. Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1031, 1038 n.14
(TTAB 2010). Accordingly, horological and chronometric instruments include watches.
“Bijouterie” is defined as “jewelry.” Dictionary.com based on the Random House
Dictionary (2017).
Serial No. 79161682
- 4 -
likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between
the marks and the similarities between the goods or services. See In re Chatam Int’l
Inc., 380 F.2d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Federated Foods, Inc.
v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The
fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences
in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”); see also
In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1409 (TTAB 2015).
A. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks.
We turn first to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression. du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567. “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.”
Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721
(Fed. Cir. 2012); see also San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics
Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons Restaurants
Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d mem., 972 F.2d 1353
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average customer, who
retains a general rather than specific impression of the marks. Geigy Chem. Corp. v.
Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971); L’Oreal S.A.
v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Oliver &
Serial No. 79161682
- 5 -
Winston, Inc., 207 USPQ 335, 344 (TTAB 1980); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co.,
190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975). As discussed more fully below, because the
descriptions of goods at issue include, inter alia, eyeglasses, handbags, clothing,
jewelry and watches without any restrictions or limitations as to channels of trade or
classes of consumers, the average customer is an ordinary consumer.
Marie-Antoinette was the queen consort of King Louis XVI of France (1774-93).
Because she was “[i]mprudent and an enemy of reform, she helped provoke the
popular unrest that led to the French Revolution and to the overthrow of the
monarchy in August 1793.”3 “Her extravagant court expenditures contributed –
though to a minor degree – to the huge debt incurred by the French state in the1770s
and ‘80s.”4
According to Wikipedia, “Breguet is a Swiss manufacturer of luxury watches,”
“writing instruments, women’s jewelry, and cufflinks.”5
Breguet was founded in 1775 by Abraham-Louis Breguet,
a Swiss watchmaker … Breguet’s connections made during
his apprenticeship as a watchmaker and as a student of
mathematics allowed him to establish his business.
Following his introduction to the court, Queen Marie
Antoinette grew fascinated by Breguet’s unique self-
winding watch; Louis XVI bought several of this watches.
In 1783, the Swedish count, Axel Von Fersen, who was the

3 “Marie-Antoinette,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (2016). The Board may take judicial notice
of information from encyclopedias. B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design Inc., 846
F.2d 727, 6 USPQ2d 1719, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“dictionaries and encyclopedias may be
consulted”); Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana Inc.,
98 USPQ2d 1921, 1934 n.61 (TTAB 2011); In re Broyhill Furniture Indus. Inc., 60 USPQ2d
1511, 1514 n.4 (TTAB 2001) (dictionary entries and other standard reference works).
4 Id.
5 Wikipedia.com attached to Applicant’s July 6, 2016 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR
p. 34. Citations to TSDR pages refer to the .pdf format.
Serial No. 79161682
- 6 -
queen’s friend and reputed lover commissioned a watch
from Breguet that was to contain every watch complication
known at that time as a gift to Marie Antoinette, -
Breguet’s masterpiece, the Marie Antoinette (No. 160).6
Applicant describes its MARIE-ANTOINETTE product line as a brand for women,
positioned in the “mid-high to high end” range.7
The marks are similar because they both include the name “Marie-Antoinette”
and they differ because Registrant’s mark includes the house mark/designer name
“Breguet.”8 Applicant contends that “Breguet” is the dominant portion of Registrant’s
mark and, thus, serves to distinguish Applicant’s mark from Registrant’s mark.
As shown by the evidence in the record … BREGUET is a
high-end watch company well-known for its extremely
expensive watches and jewelry, which addresses a very
small market. It is the BREGUET name which dominates
the mark. In this context, Registrant’s use of MARIE-
ANTOINETTE is an extension to the BREGUET name as
it is merely present to reference the name of a specific style
of a line of the Registrant’s watches, not a brand. As a
result, the use of MARIE-ANTOINETTE has far less
impact on consumers for Registrant’s watches than the
impact of the BREGUET brand name.9
There is no per se rule as to how the addition of a house mark or designer name to
similar product marks affects the analysis of whether marks are similar or dissimilar.
In analyzing the similarity or dissimilarity involving house marks or designer names,

6 Id. See also “Marie-Antoinette Pocket Watch,” breguet.com attached to Applicant’s July 6,
2016 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR p. 17.
7 TemptingBrands.com attached to Applicant’s July 6, 2016 Request for Reconsideration,
TSDR p. 40.
8 See excerpts from Registrant’s website (breguet.com) attached to Applicant’s July 6, 2016
Request for Reconsideration, TSDR pp. 17-26 showing BREGUET used as a house mark or
designer name for watches, jewelry, and pens.
9 Applicant’s Brief, p. 6 (17 TTABVUE 7).
Serial No. 79161682
- 7 -
we must consider the marks in their entireties, including the presence of the house
mark or designer name. See In re Fiesta Palms LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1360, 1364 (TTAB
2007).
The Board has described the different effects the addition of a house mark or
designer name to a registered mark can have in a likelihood of confusion case:
[S]uch addition may actually be an aggravation of the
likelihood of confusion as opposed to an aid in
distinguishing the marks so as to avoid source confusion.
On the other hand, where there are some recognizable
differences in the asserted conflicting product marks or the
product marks in question are highly suggestive or merely
descriptive or play upon commonly used or registered
terms, the addition of a housemark and/or other material
to the assertedly conflicting product mark has been
determined sufficient to render the marks as a whole
sufficiently distinguishable.
In re Christian Dior, S.A., 225 USPQ 533, 534 (TTAB 1985) (citations omitted)
(Applicant's LE CACHET DE DIOR is similar to the registered mark CACHET).
As noted above, Applicant’s mark and Registrant’s mark share the name MARIE-
ANTOINETTE. Therefore, such cases as Rockwood Chocolate Co. v. Hoffman Candy
Co., 372 F.2d 552, 152 USPQ 599 (CCPA 1967) (ROCKWOOD-BAG-O-GOLD not
similar to CUP-O-GOLD) and New England Fish Co. v. The Hervin Co., 511 F.2d 562
(CCPA 1975) (BLUE MOUNTAIN KITTY O’S not similar to KITTY) involving non-
identical terms, are not as relevant.
When, as in this case, the common part of the marks is identical, purchasers
familiar with Registrant’s mark are likely to assume that the house mark or designer
name simply identifies what had previously been an anonymous source. In In re Hill-
Behan Lumber Company, 201 USPQ 246 (TTAB 1978), the Board explained that:
Serial No. 79161682
- 8 -
Thus, for purposes herein, the “LUMBERJACK” marks of
the parties are identical. In such a situation, the addition
of applicant’s house mark “HILL-BEHAN’S” thereto is not
deemed sufficient to distinguish the marks as a whole and
to avoid confusion in trade. This is especially so when one
considers that a trademark or a service mark identifies an
anonymous source so that the average consumer in the
marketplace is, more often than not, unaware of the
producer of the goods sold under a mark and often doesn’t
care, so long as the quality of the goods identified by the
mark remains the same. Thus, if those individuals familiar
with registrant’s “LUMBERJACK” products were to
encounter “HILL-BEHAN’S LUMBER JACK” stores at
which lumber products are sold, there is nothing to
preclude them from assuming that “HILL-BEHAN” is the
source of the “LUMBERJACK” products and has
established retail outlets to market them. Whether it be
confusion of source or sponsorship, the likelihood of such
confusion is there and, as a consequence, registrant’s
registered mark is a bar to the registration sought by
applicant.
Id. at 249-50; see also In re C.F. Hathaway Co., 190 USPQ 343 (TTAB 1976)
(HATHAWAY GOLF CLASSIC is similar to GOLF CLASSIC).
Applicant, in Knight Textile Corp. v. Jones Investment Co., 75 USPQ2d 1313
(TTAB 2005), sought to register NORTON McNAUGHTON ESSENTIALS for
clothing and the opposer owned a registration for ESSENTIALS for clothing. The
Board held:
In terms of overall commercial impression, we find that
although the word ESSENTIALS is the entirety of the
commercial impression created by opposer’s mark, in
applicant’s mark it contributes relatively less to the mark's
commercial impression than does the house mark
NORTON MCNAUGHTON. This is because … we find that
the word ESSENTIALS is highly suggestive as applied to
the parties’ clothing items and as it appears in both parties’
marks, especially in applicant's mark.
Id. at 1315.
Serial No. 79161682
- 9 -
In the case before us, the name MARIE-ANTOINETTE when applied to clothing
is arbitrary inasmuch as it does not describe or suggest any qualities, characteristics
or features of eyeglasses, handbags, clothing, jewelry or watches. Applicant responds
by asserting that “Registrant’s house mark BREGUET has been well-known in the
watchmaking industry since 1747. [Citing the Wikipedia entry for Breguet discussed
above]. The mere mention of the BREGUET brand by itself attracts loyal, exclusive
clientele, including Marie-Antoinette herself, to purchase its timepieces making
BREGUET the most significant portion of the Cited Mark.”10 There are several
problems with Applicant’s argument. First, there is no evidence in the Wikipedia
entry cited by Applicant to prove that consumers in the United States recognize
BREGUET as a well-known watchmaker. Second, even if there were evidence in the
entry stating that BREGUET is a well-known watchmaker, the Wikipedia entry is
hearsay. Finally, assuming arguendo that consumers recognize BREGUET as a well-
known watchmaker, we still have to consider Registrant’s mark in its entirety which
includes the arbitrary name MARIE-ANTOINETTE. The contemporaneous use of the
name MARIE-ANTOINETTE by Applicant and Registrant may mistakenly lead
consumers to believe that BREGUET MARIE-ANTOINETTE watches and jewelry
emanate from the same source as MARIE-ANTOINETTE eyeglasses, handbags, and
clothing because of the similarity of the marks.
Because Applicant has not submitted any evidence to show that MARIE-
ANTOINETTE is descriptive or suggestive when used in connection jewelry or

10 Applicant’s Brief, p. 7 (17 TTABVUE 8).
Serial No. 79161682
- 10 -
watches, the addition of the house mark or designer name BREGUET does not
distinguish the otherwise identical marks, and the marks BREGUET MARIE-
ANTOINETTE and MARIE-ANTOINETTE are similar in appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression.
B. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods.
Applicant is seeking to register its mark MARIE-ANTOINETTE for, inter alia,
eyeglasses, including sunglasses, handbags, and clothing. Registrant’s mark
BREGUET MARIE-ANTOINETTE is registered for, inter alia, jewelry and watches.
The Trademark Examining Attorney submitted numerous excerpts from third-party
websites showing the same mark used to identify sunglasses, handbags, clothing, and
jewelry or watches. See e.g.:
Mark Product Office Action TSDR

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS Clothing Jan. 8, 2016 8

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS Handbags Jan. 8, 2016 11

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS Jewelry Jan. 8, 2016 14

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS Sunglasses Jan. 8, 2016 16

Serial No. 79161682
- 11 -
Mark Item Office Action TSDR

BANANA REPUBLIC Clothing Jan. 8, 2016 18

BANANA REPUBLIC Sunglasses Jan. 8, 2016 21

BANANA REPUBLIC Jewelry Jan. 8,2016 24

BETSEY JOHNSON Clothing Jan. 8, 2016 26

BETSEY JOHNSON Sunglasses Jan. 8, 2016 29

BETSEY JOHNSON Handbags Jan. 8, 2016 32

BETSEY JOHNSON Jewelry Jan. 8, 2016 35

FRENCH CONNECTION Clothing Jan. 8, 2016 38

FRENCH CONNECTION Sunglasses Jan. 8, 2016 40

FRENCH CONNECTION Handbags Jan. 8, 2016 42

FRENCH CONNECTION Jewelry Jan. 8, 2016 44

TOMMY HILFIGER Clothing Jan. 8, 2016 81

TOMMY HILFIGER Watches Jan. 8, 2016 82

TOMMY HILFIGER Jewelry Jan. 8, 2016 82, 87

TOMMY HILFIGER Sunglasses Jan. 8, 2016 82, 83

TOMMY HILFIGER Handbags Jan. 8, 2016 85

We note that the third-party uses include designer names or house marks. We
recognize that because such marks may be licensed for a broader range of unrelated
goods and services they may be of less probative value to show that goods are related.
See In re Donnay Int’l, S.A., 31 USPQ2d 1953, 1954 n. 3 (TTAB 1994) (“[S]ince house
marks can be used to identify a broad range of products, the inclusion of soccer balls
Serial No. 79161682
- 12 -
and rackets in the identification is not particularly significant.”); Helene Curtis Indus.
Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1618, 1624 (TTAB 1989) (“In considering this
evidence [third-party registrations and exhibits], we have kept in mind defendant’s
observation that the link between personal care products and wearing apparel is
generally apparent in the category of so-called designer or high-fashion marks, and
usually involves the names of well-known designers.”); In re Mucky Duck Mustard
Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n. 6 (TTAB 1988) (“two of the four registrations which
were based on use were issued to Saks & Company and to Knott's Berry Farm, owners
of a large department store and an amusement or theme center, respectively, where
a wide variety of goods and services are sold” and, therefore, the Board gave them
little weight). In this case, however, the third-party uses are persuasive evidence
because, as vigorously argued by Applicant, Registrant’s mark includes a house mark,
and consumers understand that Registrant would sell or license its BREGUET
name/mark on a wide variety of products. Thus, consumers familiar with BREGUET
MARIE-ANTOINETTE products in connection with jewelry and watches,
encountering MARIE-ANTOINETTE eyeglasses, handbags, and clothing may
mistakenly believe that those fashion products emanate from the same source.
Moreover, eyeglasses, handbags and clothing on one hand and jewelry and
watches on the other, are all used in the scheme of presenting oneself in a desired,
stylish manner; they are related to the extent that the goods are part of the overall
fashion picture which encompasses apparel and accessories. See e.g., Kabushiki
Kaisha Hattori Seiko v. Satellite Int’l Ltd., 29 USPQ2d 1317, 1319 (TTAB 1991), aff’d
Serial No. 79161682
- 13 -
without op., 979 F.2d 216 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (watches and shoes are related); In re
Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (products sold as part of an
ensemble are sufficiently related when sold under the same mark).
Finally, we must not lose sight that Registrant’s mark BREGUET MARIE-
ANTOINETTE incorporates Applicant’s entire mark. As has been stated in the past,
the greater the degree of similarity in the marks, the lesser the degree of similarity
that is required of the products on which they are used in order to support a holding
of likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355, 356
(TTAB 1983).
While we acknowledge that the goods of the parties are different, those differences
do not necessarily preclude finding that they are related. The issue to be determined
in cases such as this is not whether Applicant’s goods and Registrant’s goods are
likely to be confused but rather whether there is a likelihood that purchasers will be
misled into the belief that they emanate from a common source. Thus, the goods need
not be identical or even competitive in nature (nor need they necessarily be sold
through the same trade channels), in order to support a finding of likelihood of
confusion. It is sufficient for the purpose that the goods are related in some manner
or that conditions and activities surrounding marketing of these goods are such that
they would or could be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that
could, because of similarities of marks used with them, give rise to the mistaken belief
that they originate from or are in some way associated with the same producer.
Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101 USPQ2d at 1722; Edwards
Serial No. 79161682
- 14 -
Lifesciences Corp. v. VigiLanz Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1399, 1410 (TTAB 2010); Helene
Curtis Indus. Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 13 USPQ2d at 1624.
Applicant argues that “it is highly unlikely that consumers would believe that
budgetary clothing, eyewear and leather goods and sophisticated, high-end couture
timepieces and jewelry emanate from the same source.”11 However, we cannot resort
to extrinsic evidence to restrict the prices of the parties’ goods. See In re Bercut-
Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986) (evidence that relevant goods
are expensive wines sold to discriminating purchasers must be disregarded given the
absence of any such restrictions in the application or registration); see also Octocom
Sys, Inc. v. Houston Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (“The authority is legion that the question of registrability of an applicant's
mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the
application regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an
applicant's goods, the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to which
the sales of goods are directed.”).
In view thereof, we find the goods to be related.

11 Applicant’s Brief, p. 10 (17 TTABVUE 11). See also Applicant’s Brief, p. 11 (17 TTABVUE
12) (“In this case, the comparison is between Registrant’s luxury brand watches and jewelry
and Applicant’s budgetary brand clothing, letter goods and eyewear. Both the goods
themselves and the price point are very different.”). However, based on the excerpt from
Applicant’s website submitted by Applicant, Applicant is positioning MARIE-ANTOINETTE
brand in the “mid-high to high end” range, not the budgetary range. TemptingBrands.com
attached to Applicant’s July 6, 2016 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR p. 40.
Serial No. 79161682
- 15 -
C. Established, likely-to-continue channels of trade.
Macy’s department store (macys.com) advertises the sale of designer handbags,
sunglasses, watches, jewelry and clothing.12 In addition, the third-party designer
brand websites submitted by the Trademark Examining Attorney in his January 8,
2016 Office Action and July 10, 2016 Office Action show that designers advertise the
sale of their sunglasses, watches, jewelry, handbags, and clothing through their
websites. Accordingly, those products move through some of the same channels of
trade.
D. The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., ‘impulse
vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.

Applicant argues that because Registrant’s jewelry and watches are very
expensive, Registrant’s customer and potential customers exercise a high degree of
consumer care.13 However, as we indicated above, because Registrant’s description of
goods is not restricted to expensive, high-end watches, we may not so limit the
description of goods. See Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 216 USPQ 937, 940
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“There is no specific limitation and nothing in the inherent nature
of Squirtco’s mark or goods that restricts the usage of SQUIRT for balloons to
promotion of soft drinks. The Board, thus, improperly read limitations into the
registration.”); In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ at 764 (evidence that
relevant goods are expensive wines sold to discriminating purchasers must be
disregarded given the absence of any such restrictions in the application or

12 March 23, 2015 Office Action, TSDR pp. 19-57.
13 Applicant’s Brief, p. 13 (17 TTABVUE 14).
Serial No. 79161682
- 16 -
registration). Registrant’s broadly written identification of “horological and
chronometric instruments” necessarily encompasses inexpensive watches. In re
Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1134, 1137 (TTAB 2015).
We find that the du Pont factor relating to the degree of consumer care is neutral.
E. Conclusion.
Because the marks are similar, the goods are related, and the goods move in some
of the same channels of trade, we find that Applicant’s mark MARIE-ANTOINETTE
for, inter alia, eyeglasses, handbags, and clothing is likely to cause confusion with the
registered mark BREGUET MARIE-ANTOINETTE for, inter alia, jewelry and
“horological and chronometric instruments.”
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark MARIE-ANTOINETTE is
affirmed.