The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of Californiav.Kent G. Anderson

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 6, 2008

No. 91157538 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2008)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed:
August 6, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______

The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California
v.
Kent G. Anderson
_____

Opposition No. 91157538
Opposition No. 91157768
Opposition No. 91158277
Opposition No. 91158509
Opposition No. 91158520
Opposition No. 91158786
Opposition No. 91159159
Opposition No. 91164461
Opposition No. 91164602
Opposition No. 91165913
Opposition No. 91170501
Opposition No. 91173632
_____

Marsha G. Gentner of Jacobson Holman, PLLC for The Pep Boys
Manny, Moe & Jack of California.

Jon A. Schiffrin of Jon A. Schiffrin, P.C. for Kent G.
Anderson.
______

Before Quinn, Zervas and Bergsman, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

In this consolidated opposition proceeding, The Pep
Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California (“opposer”) opposed the
registration of Kent G. Anderson’s (“applicant”) FUTURE
marks, identified below, on the ground of priority of use
and likelihood of confusion.
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
Applicant filed intent-to-use applications for the
following marks:1
Mark Serial No. Goods/services

FUTURE 76262483 Automobiles, trucks, sport utility
vehicles, vans and structural parts
therefore, in Class 12

FUTURE2

FUTURE
76141013

76188809
Retail automobile and vehicle parts
stores; on-line ordering in the field
of automotive and vehicle parts; and
dealerships in the field of
automobiles, in Class 35;

“Insurance administration in the field
of . . . auto (sic),” in Class 36;

Automobile service car station
services; car cleaning; maintenance
and repair of vehicles, in Class 37;

Custom manufacturing of general
product lines in the field of
automobiles, and vehicle parts for
others, in Class 40; and,

Providing facilities for car races;
organizing exhibitions in the field of
auto racing; and entertainment in the
field of auto racing competition, in
Class 41

1 Because the descriptions of goods and services in applicant’s
applications are extensive, we have not reproduced the entire
descriptions. We have listed only the most relevant products and
services. In addition, in many cases, opposer did not oppose the
registration of applicant’s mark in all of the classes for which
applicant sought registration.

2 This is a stylized drawing of the mark. With the exception of
the applications for the marks FUTURE/TOMORROW and FUTURE and
design identified below, the other applications are in standard
character form.
2
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.

Mark Serial No. Goods/services

FUTURE 76247198

76235435
Wholesale and retail store services,
featuring automotive parts and
accessories and automobiles, in Class
353

FUTURE 76299227 Tracking, locating and monitoring of
vehicles; promoting and conducting
trade shows in the field of
automobile parts, in Class 35

FUTURE 76324919 Car stereos, in Class 9

FUTURE 76266192 Automobiles, vans, trucks, sport
utility vehicles, in Class 12

FUTURE 76437630 Providing information about
automobiles for sale by means of the
Internet; retail services within an
operating city in the field of
transportation; tracking, locating,
and monitoring vehicles; “automobile,
vehicle retail services”; “wholesale
store featuring wide variety of goods
and services of others”; automobile
parts accessory stores; “service gas
stations”; automobile dealerships, in
Class 35

FUTURE 76476242 Automobiles, trucks, vans, sport
utility vehicles and structural parts
therefore, in Class 12

FUTURE 76450833 Automobiles, trucks, vans, sport
utility vehicles, in Class 12

FUTURE
and
design
76070738 Special interest clubs in the field
of automobiles, in Class 41

3 As indicated in footnote No. 1, only the relevant services
have been listed. With respect to the applications identified
above, the entire description of services in the two applications
is different, and therefore we do not have a situation where
there are two applications for the same mark for the same goods
and services.
3
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.

Mark Serial No. Goods/services

FUTURE/
TOMORROW
76554723 Automobiles, trucks, vans, sport
utility vehicles; land vehicle parts
and accessories; mud flaps for
vehicles and mud flap brackets as
structural parts for vehicles, in
Class 12

As the bases for its oppositions, opposer claims
ownership of the following marks:
1. FUTURA, in typed drawing form, for “automotive
accessories, namely, vehicle wheel caps and hub
caps,” in Class 12;4
2. FUTURA, in typed drawing form, for “tires,” in
Class 12;5 and,
3. CORNELL FUTURA, in typed drawing form, for
“pneumatic tires for automotive vehicles,” in
Class 12.6
Because opposer’s two FUTURA marks are closer to
applicant’s FUTURE marks than CORNELL FUTURA, we will focus
our discussion on opposer’s two FUTURA marks.

4 Registration No. 2454578, issued May 29, 2001; Sections 8 and
15 affidavits accepted and acknowledged. In the registration,
opposer stated that “[t]he English translation of the word
‘Futura’ in the mark is ‘Future’.”
5 Registration No. 1582462, issued February 13, 1990; Sections 8
and 15 affidavits accepted and acknowledged; renewed.
6 Registration No. 0778767, issued October 20, 1964; Section 8
affidavit accepted; second renewal. Opposer asserts that a
Section 15 affidavit has been filed and acknowledged even though
it does not appear on the status and title copy of the
registration filed by opposer. (Opposer’s Brief, p. 5 n.3 and
Exhibit A attached to the brief).
4
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
Applicant, in its answers, denied the salient
allegations in the notices of opposition.
The only evidence introduced by opposer was copies of
its pleaded registrations prepared by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office showing current status and title of the
registrations. Applicant did not introduce any testimony or
evidence. In this regard, we note that the assertions in
opposer’s brief are not evidence. See In re Simulations
Publications, Inc., 521 F.2d 797, 187 USPQ 147, 148 (CCPA
1975) (“There is no evidence of record showing how
appellant’s magazine or the reference magazine is sold. ...
Accordingly, there is no evidence before this court to
support appellant’s arguments regarding these alleged
differences between the two magazines”).
Opposer filed a brief. Applicant did not file a brief.
Standing
Because opposer has properly made its pleaded
registrations of record, opposer has established its
standing. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55
USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Lipton Industries, Inc.
v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189
(CCPA 1982).
Priority

Because opposer’s pleaded registrations are of record,
Section 2(d) priority is not an issue in this case. King
5
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182
USPQ 108 (CCPA 1974).
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. 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 Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d
1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
A. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their
entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression.

We turn first to the du Pont factor focusing on the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties
as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression. In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ
at 567. In a particular case, any one of these means of
comparison may be critical in finding the marks to be
similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB
1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1042 (TTAB
1988).
Applicant is seeking to register the marks FUTURE,
FUTURE/TOMORROW and FUTURE and design, shown below.
6
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.

Opposer’s mark is FUTURA.
In comparing the marks, we are mindful that 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 so that confusion as to the source of the goods
offered under the respective marks is likely to result. 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 USPQ 1735, 1741 (TTAB
1991), aff’d unpublished, No. 92-1086 (Fed. Cir. June 5,
1992). The proper focus is on the recollection of the
average customer, who retains a general rather than specific
impression of the marks. Winnebago Industries, Inc. v.
Oliver & Winston, Inc., 207 USPQ 335, 344 (TTAB 1980);
Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB
1975). With these principles in mind, we analyze the marks
of the parties.
7
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
1. FUTURA vs. FUTURE
FUTURA and FUTURE look alike and sound alike. Indeed,
the marks are so similar that they would be perceived as
having similar meanings. Moreover, we note that FUTURA
means “future” in Spanish.7 In addition, because there is
no evidence that either FUTURE, or FUTURA, have any specific
meaning in connection with the goods and services of the
parties and because the marks are similar in appearance,
sound, and meaning, FUTURE and FUTURA engender similar
commercial impressions (e.g., products of the future). In
view of the foregoing, applicant’s FUTURE marks are similar
to opposer’s FUTURA marks.
2. FUTURA vs. FUTURE/TOMORROW
We begin our analysis of these marks by noting that
although likelihood of confusion must be determined by
analyzing the marks in their entireties, “there is nothing
improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or less
weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark,
provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of
the marks in their entireties.” In re National Data Corp.,
753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this

7 Merriam-Webster’s Spanish-English Dictionary at www.merriam-
webster.com/spanish attached to Opposer’s Brief as Exhibit B.
The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions,
including online dictionaries that also exist in printed format.
In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2006). The
Merriam-Webster’s Spanish-English Dictionary is a readily
verifiable source and widely-available in print.
8
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
regard, consumers are predisposed to focus more on the word
“Future” in applicant’s mark because it is the first word of
the mark and because the word “Tomorrow” has a similar
meaning as the word “Future.” See the discussion below.
Presto Products Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., 9 USPQ2d
1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a
mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a
purchaser and remembered”). See also Palm Bay Imports
Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d
1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Veuve” is the most prominent
part of the mark VEUVE CLICQUOT because “veuve” is the first
word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label);
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970
F.2d 874, 23 UPSQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (upon
encountering the marks, consumers must first notice the
identical lead word).
Moreover, the significance of the word “Future” in
applicant’s mark is reinforced by the addition of the word
“Tomorrow” because “Tomorrow” has a similar meaning. The
word “Future” means the following:
1. time that is to be or come
hereafter. 2. something that will
exist or happen in time to come.8

The word “Tomorrow” has the following meaning:

8 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language
(Unabridged), p. 770 (2nd ed. 1987).

9
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
1. the day following today . . . 2. a
future period or time: the stars of
tomorrow. . . . 4. at some future time:
We shall rest easy tomorrow if we work
for peace today.9

Both marks mean a time in the future. Accordingly,
applicant’s proposed use of the word “Tomorrow” in its mark
FUTURE/TOMORROW merely emphasizes the word “Future.”
In comparing the two marks, we note that the
applicant’s mark, FUTURE/TOMORROW, contains what is
essentially opposer’s entire FUTURA mark because applicant’s
FUTURE marks would be considered equivalent to FUTURA given
their similarity in appearance, sound, and meaning.
Likelihood of confusion has been found where the entirety of
one mark is incorporated within another. Lilly Pulitzer,
Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (CCPA
1967) (THE LILLY for dresses is likely to cause confusion
with LILLI ANN for dresses).
As discussed above, the words “Futura” and “Future” are
similar in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial
impression. Because the word “Future” is the dominant
portion of applicant’s mark, it follows that applicant’s
mark FUTURE/TOMORROW is similar in appearance, sound,
meaning and commercial impression with opposer’s mark
FUTURA.

9 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language
(Unabridged), p. 1993.
10
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
3. FUTURA vs. FUTURE and design
Application Serial No. 76070738 is for the mark FUTURE
and design shown below:

The word “Future” and the design elements of the mark are so
merged together that they form a single and distinct mark.
In fact, the word “Future” can barely be discerned and it
looks like a geometric part of the design. Thus, the
combination of the word “Future” and the other design
elements of the mark create an indivisible mark rather than
a combination of separable elements. Viewing the mark in
its entirety, we find that applicant is seeking to register
a unitary mark. Dena Corp. v. Belvedere International Inc.,
950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1049, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Opposer’s FUTURA marks, on the other hand, are
registered in typed drawing form. This means that opposer’s
mark is unrestricted as to stylization and that in deciding
the issue of likelihood of confusion, we must consider
opposer’s marks as they would appear in various common
forms. Jockey International Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp.,
25 USPQ2d 1233, 1235 (TTAB 1992). However, this does not
11
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
mean that opposer’s marks must be considered in all possible
forms no matter how extensively stylized. Rather, when
opposer’s marks are registered in typed drawing form (now
referred to as standard character format), this Board “must
consider all reasonable manners” in which the word could be
depicted. Id. at 1235, citing INB National Bank v.
Metrohost Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1585, 1588 (TTAB 1992). See also
Fossil Inc. v. Fossil Group, 49 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (TTAB
1998) (“opposer’s typed drawing registrations of FOSSIL
afford opposer a scope of protection which encompasses all
reasonable manners in which the word FOSSIL could be
depicted including, simply by way of examples, all lower
case block letters, all upper case block letters, a mixture
of lower case and upper case block letters and various
script forms”).
In this case, because the stylization of applicant’s
mark is so extreme and striking, it is entirely different in
appearance from opposer’s marks and it engenders a different
commercial impression than opposer’s marks. When viewed in
its entirety, the design elements of applicant’s mark render
the literal portion of the mark unrecognizable or so
subordinate to the overall commercial impression as to make
any source association with opposer unlikely.
12
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
B. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the
goods.

In determining whether the goods and services of the
parties are related, we are mindful that there is no per se
rule that products and services sold in the same field or
industry are similar or related for purposes of likelihood
of confusion. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Repcoparts USA,
Inc., 218 USPQ 81, 84 (TTAB 1983) (“the mere fact that the
products involved in this case (or any products with
significant differences in character) are sold in the same
industry does not of itself provide an adequate basis to
find the required ‘relatedness’”). However, likelihood of
confusion may be found if the respective products and
services are related in some manner and/or if the
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they
would be likely to be encountered by the same persons under
conditions that could give rise to the mistaken belief that
they emanate from the same source. In re Pollio Dairy
Products Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); Seaguard
Corporation v. Seaward International, Inc., 223 USPQ 48, 51
(TTAB 1984).
With respect to applicant’s applications for
automobiles, trucks, sport utility vehicles, vans and
structural parts therefore, in Class 12 (Serial Nos.
76262483, 76266192, 76476242, 76554723 and 76450833), we
find that opposer’s wheel caps and hub caps are parts
13
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
closely associated with the structural parts for land
vehicles, and therefore consumers may associate the source
of those products with the source of the vehicles and
vehicle parts. In addition to vehicles, applicant’s Serial
No. 76554723 also includes vehicle parts and mud flaps that
are clearly similar and related to tires, wheel caps, and
hub caps.
With respect to applicant’s applications for retail
automobile and vehicle parts stores; on-line ordering in the
field of automotive and vehicle parts; and dealerships in
the field of automobiles, in Class 35 (Serial Nos. 76141013
and 76188809), opposer’s tires and wheel caps and hub caps
are the types of products that consumers would expect to be
sold in a retail automotive and vehicle parts store.
Accordingly, we find that these services are related to
opposer’s products.
With respect to applicant’s applications for “insurance
administration in the field of . . . auto (sic),” in Class
36 (Serial Nos. 76141013 and 76188809), we fail to see how
insurance administration services in the field of
automobiles is similar or related to tires, wheel caps, or
hub caps. Accordingly, we cannot find that the insurance
administration services are related to opposer’s products.
With respect to applicant’s applications for automobile
service car station services, car cleaning, and maintenance
14
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
and repair of vehicles, in Class 37 (Serial Nos. 76141013
and 76188809), opposer’s tires, wheel caps, and hub caps are
the types of products that may be used in repairing and
maintaining automobiles. Accordingly, we find that these
services are related to opposer’s products.
With respect to applicant’s applications for the
“custom manufacturing of general product lines in the field
of automobiles, and vehicle parts for others,” in Class 40
(Serial Nos. 76141013 and 76188809), the custom manufacture
of vehicle parts could include wheel caps and hub caps, and
therefore we find that these services are related to
opposer’s products.
With respect to applicant’s applications for “providing
facilities for car races; organizing exhibitions in the
field of auto racing; and entertainment in the field of auto
racing competition,” in Class 41 (Serial Nos. 76141013 and
76188809), these services are specifically different from
opposer’s tires, wheel caps, and hub caps, and therefore we
cannot find that these services and opposer’s products are
similar or related.
With respect to applicant’s applications for “wholesale
and retail store services, featuring automotive parts and
accessories and automobiles,” in Class 35 (Serial Nos.
76247198 and 76235435), opposer’s tires and wheel caps and
hub caps are the types of products that could be sold in
15
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
such wholesale and retail stores. Accordingly, we find that
these services are related to opposer’s products.
With respect to applicant’s application for “tracking,
locating and monitoring of vehicles; promoting and
conducting trade shows in the field of automobile parts,” in
Class 35 (Serial No. 76299227), consumers could readily
associate the source of a trade show in the field of
automobile parts with the source of automobile parts such as
tires, wheel caps, and hub caps. Accordingly, we find that
these services and opposer’s products are similar or
related.
With respect to applicant’s application for “car
stereos” (Serial No. 76324919), the goods involved are
specifically different, and in the absence of proof, we
cannot find that the goods of the parties are similar or
related.
With respect to applicant’s application for “wholesale
store featuring wide variety of goods and services of
others”; automobile parts accessory stores; and “service gas
stations,” in Class 35 (Serial No. 76437630), opposer’s
tires, wheel caps, and hub caps are the types of products
that may be sold through an automobile parts accessory
store, as well as at a “service gas station.” Accordingly,
these services and opposer’s products are related.
16
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
With respect to applicant’s application for “special
interest clubs in the field of automobiles,” in Class 41
(Serial No. 76070738), opposer’s goods are specifically
different from these services, and in the absence of proof,
we cannot find that the goods and services of the parties
are similar or related.
The fact that applicant’s goods and/or services listed
above may be only one, or a few, of the many products and
services that applicant has a bona fide intention of selling
does not diminish the relatedness of applicant’s goods and
services and opposer’s products. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc.
v. General Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988
(CCPA 1981) (likelihood of confusion must be found if there
is likely to be confusion with respect to any item that
comes within the identification of goods or services in the
application).
C. Balancing the factors.
1. Opposition No. 91177538
Because the marks and goods are similar, application
Serial No. 76262483 for the mark FUTURE for automobiles,
trucks, sport utility vehicles, vans and structural parts
therefore, in Class 12, is likely to cause confusion with
opposer’s mark FUTURA registered for vehicle wheel caps and
hub caps.

17
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
2. Opposition No. 91157768
a. Because the marks are similar and the goods
and services are related, application Serial
No. 76141013 for the mark FUTURE for retail
automobile and vehicle parts stores; on-line
ordering in the field of automotive and
vehicle parts; and dealerships in the field
of automobiles, in Class 35, is likely to
cause with opposer’s FUTURA marks registered
for tires and vehicle wheel caps and hub
caps.
b. Because the goods and services are distinctly
different, application Serial No. 76141013
for the mark Future for “insurance
administration in the field of . . . auto,”
in Class 36, is not likely to cause confusion
with opposer’s FUTURA marks.
c. Because the marks are similar and the goods
and services are related, application Serial
No. 76141013 for the mark Future for
automobile service car station services; car
cleaning; maintenance and repair of vehicles,
in Class 37, is likely to cause confusion
with opposer’s FUTURA marks registered for
tires and vehicle wheel caps and hub caps.
18
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
d. Because the marks are similar and the goods
and services are related, application Serial
No. 76141013 for the mark Future for custom
manufacturing of general product lines in the
field of automobiles, and vehicle parts for
others, in Class 40, is likely to cause
confusion with opposer’s FUTURA marks
registered for tires and vehicle wheel caps
and hub caps.
e. Because the goods and services are different,
application Serial No. 76141013 for the mark
Future for providing facilities for car
races; organizing exhibitions in the field of
auto racing; and entertainment in the field
of auto racing competition, in Class 41, is
not likely to cause confusion with opposer’s
FUTURA marks registered for tires and vehicle
wheel caps and hub caps.
3. Opposition No. 91158277
a. Because the marks are similar and the goods
and services are related, application Serial
No. 76188809 for the mark FUTURE for retail
automobile and vehicle parts stores; on-line
ordering in the field of automotive and
vehicle parts; and dealerships in the field
19
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
of automobiles, in Class 35, is likely to
cause confusion with opposer’s FUTURA marks
registered for tires and vehicle wheel caps
and hub caps.
b. Because the goods and services are entirely
different, application Serial No. 76188809
for the mark FUTURE for “insurance
administration in the field of . . . auto,”
in Class 36, is not likely to cause confusion
with opposer’s FUTURA marks.
c. Because the marks are similar and the goods
and services are related, application Serial
No. 76188809 for the mark FUTURE for
automobile service car station services; car
cleaning; maintenance and repair of vehicles,
in Class 37, is likely to cause confusion
with opposer’s FUTURA marks registered for
tires and vehicle wheel caps and hub caps.
d. Because the marks are similar and the goods
and services are related, application Serial
No. 76188809 for the mark FUTURE for custom
manufacturing of general product lines in the
field of automobiles, and vehicle parts for
others, in Class 40, is likely to cause
confusion with opposer’s FUTURA marks
20
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
registered for tires and vehicle wheel caps
and hub caps.
e. Because the goods and services are different,
application Serial No. 76188809 for the mark
FUTURE for providing facilities for car
races; organizing exhibitions in the field of
auto racing; and entertainment in the field
of auto racing competition, in Class 41, is
not likely to cause confusion with opposer’s
FUTURA marks registered for tires and vehicle
wheel caps and hub caps.
4. Opposition Nos. 91158509 and 91158520
Because the marks are similar and the goods and
services are related, application Serial Nos. 76247198 and
76235435, both for the mark FUTURE for wholesale and retail
store services, featuring automotive parts and accessories
for automobiles, in Class 35, is likely to cause confusion
with opposer’s mark FUTURE registered for tires and vehicle
wheel caps and hub caps.
5. Opposition No. 91158786
Because the marks are similar and the goods and
services are related, application Serial No. 76299227 for
the mark FUTURE for tracking, locating and monitoring of
vehicles; promoting and conducting trade shows in the field
of automobile parts, in Class 35, is likely to cause
21
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
confusion with opposer’s FUTURA marks registered for tires
and vehicle wheel caps and hub caps.
6. Opposition No. 91159159
Because the goods are different, application Serial No.
76324919 for the mark FUTURE for car stereos is not likely
to cause confusion with opposer’s FUTURA marks registered
for tires and vehicle wheel caps and hub caps.
7. Opposition No. 91164461
a. Because the marks are similar and the goods
are related, application Serial No. 76266192
for the mark FUTURE for automobiles, trucks,
sport utility vehicles, vans and structural
parts therefore, in Class 12, is likely to
cause confusion with opposer’s FUTURA mark
registered for vehicle wheel caps and hub
caps.
b. Because the marks are similar and the goods
and services are related, application Serial
No. 76437630 for the mark FUTURE for
“providing information about automobiles for
sale by means of the Internet; retail
services within an operating city in the
field of transportation; tracking, locating,
and monitoring vehicles; ‘automobile, vehicle
retail services’; ‘wholesale store featuring
22
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
wide variety of goods and services of
others’; automobile parts accessory stores;
‘service gas stations’; automobile
dealerships, in Class 35, is likely to cause
confusion with opposer’s mark FUTURA
registered for tires and vehicle wheel caps
and hub caps.
8. Opposition No. 91164602
Because the marks are similar and the goods are
related, application Serial No. 76476242 for the mark FUTURE
for automobiles, trucks, sport utility vehicles, vans and
structural parts therefore, in Class 12, is likely to cause
confusion with opposer’s mark FUTURA registered for vehicle
wheel caps and hub caps.
9. Opposition No. 91165913
Because the marks are similar and the goods are
related, application Serial No. 76450833 for the mark FUTURE
for automobiles, trucks, sport utility vehicles, vans and
structural parts therefore, in Class 12, is likely to cause
confusion with opposer’s mark FUTURA registered for vehicle
wheel caps and hub caps.
10. Opposition No. 91173632
Because the marks are similar and the goods are
related, application Serial No. 76554723 for the mark
FUTURE/TOMORROW for automobiles, trucks, sport utility
23
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
vehicles, vans and structural parts therefore, in Class 12,
is likely to cause confusion with opposer’s mark FUTURA
registered for vehicle wheel caps and hub caps.
11. Opposition No. 91170501
Because the marks are not similar and the goods and
services are not related, application Serial No. 76070738
for the mark FUTURE and design for “special interest clubs
in the field of automobiles,” in Class 41 is not likely to
cause confusion with opposer’s FUTURA marks registered for
tires and vehicle wheel caps and hub caps.
Because we have made our findings with respect to
opposer’s two FUTURA registrations (Registration Nos.
1582462 and 2454578), we need not decide the issue of
likelihood of confusion with respect to opposer’s
registration for the mark CORNELL FUTURA (Registration No.
0778767) because, to the extent that we have determined that
there is no confusion, the addition of the term CORNELL
would futher distinguish the marks. On the other hand, if
we have determined that there is confusion, there is no
reason to determine whether there is confusion with another
less similar mark.
Decision:
1. Opposition No. 91157538 against application Serial
No. 76262483 is sustained and registration to applicant is
refused.
24
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
2. Opposition No. 91157768 against application Serial
No. 76141013 in Classes 35, 37, and 40 is sustained and
registration is refused. However, with respect to Classes
36 and 41, the opposition is dismissed. Accordingly, the
application will be forwarded to the publication and issue
section of the Office for the issuance of a notice of
allowance in Classes 16, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42.10
3. Opposition No. 91158277 against application Serial
No. 76188809 in Classes 35, 37, and 40 is sustained.
However, with respect to Classes 36 and 41, the opposition
is dismissed. Accordingly, the application will be
forwarded to the publication and issue section of the Office
for the issuance of a notice of allowance in Classes 16, 36,
38, 39, 41 and 42.11
4. Opposition No. 91158509 against application Serial
No. 76247198 is sustained and registration to applicant is
refused.

10 Applicant sought to register application Serial No. 76141013
for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
and 42. However, opposer filed its notice of opposition against
the registration of applicant’s mark for goods only in Classes
35, 36, 37, 40, and 41.

11 Applicant sought to register application Serial No. 76188809
for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
and 42. However, opposer filed its notice of opposition against
the registration of applicant’s mark for services only in Classes
35, 36, 37, 40, and 41.
25
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
5. Opposition No. 91158520 against application Serial
No. 76235435 is sustained and registration to applicant is
refused.
6. Opposition No. 91158786 against application Serial
No. 76299227 is sustained and registration to applicant is
refused.
7. Opposition No. 91159159 against application Serial
No. 76324919 in Class 9 is dismissed. Accordingly, the
application will be forwarded to the publication and issue
section of the Office for the issuance of a notice of
allowance in Classes 9 and 13.12
8. Opposition No. 91164461 against application Serial
Nos. 76266192 and 76437630 is sustained and registration of
both applications is refused.
9. Opposition No. 91164602 against application Serial
No. 76476242 is sustained and registration to applicant is
refused.
10. Opposition No. 91165913 against application Serial
No. 76450833 is sustained and registration to applicant is
refused.

12 Applicant sought to register application Serial No. 7624919 for
goods in Classes 9 and 13. However, opposer filed its notice of
opposition against the registration of applicant’s mark for goods
only in Class 9.

26
Opposition No. 91157538 et. al.
11. Opposition No. 91173632 against application Serial
No. 76554723 in Class 12 is sustained and registration to
applicant is refused. However, the application will be
forwarded to the publication and issue section of the Office
for the issuance of a notice of allowance in Classes 42 and
43.13
12. Opposition No. 91170501 against application Serial
No. 76070738 is dismissed. The application will be
forwarded to the publication and issue section of the Office
for the issuance of a notice of allowance.

13 Applicant sought to register application Serial No. 76554723
for goods and services in Classes 12, 42, and 43. However,
opposer filed its notice of opposition against the registration
of applicant’s mark for goods only in Class 12.
27