Trenton Corporation

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2012

No. 77555997 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2012)

Mailed: June 26, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re The Trenton Corporation
________

Serial No. 77555997
_______

Jeffrey P. Thennisch of Dobrusin & Thennisch P.C.

Sally Shih, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106 (Mary I.
Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Holtzman, Ritchie and Kuczma, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Holtzman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

An application has been filed by The Trenton Corporation
(applicant) to register the standard character mark GUARD-WRAP on
the Principal Register for “coatings and chemical compounds,
namely, anti-corrosion and protective coatings for metal
structures, pipes, piping, bridges, and aboveground and
underground utility structures,” in Class 2.1

1 Application Serial No. 77002927 was filed on August 26, 2008,
originally based on Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act (use), but
subsequently amended to assert Section 1(b) of the Act (intent to use)
THIS OPINION IS
NOT A PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Serial No. 77555997
2
The trademark examining attorney has refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that
applicant's mark, when applied to applicant's goods, so resembles
the registered mark GUARDWRAP in standard characters for “barrier
material, namely, flexible plastic sheeting, used in the
construction industry to protect structures from wind and
moisture,” in Class 17, as to be likely to cause confusion.2
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed. Briefs
have been filed.
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 likelihood of confusion issue. In re
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA
1973). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key
considerations are the similarities or dissimilarities between
the marks and the similarities or dissimilarities between the
goods. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544
F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
We turn first to the marks. In determining the similarity
or dissimilarity of marks, we must consider the marks in their
entireties in terms of sound, appearance, meaning and commercial
impression. See Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot

as the filing basis in response to the examining attorney's requirement
for an acceptable specimen of use.
2 Registration No. 3545307; issued December 9, 2008.
Serial No. 77555997
3
Ponsardin Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691
(Fed. Cir. 2005). The marks in this case, GUARD-WRAP and
GUARDWRAP, are identical in sound, meaning and commercial
impression, both consisting of the same words, GUARD and WRAP, in
the same order. The marks are essentially identical in
appearance. The presence of a hyphen between the words in
applicant’s mark is an insignificant difference that is not
likely to be noticed or remembered by purchasers when
encountering these marks at separate times. See In re Sears,
Roebuck and Co., 2 USPQ2d 1312, 1313 (TTAB 1987) (marks CROSS-
OVER and CROSSOVER “identical in appearance but for the inclusion
in applicant's mark of a hyphen, which, for purposes herein, is
of no legal significance”); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dayco
Corp., 201 USPQ 485, 489 n.4 (TTAB 1978) (FAST-FINDER with a
hyphen is in legal contemplation substantially identical to the
mark FASTFINDER without a hyphen).
The virtual identity of the marks strongly favors a finding
of likelihood of confusion. See In re Shell Oil, 992 F.2d 1204,
26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“The identity of words,
connotation, and commercial impression weighs heavily against the
applicant.”).
While GUARDWRAP has a suggestive meaning in relation to
registrant’s protective barrier materials, that suggestive
meaning is the same in both marks. Furthermore, there is no
Serial No. 77555997
4
evidence that the term is highly suggestive of registrant’s goods
or that it has been commonly used or registered by others for
similar goods. This case is distinguishable from In re General
Motors Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1465 (TTAB 1992) on which applicant
relies. While the Board in that case found no likelihood of
confusion between GRAND PRIX for automobiles and the identical
mark GRAND PRIX for related automobile replacement parts, that
finding was based on the highly suggestive nature of the marks,
and most significantly on evidence showing that the marks had
coexisted in the marketplace for thirty years with no reported
instances of actual confusion.
We recognize that GUARDWRAP, as a suggestive mark, is not
entitled to the broadest scope of protection. However, the mark
is at least entitled to protection against the registration of a
virtually identical mark used on related goods. See King Candy
Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108,
109 (CCPA 1974) (likelihood of confusion is to be avoided as much
between weak marks as between strong marks).
We turn then to a consideration of the goods. Applicant
argues that "the differences between the products are significant
and the Examining Attorney erred in determining that merely
because they may both be used in the same industry, confusion is
likely." Brief, p. 5. Applicant contends that whereas its goods
"consist of a chemical coating that is applied to metal utility
Serial No. 77555997
5
structures found aboveground or underground to ensure and protect
the utility infrastructure from corrosion," registrant’s goods,
in contrast, are "'flexible plastic sheeting' used as a barrier
in the construction industry to protect the structure from wind
and moisture while the structure is in the process of being
constructed." Applicant thus maintains that "the goods are
different in their physical form, their function and purpose, and
their [respective] industries.” Id., p. 6. While acknowledging
that construction projects, in general, will first require the
placement of utilities, applicant argues that registrant’s goods
"would be applied on the exterior of a new home or other building
– while it is being constructed – whereas the Applicant’s goods
would be applied by municipalities and transportation authorities
on utility infrastructure," and the goods would not be used for
interchangeable purposes. Id., p. 7.
The question is not whether purchasers can differentiate the
goods themselves but rather whether purchasers are likely to be
confused as to the source of the goods, or as to affiliation,
connection or sponsorship of the goods. See Hilson Research Inc.
v. Society for Human Resource Management, 27 USPQ2d 1423, 1429
(TTAB 1993). Thus, it is not necessary that goods be similar or
even competitive to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.
It is sufficient if the goods are related in some manner and/or
that the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that
Serial No. 77555997
6
they would be encountered by the same persons under circumstances
that could, because of the marks used thereon, give rise to the
mistaken belief that they emanate from or are associated with the
same source. See In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783
(TTAB 1993).
Moreover, where the marks are virtually identical, as they
are here, it is only necessary that there be a viable
relationship between the goods in order to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion. See In re Concordia International
Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355, 356 (TTAB 1983).
Applicant’s goods are "coatings and chemical compounds,
namely, anti-corrosion and protective coatings for metal
structures, pipes, piping, bridges, and aboveground and
underground utility structures" and registrant’s goods are
"barrier material, namely, flexible plastic sheeting, used in the
construction industry to protect structures from wind and
moisture."
In evaluating the relationship between the goods, it is well
settled that we must consider the goods as they are identified in
the application and registration and we cannot read limitations
into those goods that are not reflected therein. See Octocom
Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16
USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard
Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Serial No. 77555997
7
Where the goods are broadly described, and there are no
limitations as to their nature or type, it is presumed that the
scope of the application and registration encompasses all goods
of the nature and type described. See In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ
639, 640 (TTAB 1981), citing Kalart Co., Inc. v. Camera-Mart,
Inc., 119 USPQ 139 (CCPA 1958); see also, Canadian Imperial Bank
v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
To better understand the nature of applicant's goods, we
consider the product information contained in the printouts from
applicant's website, trentoncorp.com.3 The website states that
GUARD-WRAP "is composed of a plastic mat and film, saturated with
microcrystalline wax." The product is packaged in cardboard
cartons with 50 square yards of the material per carton, and it
is described more fully as follows:
Guard-Wrap consists of a spunbonded polyester mat
saturated with microcrystalline wax that is laminated
to a polyester film that is coated with
microcrystalline wax. Its conformability makes it
ideal for wrapping fittings. It also works well on
straight pipe.

3 Submitted with applicant’s response dated June 9, 2009. We may
properly refer to extrinsic evidence to determine or clarify the
meaning of terms in an identification of goods. See In re Trackmobile
Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1152, 1154 (TTAB 1990). Once those meanings are
established, we determine the issue of likelihood of confusion based on
the description of goods in the application and registration, even if
the extrinsic evidence results in a broad scope of goods. See In re
Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638 (TTAB 2009).
Serial No. 77555997
8
We find that there is a viable relationship between the
goods. The products are similar in form and function.
Applicant’s coatings are in the form of a coated polyester mat,
which is a barrier material, and the material is used to protect,
for example, bridges and metal structures4 from moisture and
other damaging elements. Registrant’s product is also a barrier
material and it is used to protect "structures," which we must
construe as encompassing bridges and metal structures, from wind
and moisture. Thus, the products are not just used in the same
general industry, but based on the identifications of goods, they
both may be used in the same construction project. Further,
applicant's goods are not limited in application to "utility
infrastructure." The goods could also be applied, for example,
to pipes connecting utilities to the interior pipes of a
structure or to the interior pipes themselves.
We find that the respective identifications on their face
are sufficient to demonstrate the relationship between

4 The term "metal structures" is broad enough to encompass metal
building structures and metal frameworks for buildings. We note that
the entry for "Building Construction: Low-rise commercial,
institutional, and industrial buildings" in the Encyclopædia Britannica
states that "Steel is a major structural material in these buildings."
The reference also notes, under the entry for "Framed Building," that
"Steel and reinforced concrete are the most common materials in large
contemporary structures." Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic
Edition (2012) (Britannica.com). The Board may take judicial notice of
reference works (University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food
Imports Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ
505 (Fed. Cir. 1983)), including online reference works which exist in
printed format or have regular fixed editions (In re Red Bull GmbH, 78
USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2006)).
Serial No. 77555997
9
applicant's and registrant's goods. In addition, the examining
attorney has made of record several use-based, third-party
registrations which further support the relatedness of the
goods.5 The registrations show, in each instance, that the same
mark has been registered for the general types of goods
identified in the application and registration, i.e., coatings
and barrier materials used in the construction industry. They
include the following: Reg. No. 2655329 (SCOFIELD) listing
"coatings, namely moisture barriers for construction use and
surfaces" and "barriers, namely moisture barriers, and
elastomers, for construction use"; Reg. No. 3377504 (ENVIROMAT
and design) listing "corrosion protection barrier for steel,
concrete or fiberglass tanks or pipes consisting of a top and
bottom layer of protective coating and joined by a woven cloth
that allows for leak detection"; Reg. No. 3660034 (DRYVIT)
listing "coatings in the nature of an adhesive air-barrier base
coat for exterior building wall panels" and "insulation material
sold in sheet and board form for application to exterior surfaces
of a building"; Reg. No. 3048932 (EMISSHIELD) listing "insulating
thermal barrier primer and coating for use in industries,
including, but not limited to, [the] ceramic/refractory,

5 The examining attorney also attached excerpts from several third-
party websites to her denial of applicant’s request for
reconsideration. However, the examining attorney did not reference
these materials either in her Office action or in her brief; nor is it
clear what these materials purport to show. Consequently, this
evidence has been given no consideration.
Serial No. 77555997
10
structural steel, building material…industries." Third-party
registrations, while not evidence of use of the marks therein,
serve to suggest that the listed goods are of a type which may
emanate from the same source. See In re Albert Trostel & Sons
Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6
USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 1988).
The goods would move in similar trade channels in the
construction industry and would be purchased by, or come to the
attention of, the same persons, such as construction contractors,
and they could be purchased for use at the same construction
site. Applicant argues that its goods would typically be applied
by municipalities and transportation authorities on utility
infrastructure whereas the typical consumer of registrant's goods
will be general contractors and builders. Again, however,
applicant’s goods, as identified, are not limited in application
to use on "utility infrastructure." Moreover, applicant
acknowledges that "consumers of applicant’s goods could
potentially be consumers of other construction services…."
Brief, p. 11.
We agree with applicant that the purchasers of these
commercial products are likely to be knowledgeable and
discriminating in their purchasing decisions. However, it is
well settled that even purchasers who are knowledgeable as to the
goods are not necessarily knowledgeable in the field of
Serial No. 77555997
11
trademarks or immune to source confusion arising from the use of
essentially identical marks on or in connection with the goods.
See Weiss Associates, Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc., 902 F.2d
1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840, 1841-42 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("even
sophisticated purchasers can be confused by very similar marks");
Wincharger Corp. v. Rinco, Inc., 297 F.2d 261, 132 USPQ 289, 292
(CCPA 1962); In re Total Quality Group Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1477
(TTAB 1999).
In view of the foregoing, and because essentially identical
marks are or will be used in connection with related goods, we
find that confusion is likely.
To the extent that we have any doubt on the issue of
likelihood of confusion, it is settled that such doubt must be
resolved in favor of the prior registrant. In re Shell Oil Co.,
992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act is affirmed.