AAMP of Florida, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 1999

No. 75153859 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 1999)

Paper No. 15
HRW
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB DEC. 14, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re AAMP of Florida, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/153,859
_______
Jane Linowitz of Levisohn, Lerner, Berger & Langsam
for AAMP of Florida, Inc.
Robert Clark, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108
(David Shallant, Managing Attorney).
_____
Before Hohein, Wendel and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
AAMP of Florida, Inc. has filed an application to
register the mark BEST for “electrical wiring harnesses for
use in automobiles comprising electrical wiring, electrical
jacks and support brackets.”1

1 Serial No. 75/153,859, filed August 21, 1996, based on an
assertion of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commmerce.
An amendment to allege use was filed June 6, 1997, setting forth
first use dates of February 1997.
Ser No. 75/153,859
2
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 USC § 1052(d), on the ground
of likelihood of confusion with the registered mark
for the following goods:
Class 7 : Airplane engines and component parts for engines,
namely, engine shrouds, engine housing panels,
vanes, blades, hubs, tail pipes, nozzles,
compressors, deflectors, difusers, combustion
liners, impellors, fans, reversers, turbines,
turbine wheels, oil coolers, bearings, fuel
control valves, pumps (hydraulic, pneumatic and
water), motors (electric or fuel), engine
starters, generators (electric), elevators;
Class 9 : Radios, radar, transponders, receivers, antennas,
control knobs, housings for radios and radar
units, tach generators, instrument panels, air
speed indicators, revolutions per minute
indicators, oil pressure gauges, temperature
gauges, radio head sets, electrical wiring,
coaxial cables, computer cables, electrical
cables, fiber optic cables, electrical
connectors, and electrical transformers;
Class 11 : Light bulbs, florescent starters, ventilator
fans and screens, faucets, toilets, sinks, and
sanitary waste holders;
Class 12 : Airplane structural parts, airplane framing
parts, airplane housing parts, including,
namely, pilons, rudders, struts, wings, landing
gear, wheels, hubs, axials, control gears,
control flaps, nose cones, doors, window panels,
cabinets, seats, head rests, arm rests,
indicator plates, face plates.2

2 Registration No. 2,005,530, issued October 8, 1996, claiming a
first use date of January 5, 1991 for all classes and a first use
date in commerce of March 1, 1991 for all classes.
Ser No. 75/153,859
3
Both applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed
briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
Here, as in any determination of the likelihood of
confusion, two key considerations in our analysis are the
similarity or dissimilarity of the respective marks and the
similarity or dissimilarity of the goods with which the
marks are being used. See In re Azteca Restaurant
Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999) and the cases
cited therein.
Insofar as the marks in the present case are
concerned, applicant argues that the presence of an “eagle”
logo in addition to the word BEST results in a different
appearance, connotation and commercial impression for the
registered mark from applicant’s unadorned word mark BEST.
The Examining Attorney, on the other hand, contends that
the dominant element of each mark is the word BEST and thus
the overall commercial impressions of the marks are highly
similar.
Although it is true that in determining likelihood of
confusion, marks must be considered in their entireties, it
is well established that there is nothing improper in
giving more or less weight to a particular feature of the
mark. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ
Ser No. 75/153,859
4
749 (Fed. Cir. 1985). If the word portion of a mark rather
than the design feature is more likely to be remembered and
relied upon by purchasers in referring to the goods, it is
the word portion which will be accorded more weight. See
Ceccato v. Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli
S.p.A., 32 USPQ2d 1192 (TTAB 1994); In re Appetito
Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987).
Here we find the word BEST to be the dominant feature
of registrant’s mark. This would be the means by which
purchasers would refer to, or call for, registrant’s goods.
The absence of a design feature in applicant’s mark similar
to registrant’s design, whether characterized as an eagle
(applicant), a highly stylized bird (Examining Attorney),
or a phoenix symbol, does not significantly alter the
overall commercial impression engendered by applicant’s
mark. Furthermore, since applicant’s mark is presented in
a typed drawing, applicant is not limited to any specific
format for its mark and could present its mark in a manner
very similar to that of registrant. See Squirtco v. Tomy
Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 216 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Jockey
International Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d
1223 (TTAB 1992). Thus, we find the overall commercial
impressions created by the two marks to be highly similar.
Ser No. 75/153,859
5
Applicant’s basic argument is that, regardless of any
similarity of the marks, the goods of the parties and the
channels of trade in which they travel are separate and
distinct. Applicant contends that registrant’s goods are
strictly structural and electrical parts for airplanes,
whereas applicant’s goods are automotive audio wiring
parts. As such, applicant asserts, the goods would travel
in separate channels of trade and be sold to different
classes of customers. In support of its contentions,
applicant has made of record the affidavit of its
investigator who visited registrant’s headquarters and who
determined as a result of this visit that registrant was
involved only in the repair and sale of airplane parts and
did not deal in automotive parts. (Exhibit A.) Applicant
also points to the fact that the goods listed in Classes 7
and 12 of the cited registration are specifically limited
to airplane parts.
It is well established that likelihood of confusion
must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the mark
as applied to the goods recited in the application and the
goods recited in the registration, rather than what any
evidence shows the goods to be. See In re Dixie
Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1997); Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo
Ser No. 75/153,859
6
Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here,
as pointed out by the Examining Attorney, although
registrant limited its structural parts in Classes 7 and 12
to airplane parts, registrant made no such limitation of
its electrical wiring, electrical connectors, or other
goods set forth in Class 9. Accordingly, we must make our
determination of likelihood of confusion on the basis that
the electrical wiring and the other electrical components
listed in Class 9 of the cited registration are suitable
for all purposes, including automotive use.
As a result, applicant’s attempted distinctions of the
goods of the parties on the basis of field of use, channels
of trade and classes of customers are to no avail. The
“electrical wiring” of the registration, being without
limitation as to field of use, must be considered to
encompass the automotive electrical wiring of applicant.
For purposes of our analysis, the goods of the parties are,
at least in part, identical.
Accordingly, we find that there is a likelihood of
confusion if applicant uses the mark BEST in connection
with its automotive electrical wiring harnesses, in view of
registrant’s mark BEST and design for electrical wiring and
the other electrical components identified in the Class 9
goods of the registration.
Ser No. 75/153,859
7
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
is affirmed.
G. D. Hohein
H. R. Wendel
T. E. Holtzman
Trademark Administrative Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/153,859
8