Altenloh, Brinck & Co. US, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2012

No. 77522109 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2012)

Mailed:
February 13, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In Re Altenloh, Brinck & Co. US, Inc.
________

Serial No. 77522109
_______

Richard S. MacMillan of Macmillan Sobanski & Todd LLC, for
Altenloh, Brinck & Co. US, Inc.

Jordan A. Baker, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Karen M. Strzyz, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Grendel, Mermelstein, and Ritchie, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Altenloh, Brinck & Co. US, Inc. (“applicant”) filed an
application to register on the Principal Register the mark
UNIDRIVE, in standard characters,1 for goods listed as “metal
screws,” in International Class 6. The Trademark Examining
Attorney refused registration of applicant’s mark under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the
ground that applicant’s mark so resembles the registered mark

1 Serial No. 77522109, filed July 15, 2008, pursuant to Section 1(b) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to
use in commerce.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 77522109
2
UNA-DRIV,2 also in standard character format, for goods listed as
“threaded fasteners-namely, bolts,” in International Class 6,
that when used on or in connection with applicant’s identified
goods, it is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.
Upon final refusal of registration, applicant filed a
timely appeal. Both applicant and the examining attorney filed
briefs. For the reasons discussed herein, the Board affirms the
refusal to register.
Likelihood of Confusion
We base our determination under Section 2(d) on an analysis
of all of the probative evidence of record bearing on a
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). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between
the marks and the similarities between the goods and/or
services. See 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”). We discuss each of the du Pont

2 Registration No. 2908659, issued December 7, 2004. Sections 8 and 15
affidavits accepted and acknowledged.
Serial No. 77522109
3
factors as to which applicant or the examining attorney
submitted argument or evidence. The other du Pont factors we
consider to be neutral.
The Goods and Channels of Trade

We consider first the similarities or dissimilarities of
the goods. As applicant acknowledges in its brief (at 5), the
test is not whether consumers would be likely to confuse the
goods and services, but rather would be likely to be confused
into believing that the goods and services emanate from a single
source. 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 unpublished, No. 92-1086 (Fed. Cir. June 5,
1992). To show the relatedness of these goods, the examining
attorney has submitted copies of use-based, third-party
registrations covering both the “metal screws” of the
application and the “bolts” of the cited registration. Examples
are Registration No. 2598796; Registration No. 3558129;
Registration No. 3509294; Registration No. 3489478; Registration
No. 3481837; Registration No. 3430314; Registration No. 3556128;
and Registration No. 3116842. Copies of use-based, third-party
registrations may serve to suggest that the goods are of a type
which may emanate from a single source. See In re Albert
Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785 (TTAB 1993). The
Serial No. 77522109
4
examining attorney has also included evidence from websites
showing third parties offering for sale both “metal screws,” as
identified in the application, and “bolts,” and identified in
the cited registration.

Serial No. 77522109
5

We find the “metal screws” identified in the application to
be clearly related to the “bolts” identified in the cited
registration. Regarding channels of trade, we note that there
are no limitations on the goods identified in the cited
registrations, nor on those identified in the application.
Squirtco v. Tomy Corporation, 697 F.2d 1038, 216 USPQ 937, 939
(Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716,
Serial No. 77522109
6
1716 (TTAB 1992) (because there are no limitations as to
channels of trade or classes of purchasers in either the
application or the cited registration, it is presumed that the
services in the registration and the application move in all
channels of trade normal for those services, and that the
services are available to all classes of purchasers for the
listed services). In other words, there is nothing to stop
registrant from offering its “threaded fasteners-namely, bolts”
together to the same end users who may be purchasing applicant’s
“metal screws,” and very likely on the same store shelves.
Accordingly, we find that these du Pont factors weigh in favor
of finding a likelihood of consumer confusion.
The Marks
We consider and compare the appearance, sound, connotation
and commercial impression of the marks in their entireties. In
re E. I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ at 567. The
question 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 their entireties that
confusion as to the source of the goods or services offered
under the respective marks is likely to result. The focus is on
the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains
a general rather than a specific impression of trademarks. In
Serial No. 77522109
7
re Jack B. Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 2009); Sealed Air Corp.
v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975).
The mark in the application is “UNIDRIVE.” The mark in the
cited registration consists of the term or terms “UNA-DRIV.”
Visually, both marks have seven characters, beginning with the
letters “u-n-[vowel]” and continuing on with “d-r-i-v.” They
differ in which vowel (“i” or “a”), and that the mark in the
cited registration has no “e” at the end. That the mark in the
cited registration has a hyphen is of no source-indicating
significance, although it does make the mark visually the exact
same length as the mark in the application. Thymo Borine
Laboratory v. Winthrop Chemical Co., Inc., 155 2d 402, 69 USPQ
512, 514 (CCPA 1946) (the hyphen in applicant's mark THY-RIN has
no significance); Charette Corp. v. Bowater Communication Papers
Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2040, 2042 (TTAB 1989) (registrant's PRO-PRINT
and petitioner's mark PROPRINT are identical except for the
division of registrant's mark by a hyphen between the
syllables); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dayco Corp., 201 USPQ
485, 488 n.1 (TTAB 1978) (FAST-FINDER with a hyphen is
substantially identical to the mark FASTFINDER without a
hyphen). Accordingly, we find the marks to be visually similar,
especially in that the first parts of the mark are quite
similar. See Presto Products, Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products Inc., 9
USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988)(“…[it is] a matter of some
importance since it is often the first part of a mark which is
Serial No. 77522109
8
most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and
remembered.”).
With regard to sound also, we find it likely that the marks
would be pronounced the same. Applicant argues that consumers
would likely pronounce the second syllable of the mark in the
cited registration with a soft “i,” rhyming it with “give,”
while the second syllable of applicant’s mark should be
pronounced with a long “i” sound of “drive.” (appl’s brief at
4-5). However, it is well-settled that there is no correct way
to pronounce a trademark. In re Teradata Corp., 223 USPQ 361,
362 (TTAB 1984). We find it likely that consumers would
pronounce the marks in an identical manner.
Applicant further argues that the commercial impression of
the mark in the application is entirely different from that in
the cited registration in that the term “uni” from the mark in
the application means “one” while the term “una” from the mark
in the cited registration is, among other definitions, a female
given name, “from a Latin word meaning one.”3 (appl’s brief at
4). As the examining attorney points out, however, this serves
to show that applicant admits that both terms have a common
origin meaning “one.” We find it likely that consumers would
perceive both marks as being suggestive of the “one” drive or
turn necessary to get in the “metal screw” or “bolt.”
Viewing the marks in their entireties, we find that the
similarities in sight, sound, and commercial impression outweigh

3 Applicant included the dictionary definitions in its October 26, 2009
Response to Office Action.
Serial No. 77522109
9
the differences of the marks, and this du Pont factor weighs in
favor of finding a likelihood of consumer confusion as well.

Balancing the Factors
In summary, we have carefully considered all of the
evidence of record pertaining to the du Pont likelihood of
confusion factors, as well as applicant’s arguments with respect
thereto. We conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion
between applicant’s UNIDRIVE mark for “metal screws” and the
registered mark “UNA-DRIV” for “threaded fasteners-namely,
bolts,” as discussed herein.

Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.