CGI Group Inc.v.Cardinal Consulting, Inc.Download PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2010No. 91183284 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2010) Copy Citation Mailed: September 27, 2010 Bucher UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ________ CGI Group Inc. v. Cardinal Consulting, Inc. ________ Opposition No. 91183284 against Serial No. 78974000 _______ Robert W. Zelnick and Rita Weeks of McDermott Will & Emery LLP for CGI Group Inc. Brian R. Gibbons of Brian R. Gibbons, P.A. for Cardinal Consulting, Inc. _______ Before Bucher, Zervas and Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge: Cardinal Consulting, Inc. seeks registration on the Principal Register of the mark THE CCI GROUP (in standard character format) for services recited as “information technology consultation” in International Class 42.1 1 Application Serial No. 78974000 was filed on September 14, 2006, based upon applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Opposition No. 91183284 - 2 - CGI Group Inc. has opposed this application on the ground of priority of use and likelihood of confusion, alleging that applicant’s mark, when used in connection with the identified services, so resembles the following registered marks: for, inter alia, “consultancy services in the field of business management; information technology outsourcing services for others; business process outsourcing services for others” in International Class 35; and for “consultancy services in the field of information technology; information technology management services; information technology systems integration services” in International Class 42;2 CGI for, inter alia, “consultancy services in the field of business management; information technology outsourcing services for others; business process outsourcing services for others” in International Class 35; and for “consultancy services in the field of information technology; information technology management services; information technology systems integration services” in International Class 42;3 and 2 Registration No. 2445560 issued on April 24, 2001; Section 8 affidavit (six-year) accepted and Section 15 affidavit acknowledged. 3 Registration No. 2445561 issued on April 24, 2001; Section 8 affidavit (six-year) accepted and Section 15 affidavit acknowledged. Opposition No. 91183284 - 3 - CGI for, inter alia, “ … business risk management consultation … in International Class 35; and for “technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer hardware and software problems; computer services, namely, hosting and maintaining a site for others to exchange information about computer software use; installation and maintenance of computer software; updating of computer software for others; computer project management services; creating and maintaining websites for others” in International Class 42;4 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive, under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). In addition, opposer alleged prior common law rights in the term CGI Group used in connection with consultancy services in information technology systems and management, as well as related goods and services. Opposer has also opposed this application on the ground of dilution, alleging that applicant’s mark will blur the distinctiveness of opposer’s famous CGI Group, CGI and CGI and design marks. Applicant, in its answer, denied all the essential allegations of these claims. By stipulation filed with the 4 Registration No. 3539769 issued on December 2, 2008. Opposition No. 91183284 - 4 - Board on June 10, 2009, the parties agreed that direct testimony could be filed in the form of a sworn affidavit, that the affiant would be subject to live cross-examination by the adverse party, and that the parties reserved the right to object to declaration testimony. I. OPPOSER'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS We now address numerous objections that opposer has raised to some of the testimony and accompanying exhibits of Mr. Frank Cavanaugh, applicant’s President (e.g., inadmissible as irrelevant, hearsay, lack of Mr. Cavanaugh’s personal knowledge, inadmissible under the best evidence rule, answers that are non-responsive, and exhibits lacking the requirements for access dates and document source of Internet screen prints found in Safer, Inc. v. OMS Investments, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031 (TTAB 2010)). Opposer carefully maintained all of these objections in its brief. However, we find that none of Mr. Cavanaugh’s evidence sought to be excluded is outcome determinative. Given this fact, coupled with the sheer number of objections, we see no compelling reason to discuss each specific objection. Suffice it to say, we have considered Mr. Cavanaugh’s entire testimony and exhibits submitted. Opposition No. 91183284 - 5 - In doing so, we have kept in mind the various objections raised by opposer and have accorded this evidence whatever probative value the subject testimony and evidence merit. Further, while much discussion has been directed to Exhibit 4 of applicant’s Notice of Reliance (“How to Hire a Management Consultant”), applicant notes that it also authenticated and submitted this document as an exhibit to the Cavanaugh Declaration, as well as an exhibit during Mr. Cavanaugh’s cross-examination deposition, providing an alternative basis under which it should be deemed admissible. We agree, and hence, find that the motion to strike is moot inasmuch as opposer did not object to this document as being inadmissible during Mr. Cavanaugh’s testimony. II. THE RECORD In addition to the pleadings and the file of the involved application, the record also includes the testimony by sworn declaration of Jean Francois Poirier, opposer’s Director of Intellectual Property Management, dated July 2, 2009 (“JFP Decl.”) and accompanying exhibits A-R thereto; opposer’s Notice of Reliance dated July 2, 2009 (“CGI NOR”), and Exhibits 1-3 thereto, consisting of certified status and title copies of three of opposer’s Opposition No. 91183284 - 6 - valid and subsisting pleaded trademark registrations for the marks listed above, pursuant to 37 CFR 2.122(d); opposer’s Notice of Reliance dated July 2, 2009, and Exhibits 4-27 thereto, consisting of printed publications, pursuant to 37 CFR 2.122(e); opposer's Notice of Reliance dated July 2, 2009, and Exhibits 28-32 thereto, consisting of: (a) applicant’s responses and objections to opposer’s First Request for Admissions; (b) applicant's Responses and Objections to opposer's First Set of Interrogatories; and (c) applicant's Amended Response to opposer's First Set of Interrogatories, all pursuant to 37 CFR 2.120(j); testimony deposition of applicant’s President, Frank Cavanaugh, taken on June 23, 2009 (“Cavanaugh V.1”) and accompanying exhibits thereto; and cross-examination Testimony Deposition of applicant's President, Frank Cavanaugh, taken on October 29, 2009 (“Cavanaugh V.2”) and accompanying exhibits thereto. Applicant filed the testimonial declaration of Frank Cavanaugh, dated October 1, 2009 (“Cavanaugh Decl.”) and accompanying exhibits A-1 to C-20 thereto. Applicant also filed a Notice of Reliance dated October 1, 2009 (“Appl. NOR”) and accompanying exhibits 1-2 thereto, containing (a) opposer’s Responses to applicant’s First Set of Opposition No. 91183284 - 7 - Interrogatories; and (2) opposer's Responses to applicant’s First Request for Admissions and accompanying exhibit 4 thereto, containing “printed publications” pursuant to 37 CFR 2.122(e), as noted above.5 III. FACTUAL FINDINGS Opposer, CGI Group Inc. (hereinafter “CGI Group”) is a global firm that has for thirty years been advertising and offering consultancy services in information technology (“IT”) systems and management, IT systems integration services, business process services, and related goods and services, using CGI and CGI Group as service marks, trademarks and trade names. This includes serving customers in the United States through offices located in twenty-six states, in the fields of IT consulting, systems integration, business process services and computer software products. JFP Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 14, 20 and 32. CGI Group currently has almost 30,000 employees worldwide including more than 6,000 in the United States. In recent years, U.S. sales have accounted for over 30% of CGI Group’s total revenues. CGI Group is the eighth largest 5 Applicant has withdrawn exhibit 3 to its Notice of Reliance, so opposer’s earlier motion to strike that document is now moot. Opposition No. 91183284 - 8 - independent IT and business process services company in the world and the fifth largest in North America. Id. ¶ 8. The latest year for which the record showed world- wide earnings was 2008, when CGI Group earned $3.7 billion in worldwide revenue. Id. ¶ 21. This includes U.S. sales revenues of over $1.1 billion. Over the past ten years alone, CGI Group earned in excess of $6.2 billion in revenue from sales of CGI’s goods and services in the United States. Id. ¶ 53. The record shows that CGI Group has been recognized in a variety of IT industry magazines and trade journals as a leading IT consulting, systems integration and outsourcing managed services provider in the U.S. healthcare industry. CGI Group has focused intensively on providing services to private healthcare clients in the United States (e.g., hospitals, healthcare systems, regional and federal healthcare organizations, regional boards, HMOs, managed care organizations and private insurance companies) as well as the U.S. federal government. Opposer employs more than 400 professional employees in the United States. Id. at ¶¶ 42, 45, 46, 48 – 51, and Exhibits 9 and 25 to Opp. NOR. Opposition No. 91183284 - 9 - Over the past decade, CGI Group’s advertising and promotional materials have used its house mark, CGI, and many of the uses of record contain its service mark, trademark and trade name, CGI Group. JFP Decl. ¶ 22. Opposer has advertised in a variety of IT industry magazines and trade journals, such as: Techlinks, Insurance & Technology, Technology Decisions, Healthcare Finance News Week, AHIMA Advantage e-Alert newsletter, HFMA — Healthcare Finance Management Association, Healthcare IT News, Healthcare Informatics, Health Data Management, and Health Executive. JFP Decl. ¶ 38, Ex. I to JFP Decl. CGI Group also promotes its CGI Group goods and services under these CGI Group marks at IT industry tradeshows generally and tradeshows specifically aimed at the healthcare industry. JFP Decl. ¶ 38. Similarly, for years, CGI Group has promoted its CGI goods and services under these CGI Group marks through its corporate websites, . Id. ¶¶ 33-38. Additionally, CGI Group’s advertising and promotional efforts combined with the commercial success it has enjoyed have led to significant unsolicited media attention in U.S. and international publications. Exhibits 4, 6, 7, 9, 21 - 27 to CGI Group NOR. For more than a decade, CGI Group has Opposition No. 91183284 - 10 - been a listed company on the New York Stock Exchange, and is one of the companies comprising the Standard & Poors 500 Index. JFP Decl., ¶ 16 and Exs. A and B. Applicant, Cardinal Consulting, Inc., was founded in 1997 by its President, Frank Cavanaugh. The company began consulting services in 2000. Mr. Cavanaugh is the only employee of applicant. Originally formed in Illinois, the name “Cardinal Consulting” was selected because the cardinal is the state bird of Illinois. The image of a bird appeared prominently in the company’s early logos. Around February 2002 Cardinal Consulting Inc. began incorporating the initials “CCI” into its logo. Cavanaugh Decl. ¶¶ 6, 24-27. Applicant is an information technology consulting firm having a focus on the healthcare industry. Cavanaugh Decl. ¶ 8. Applicant provides consultancy services in the field of information technology, information technology management services, network and infrastructure planning, IT management support, and IT outsourcing evaluation and oversight. Ex. 28 to CGI NOR, Response to RFAs 36, 38, 46-48. As a result of objections by a third-party (named “Cardinal Health”) to applicant’s offering its services Opposition No. 91183284 - 11 - to the public under the names “Cardinal Consulting” and “Cardinal Consulting, Inc.,” applicant shifted its name in 2006 from “Cardinal Consulting, Inc.” to focus on the initials CCI in its logo, and began using THE CCI GROUP when promoting its services. Cavanaugh V.1 at 36. From August 2006 to the present, applicant has been using THE CCI GROUP in connection with providing information technology consulting services. Ex. 29 of CGI NOR, Response to Interrogatories 3-4. Prior to adopting THE CCI GROUP, applicant allegedly searched the web, but only for marks containing the exact letter string “C C I.” Cavanaugh V.2 at 11 and 123. Although he did not consider that it would pose any problems, applicant was aware of the CGI Group prior to the institution of this opposition proceeding. Cavanaugh V.1, at 20-21. IV. ANALYSIS A. Opposer’s Standing Opposer’s standing is a threshold inquiry made by the Board in every inter partes case. In Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the Federal Circuit enunciated a liberal threshold for determining Opposition No. 91183284 - 12 - standing, i.e., whether one has a reasonable belief of damage from the registration, and therefore, has a real interest in the case. See also Jewelers Vigilance Committee Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp., 823 F.2d 490, 2 USPQ2d 2021, 2023 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Company, 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185 (CCPA 1982). Opposer has properly made its pleaded registrations of record and has demonstrated that it is still using the marks. We consider this sufficient to establish opposer’s interest in, and therefore, standing to oppose registration of applicant’s mark, in this proceeding. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000). B. Opposer’s Priority Moreover, because opposer has established that it owns valid and subsisting registrations of its pleaded marks, Section 2(d) priority is not an issue in this case as to the marks therefor and goods and services covered thereby. See King Candy Company v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108 (CCPA 1974); and Carl Karcher Enterprises Inc. v. Stars Restaurants Corp., 35 USPQ2d 1125 (TTAB 1995). Opposer has also established its common law priority through documentary evidence of use of CGI Group Opposition No. 91183284 - 13 - in connection with IT consulting, systems integration, business process services and computer software products. C. Likelihood of Confusion We turn, then, to the issue of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Our determination must be based upon our analysis of all of the probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of confusion. See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also In re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In considering the evidence of record on these factors, we keep in mind that “[t]he fundamental inquiry mandated by Section 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.” See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976). As to the du Pont factor focusing on the relationship of the services, we turn first to the common law usage of CGI Group. This is opposer’s service mark and trade name most similar to applicant’s mark. We note that the Opposition No. 91183284 - 14 - evidence in the record confirms that the information technology consulting services previously offered by opposer are remarkably similar to those of the newcomer, applicant, as to their respective fields of emphasis. Specifically, opposer targets its IT consultation services to individuals and firms in a wide variety of businesses, including in particular the U.S. healthcare industry. We have no question but that applicant’s recitation of services encompasses these services. Hence, in reality, the parties to this proceeding should be viewed as competitors in the area of IT consultation in general and as directed to the healthcare field in particular. As to the customer base of its services, the evidence shows that opposer offers IT consultation services under its common law mark without restriction as to size of the customer or the type of enterprise. The record does show, however, a special emphasis in consultation services offered to firms in the U.S. healthcare industry. Similarly, given applicant’s broad, unrestricted recitation of services, the potential consumers for applicant’s services must be deemed to target its IT consultation services to small proprietors, Fortune 100 companies and large international enterprises, in every conceivable Opposition No. 91183284 - 15 - field, including in the healthcare industry. As noted above, testimony evidence also confirms that applicant targets its services to firms in the U.S. healthcare industry without restriction as to the relative size of the customer. Furthermore, as to the du Pont factor focusing on the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, nothing in this record persuades us that all purchasers of information technology consultation services are necessarily sophisticated purchasers who would be immune to source confusion when faced with similar marks used on the identical services involved in this case. To the contrary, especially when the customers involve smaller firms such as the local pharmacy that wants to offer health care products or e-prescription fulfillment over the Internet, IT consulting might well include relatively low level services like search engine optimization, which services would be encompassed by applicant’s broad recitation of services. In his declaration and on cross-examination, Mr. Cavanaugh disclosed an average contract size with applicant’s clients to be $36,000. With his subsequent focus on listed clients with whom applicant had negotiated very large, six-figure contracts, it is clear that applicant would also have its Opposition No. 91183284 - 16 - share of contracts in the range of several thousand dollars for “mom and pop” operations that are known to rely upon consultants like applicant to assist in the design and purchase of IT systems. Cf. Checkpoint Systems Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies Inc., 269 F3d 270, 60 USPQ2d 1609 (3rd Cir. 2001). As a result, we cannot presume that the purchase of such services would necessarily be the subject of a great deal of thought or analysis or be limited to sophisticated purchasers. Additionally, we look to the strength of opposer’s marks. The CGI Group is a global firm that has been offering IT consulting services for more than thirty years. Having more than six-thousand employees in the United States alone, CGI Group is the fifth largest independent IT and business process services company in North America, having in recent years more than a billion dollars of annual revenue in the U.S., and being one of the companies comprising the Standard & Poors 500 Index. Based upon information about its annual advertising budget and sales volumes – both in raw numbers and as compared with others in this field – and the national recognition implicit in its position in the U.S. financial markets, in assessing opposer’s level of renown in the field of IT Opposition No. 91183284 - 17 - consulting, we find on this record that opposer’s CGI Group trade name and service mark is a famous mark, thereby playing “a ‘dominant’ role in the process of balancing the du Pont factors.” Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also Packard Press Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 227 F.3d 1352, 56 USPQ2d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As to the number and nature of similar marks registered for similar goods and services, applicant has failed to enter into evidence any third-party registrations. Moreover, we are not persuaded by the weight of applicant’s third-party screen-prints purportedly showing use of other marks on the Internet. At most, applicant offers Frank Cavanaugh’s testimony referencing alleged third party usage of other marks involving initialisms. See Cavanaugh Decl. ¶ 78-138, Exs. B1-C20 to Cavanaugh Decl. Admittedly, he has no personal knowledge of these referenced third parties’ uses as he could not speak to actual use of the marks, the scope of the parties’ services, their channels of trade, etc. See Cavanaugh V.2, 111-115. While we did not find it necessary to strike this evidence, we find that it is entitled to little probative weight. Opposition No. 91183284 - 18 - We accept the fact that applicant was able to locate on the web dozens of companies having service marks and/or trade names in the form of three letter initialisms, beginning with the letter “C.” These three letter initialisms included ones that followed up the leading letter “C” by most any letter of the alphabet in this middle position, and ending with the letter “I.” Interestingly, despite applicant’s assurances that it performed a due diligence search of the web prior to adopting this initialism, applicant produced in Mr. Cavanaugh’s declaration a listing of third-party consultants in the fields of IT and medicine who had adopted some form of a CCI mark: A Canadian consulting company involved in healthcare projects (clinical programs, multidisciplinary facilities or community health networks) across Canada as well as in the developing world.6 A Pennsylvania firm that serves health care providers with consultancy services dealing with issues of compliance with federal government rules and regulations.7 6 Comprehensive Care International (CCI) of Toronto, Ontario; http://www.ccihealth.com/home.asp 7 Compliance Concepts, Inc. (CCI) of Wexford PA, incorporated in July 1997; http://www.complianceconcepts.com Opposition No. 91183284 - 19 - A women-owned business providing clients with systems engineering and information technology, especially in emerging technologies, Internet application development, project management, outsourcing, e-commerce, etc.8 CCi An IT service firm providing IT staffing solutions and IT managed services for organizations.9 A Maryland firm providing IT consulting services, including IT strategy and planning, business process and systems design, applications development and implementation, system conversions, and strategic IT direction for global organizations.10 On the edge of Columbus, this is one of Ohio’s largest workers’ compensation risk consulting & claims management service providers.11 CCI A privately held IT consulting firm specializing in infrastructure support, privacy compliance and data security, helping clients in government and commercial industries protect and manage vital data. 12 8 Computer Consultants of America, Inc. (CCI), incorporated in the state of Michigan in February 1994; http://www.computer- consultants.com/home.php 9 Caliber Consulting Inc (CCi), with offices in CA and WY, was founded in 1998; http://www.calibercon.com/4436.html 10 Ceccone-Clermont International (CCI) of Ashton, MD; http://www.ccillc.com/index.html 11 CareWorks Consultants, Inc. (CCI) of Dublin, OH; http://www.careworksconsultants.com/about-cci/cci-overview 12 Content Communications, Inc. (CCI) of Washington DC; http://www.contentcom.com/index.html Opposition No. 91183284 - 20 - CCI A small Maryland business that provides a variety of computer services to the federal government.13 A communications network integrator providing solutions to the cable, broadband, and telecommunications industries.14 These third party websites certainly suggest that applicant entered a crowded field of CCI service marks and/or trade names for firms doing IT consulting work, healthcare consulting services, and communication services. However, in order to oppose applicant’s mark in this inter partes proceeding, it is not necessary that opposer also police world-wide any and all third-party uses of “CCI” on the Internet in a wide variety of fields. Furthermore, as seen in opposer’s common law usage, the mark opposer claims is not just CGI, but also CGI Group. Without taking a position as to the inherent source-indicating capability of the term “Group,” we must look at opposer’s and applicant’s marks in their entireties 13 Crisafulli Consulting, Inc. (CCI) of Damascus, MD; http://www.team-cci.com/Default.aspx 14 Cable Constructors, Inc., now CCI Systems, Inc., founded in 1955 in Iron Mountain, MI; http://cci-systems.us/ Opposition No. 91183284 - 21 - when comparing these marks, and both follow similar three- letter initialisms with the identical word, “Group.” By contrast, none of these other purported uses of CCI marks shows the addition of the word “Group.” In short, we find that these third-party marks are not probative of the strength or weakness of opposer’s service mark and trade name as it relates to companies engaged in IT consultancy. Certainly, the letters “C G I” in opposer’s design mark, standard character format mark, CGI, and the common law usages shown in the record (e.g., “CGI Group” or “the CGI Group Inc.”) are deemed to be arbitrary as applied to IT consultancy services. With these points in mind, we turn to a consideration of the parties’ marks, keeping in mind as well that “when marks would appear on virtually identical goods or services, the degree of similarity necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion declines.” See Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Having established that opposer’s CGI Group marks are arbitrary and quite strong, we look to the similarities with applicant’s applied-for mark, THE CCI GROUP. Opposition No. 91183284 - 22 - Certainly if one compares THE CCI GROUP to “CGI Group” or “the CGI Group Inc.,” the marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. As to appearance, it is easy to overlook the dissimilarities between the two marks having upper-case letters “C” and “G” in this middle position. Even apart from the visual similarity of these respective, middle letters, our primary reviewing Court has taken the position that it is difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily-arranged letters. Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [TMM held confusingly similar to TMS, both for systems software]. As to sound, the pronunciation of the letters “C” and “G” within these letter strings means they have a similar overall sound. On this record, we find that consumers and potential consumers will likely view both of these marks as arbitrary letter strings, without any connotations relevant to our determination herein. The identical word “Group” in applicant’s applied-for mark and opposer’s common law mark connotes a unit of persons working together. Opposer demonstrates that this is a relatively rare choice of words for the trade names / service marks of vendors at industry Opposition No. 91183284 - 23 - conferences such as Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), where CGI Group, THE CCI GROUP and hundreds of other firms in the healthcare IT industry have annual exhibits. Cavanaugh V.2 at 92-94. As applied to the identical services, they will therefore engender the same commercial impression. The slight difference in the marks fails to avoid a likelihood of consumer confusion. Given that a service mark and trade name of the fame of opposer’s mark “casts a long shadow which competitors must avoid” [Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Industries Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1992)], we find that applicant cannot justify the adoption of such a strikingly similar mark. Having focused primarily on opposer’s common law usage, and having found, a likelihood of confusion as to this common law mark used in connection with the affected services, we do not need to consider further the marks in the claimed registrations. Accordingly, with opposer having demonstrated its priority, we hereby find a likelihood of confusion, and the opposition is sustained. Opposition No. 91183284 - 24 - D. Dilution Opposer also alleges that applicant’s mark was likely to impair the distinctiveness of its marks. However, given our holding on likelihood of confusion, we do not reach the question of a likelihood of dilution by blurring. Decision: The opposition is sustained under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, and registration to applicant is hereby refused. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation