Chance Good Enterprise Co., Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2012

No. 77602145 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2012)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF
THE T.T.A.B.

Mailed: July 23, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Chance Good Enterprise Co., Ltd.
________

Serial No. 77602145
_______

Joe M. Muncy of Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC for
Chance Good Enterprise Co., Ltd.

Doritt Carroll, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
116 (Michael W. Baird, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Bucher, Kuhlke and Cataldo,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cataldo, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant, Chance Good Enterprise Co., Ltd., filed an
application to register on the Principal Register the mark
shown below:

for the following goods, as amended:
Bicycle; Bicycle pedals; Bicycle water bottle
cages; Bicycle wheels, rims and structural parts
therefore; Bicycle pumps; Bicycle gears;
Ser. No. 77602145
2
Handlebars of two-wheeled motor bicycles; Bicycle
kickstands; Bicycle stands; Bicycle parts,
namely, fork joints; Bicycle racks for vehicles;
Bicycle saddles; Pannier bags for bicycles;
Velomobile bodies, namely, specially adapted for
weather protection shells for use on bicycles and
adult tricycles; Bicycle parts, namely, Crank;
Bicycle parts, namely, Direction indicators;
Racing bicycles; Bicycle parts, namely, gear
wheels; Bicycle parts, namely, drive chains;
Bicycle parts, namely, disk wheels; Wheel hubs of
two-wheeled motor bicycles; Bicycle parts,
namely, handle bar ends; Bicycle parts, namely,
brake shoes; Bicycle parts, namely, change-speed
gears; Bicycle parts, namely, fork crown covers;
Bicycle parts, namely, forks; Bicycle parts,
namely, handle bar stems; Bicycle parts, namely,
sprockets; Bicycle parts, namely, head stem;
Bicycle parts, namely, steering head bearing;
Mini-bikes; Mountain bicycle; Mudguards of two-
wheeled motor bicycles; Saddle covers for
bicycles; Safety pads for bicycles; Spokes for
bicycle wheels; Suspension systems for bicycles;
Tandem bicycles; Tires of two-wheeled motor
bicycles; Baskets adapted for bicycles; Bicycle
bell; Bicycle frames; Bicycle handlebar grips;
Bicycle horns and Bicycle seat posts

in International Class 12; and

Sport bags; Sports packs; athletic bags; all
purpose carrying bags; Alpenstocks; Attache
cases; Baby backpacks; Baby carriers worn on the
body; Baby carrying bags; Back frames for
carrying children; Backpacks; Backpacks
(rucksacks); Bags and holdalls for sports
clothing; Bags for umbrellas; Barrel bags; Beach
bags; Belt bags; Billfolds; Book bags; Boston
bags; Briefcases; Briefcases (leather goods); Bum
bags; Business card cases; Carryalls; Carrying
cases; Carry-all bags; Carry-on bags; Change
purses; Charm bags (omamori-ire); Clutch bags;
Clutches (purses); Coin purses; Cosmetic bags
sold empty; Daypacks; Duffel bags; Duffel bags
for travel; Evening handbags; Flexible bags for
garments; Gym bags; Handbag frames; Handbags;
Haversacks; Hiking bags; Hiking sticks; Hiking
Ser. No. 77602145
3
rucksacks; Imitation leather Key bags; Kit bags;
Knapsacks; Leather and imitation leather bags;
Leather bags for merchandise packaging
(envelopes, pouches); Leather bags, suitcases and
wallets; Leather cases for keys; Leather key
chains; Leather handbags; Leather purses; Leather
shopping bags; Leather straps; Luggage tags; Mesh
shopping bags; Multi-purpose purses; Overnight
bags; Parasols; Pocketbooks; Portmanteaus;
Pouches of leather; Roll bags; Satchels; School
bags; Shaving bags sold empty; Shoe bags for
travel; Shopping bags with wheels attached;
Shoulder bags; Shoulder straps; Small backpacks;
Souvenir bags; Textile shopping bags; Tool bags
sold empty; Tool pouches sold empty; Tote bags;
Trunks (luggage); Valises; Vanity cases sold
empty; Waist bags and Wallets

in International Class 18.1
The trademark examining attorney refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that
applicant’s mark, as used in connection with its goods, so
resembles the mark
INFINITE
in standard characters for
Bicycles; parts, components and accessories for
bicycles, namely bicycle frames; tubes and joints
for bicycle frames; bicycle wheels; rims and
spokes for bicycle wheels; pedals; hubs; quick
release apparatus for bicycle wheels and complete
hubs with quick release [ revers ] * levers *;
gears and derailleurs; pedal cranks; single and
multiple cog wheels; pedal cranks with cog
wheels; gear wheels; freewheels; transmission

1 Application Serial No. 77602145 was filed on October 28, 2008,
based on applicant’s assertion of its bona fide intent to use the
mark in commerce. Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
The mark consists of the word "infini" with three different-sized
squares next to the last "i". The English translation of the
word INFINI in the mark is INFINITE.
Ser. No. 77602145
4
chains; brakes; cable guides; bottom brackets,
handlebars and control levers; saddles and saddle
pillars; bicycle pumps and holders therefor;
pivots and bearings for pedal cranks and pedals;
handlebar joints and bearings and rings
pertaining thereto; front and rear forks,
suspension bicycle forks; cables and sheaths;
stands, kick stands, spoke clips; handlebars and
handlebar connections, and tires and inner tubes
for bicycles

in International Class 12;2 and
INFINITY
in typed or standard characters for
Luggage Items-Namely, Travelling Bags, Tote Bags
and All-Purpose Sport Bags

in International Class 18,3 as to be likely to cause
confusion.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the examining attorney filed briefs on the
issue under appeal.
Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination of the issue of likelihood of
confusion is based on an analysis of all of the probative
facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors set
forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d

2 Registration No. 3283316 issued on August 21, 2007 to
Campagnolo S.R.L.
3 Registration No. 1202710 issued on July 27, 1982 to Travelpro
International, Inc. Section 8 affidavit accepted; Section 15
affidavit acknowledged. Second Renewal.
Ser. No. 77602145
5
1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). See also In re
Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d
1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of
confusion analysis, however, 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, 27 (CCPA
1976). See also In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d
1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Goods, Trade Channels and Purchasers
We first consider the similarity or dissimilarity of
the parties’ goods, channels of trade, and purchasers. An
examination of applicant’s identification of goods reveals
that its Class 12 goods are identical in part to the goods
recited in Registration No. 3283316 and otherwise are
related on the face of the respective identifications
inasmuch as both include bicycles and parts therefor. In
addition, applicant’s Class 18 goods are identical in part
to the goods recited in Registration No. 1202710 and
otherwise include bags of various types that are related on
their face to the bags recited in that registration.4

4 Applicant’s goods that are identical to goods in the cited
registrations are listed in bold at the beginning of this
decision.

Ser. No. 77602145
6
Because applicant’s recited goods are identical in part to
the goods identified in the cited registrations, we need
not consider the examining attorney’s evidence pointing to
a relationship between the related, but not identical,
goods in the involved application and cited registrations.
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).
Furthermore, it is settled that when identical goods
or services are recited in an application and registration
with no limitations as to their channels of trade or
classes of consumers, such channels of trade and classes of
consumers must be considered to be legally identical.
Genesco Inc. v. Martz, 66 USPQ2d 1260, 1268 (TTAB 2003)
(“Given the in-part identical and in-part related nature of
the parties’ goods, and the lack of any restrictions in the
identifications thereof as to trade channels and
purchasers, these clothing items could be offered and sold
to the same classes of purchasers through the same channels
of trade.”); and In re Smith and Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531,
1532 (TTAB 1994) (“Because the goods are legally identical,
they must be presumed to travel in the same channels of
Ser. No. 77602145
7
trade, and be sold to the same class of purchasers.”). See
also Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computers Services
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(“The authority is legion that the question of
registrability of an applicant’s mark must be decided on
the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the
application regardless of what the record may reveal as to
the particular nature of an applicant’s goods, the
particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to
which the sales of goods are directed”).
Based on the in part identical nature of the goods as
identified in the application and registrations, the du
Pont factors of the similarity of the goods, channels of
trade and classes of consumers heavily favor a finding of
likelihood of confusion.
The Marks
We turn to the first du Pont factor, i.e., whether
applicant’s mark and registrants’ marks are similar or
dissimilar when viewed in their entireties in terms of
appearance, sound, connotation and overall commercial
impression. See Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d
1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The test, under the first du Pont
factor, is not whether the marks can be distinguished when
Ser. No. 77602145
8
subjected to a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether
the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their
overall commercial impression that confusion as to the
source of the goods offered under the respective marks is
likely to result.
In making our determination regarding the similarity
of the marks, we bear in mind that, "[w]hen marks would
appear on virtually identical ... [goods or] services, the
degree of similarity [of the marks] 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 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S.
1034 (1994). See also ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v.
Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443, 449 (TTAB
1980).
As a preliminary matter, we note that the examining
attorney raised, for the first time in her appeal brief,
the argument that confusion is likely based upon the
doctrine of foreign equivalents. We note that in her
recitation of the prosecution history of the application,
the examining attorney indicates that she “issued a
corrective action requiring a translation of INFINI”5 after

5 Examining attorney’s brief, unnumbered page 2.

Ser. No. 77602145
9
issuing her final refusal to register under Section 2(d) as
to the above-noted registrations. We further note that in
its communication providing the required translation and
arguing in favor of registration, applicant asserted that
“the ordinary purchaser would not be confused by any
English language translation of applicant’s mark, as such
meaning is not readily apparent to the purchaser.”6
However, the proper approach, if the examining
attorney believed that either the translation itself or
applicant’s statement with regard thereto required an
assertion of the doctrine of foreign equivalents, would
have been to file a request for remand so that she could
submit evidence in support of this claim, and so that
applicant would have the opportunity to respond to the
assertion through the submission of evidence as well.
Accordingly, we have not given any consideration to the
examining attorney’s contention that there is likelihood of
confusion because of the doctrine of foreign equivalents.
Turning to the marks at issue, applicant’s mark,

6 Applicant’s January 18, 2011 communication.
Ser. No. 77602145
10
is highly similar to the mark INFINITE in Registration No.
3283316 in appearance. With regard to the design in
applicant’s mark, we find that it is subordinate to the
wording inasmuch as it is relatively smaller in size and
consists of three geometric squares that do not
significantly add to the appearance or connotation of the
mark. Thus, we find the wording in applicant’s mark to be
the dominant portion thereof. It is a well-established
principle that, in articulating reasons for reaching a
conclusion on the issue of likelihood of confusion, 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 a
consideration of the marks in their entireties. See In re
National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). Thus, the wording “INFINI” in applicant’s mark
is the dominant portion thereof, and the portion that is
most likely to be remembered by purchasers.
As noted above, the dominant portion of applicant’s
mark is nearly identical in appearance to the mark
INFINITE, in Registration No. 3283316 inasmuch as the
totality of the word portion of applicant’s mark is
included therein. As to sound, it is settled that there is
no correct way to pronounce a trademark. See In re
Ser. No. 77602145
11
Belgrade Shoe, 411 F.2d 1352, 162 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1969); and
Interlego AG v. Abrams/Gentile Entertainment Inc., 63
USPQ2d 1862 (TTAB 2002). See also In re Microsoft Corp.,
68 USPQ2d 1195 (TTAB 2003) (it is not possible to control
how consumers will vocalize marks). Nonetheless, we find
that because applicant’s mark and the mark in Registration
No. 3283316 are nearly identical in appearance and
spelling, there is no reason why the marks would not be
highly similar in pronunciation. See In re Infinity
Broadcasting Corp. of Dallas, 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217 (TTAB
2001). Thus, when taken as a whole, the marks are highly
similar in sound. Furthermore, while as discussed above we
have not applied the doctrine of foreign equivalents in
this case, it is clear that both marks convey a sense of
the infinite or infinity. Thus, the marks are highly
similar in connotations and convey highly similar overall
commercial impressions.
With regard to the mark INFINITY in Registration No.
1202710, again we find for the reasons discussed above that
the dominant portion of applicant’s mark, the wording
“INFINI,” is subsumed by and thus highly similar in
appearance, spelling and sound to the registered mark.
Furthermore, both marks convey a sense of infinity or the
infinite and thus are highly similar in connotation. As a
Ser. No. 77602145
12
result, we find that applicant’s mark and the mark in
Registration No. 1202710, when viewed in their entireties,
convey highly similar commercial impressions.
Accordingly, this du Pont factor also favors a finding
of likelihood of confusion with regard to both
registrations.
Summary
In its brief, applicant argues that “the only evidence
before the Board pertains to the actual marks and the goods
of the respective parties.”7 Thus, applicant argues that
“many of the du Pont factors are missing or moot.”8 We
agree with applicant that the du Pont factors discussed
above are most relevant to the case at issue. We have
carefully considered the arguments and evidence submitted
by applicant and the examining attorney, including all
evidence not specifically discussed in this decision. In
view thereof, we conclude that consumers familiar with
registrants’ goods sold under their above-referenced marks
would be likely to believe, upon encountering applicant’s
goods rendered under its mark that the goods originated
with or are associated with or sponsored by the same
entity.

7 Applicant’s brief, page 3.
8 Id.
Ser. No. 77602145
13
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.