Cunard Line Ltd.v.Cyrus MilanianDownload PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2002No. 91116277re (T.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2002) Copy Citation Mailed: October 31, 2002 Paper No. 21 PTH UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ______ Cunard Line Limited v. Cyrus Milanian _____ Opposition No. 116,277 to application Serial No. 75/526,403 filed on July 28, 1998 _____ Request for Reconsideration _____ Jeffrey R. Cohen of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan for Cunard Line Limited. John H. Poltman and Frank L. Kubler of Oltman, Flynn & Kubler for Cyrus Milanian. ______ Before Hairston, Walters and Rogers, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge: Applicant has filed a timely request for reconsideration of the Board’s March 29, 2002 decision, which sustained the opposition under Trademark Act Section 2(d). THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Opposition No. 116,277 2 In particular, applicant contends that to the extent that the customers of the parties’ respective services overlap, such customers would be sophisticated, and thus, there is no likelihood of confusion. Further, applicant contends that there is no likelihood of confusion in this case because the parties’ respective services travel in different channels of trade. Applicant’s contentions are in essence a rehash of arguments made in its brief on the case and at oral argument. As noted in our decision, we recognize that applicant’s business management, product merchandising and real estate development services would be directed to business/property owners and investors. However, we are not convinced that all business/property owners and investors are sophisticated purchasers. These classes of purchasers may include sole proprietors, “mom and pop” type business owners, persons who own a single commercial property, and small investors. In other words, the classes of purchasers of applicant’s services may include persons who are not sophisticated and these persons may also be purchasers of opposer’s cruise and travel related services. With respect to applicant’s contention regarding the channels of trade, as noted in our decision, it is not necessary that the parties’ goods/services travel in the same channels of trade to support a holding of likelihood of Opposition No. 116,277 3 confusion. In view of the other factors favoring a likelihood of confusion in this case, we perceive no error in our decision simply because the parties’ services may travel in different channels of trade. Inasmuch as applicant has not established any legal error in our decision sustaining the opposition, the request for reconsideration is denied. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation