Cunard Line Ltd.v.Cyrus Milanian

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2002

No. 91116277re (T.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2002)

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.