Endeavor Business Media, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2021

88391858 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2021)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: April 28, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Endeavor Business Media, LLC
_____

Serial No. 88391858
_____

Kevin P. Hartley, Randy Michels, and Bill Ferrell of Trust Tree Legal, P.C.,
for Endeavor Business Media, LLC.
Brendan J. Ketchum, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 125,
Heather Biddulph, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Goodman, Larkin, and Hudis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Endeavor Business Media, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark shown below

Serial No. 88391858
- 2 -

for services ultimately identified as “Advertising services; Marketing services;
Arranging and conducting business conferences; Arranging and conducting trade
exhibitions for business and promotional purposes,” in International Class 35.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that it
so resembles the registered mark ENDEAVOR, in a typed drawing,2 for “Educational
services, namely, conducting lectures, workshops and forums in the fields of strategic
business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital financing and philanthropy,” in
International Class 41,3 as to be likely, when used in connection with one or more of
the services identified in the application, to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to
deceive.
When the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and
requested reconsideration, which was denied. Applicant and the Examining Attorney
have filed briefs.4 We affirm the refusal to register.

1 Application Serial No. 88391858 was filed on April 18, 2019 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claim of first use of the mark and
first use of the mark in commerce at least as early as December 20, 2017. Applicant describes
its mark as consisting of “the stylized image of an arrow pointing up next to the element
‘ENDEAVOR’ above the stylized elements ‘BUSINESS MEDIA’.” Applicant has disclaimed
the exclusive right to use “BUSINESS MEDIA” apart from the mark as shown.
2 “‘Prior to November 2, 2003, ‘standard character’ drawings were known as ‘typed’ drawings
. . . A typed drawing is the legal equivalent of a standard character mark.’” In re Country
Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 443903, *2 n.2 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d
1324, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1258 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
3 The cited Registration No. 2726743 issued on June 17, 2003 and has been renewed.
4 Citations in this opinion to the briefs and other docket entries on appeal refer to TTABVUE,
the Board’s online docketing system. Turdin v. Tribolite, Ltd., 109 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6
(TTAB 2014). Specifically, the number preceding TTABVUE corresponds to the docket entry
number, and any numbers following TTABVUE refer to the page number(s) of the docket
Serial No. 88391858
- 3 -

I. Record on Appeal5
The record on appeal includes Applicant’s specimen of use, the first page of which
we reproduce below:
6
and the following materials:
 USPTO electronic records of the cited registration, made of record by the
Examining Attorney;7

entry where the cited materials appear. Applicant’s brief appears at 6 TTABVUE and the
Examining Attorney’s brief appears at 8 TTABVUE.
5 Citations in this opinion to the application record, including the request for reconsideration
and its denial, are to pages in the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval
(“TSDR”) database.
6 April 18, 2019 Specimen of Use at TSDR 1.
7 July 9, 2019 Office Action at TSDR 2-3.
Serial No. 88391858
- 4 -

 Dictionary definitions of the words “business” and “media,” made of record
by the Examining Attorney;8
 Third-party Internet webpages showing the offering of one or more of the
services identified in the application and the services identified in the cited
registration under the same mark, made of record by the Examining
Attorney;9
 Third-party registrations of ENDEAVOR-formative marks, and third-party
websites displaying ENDEAVOR-formative marks, made of record by
Applicant;10 and
 Pages from the website of the owner of the cited registration, made of record
by Applicant.11
II. Analysis of Refusal
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that so
resembles a registered mark as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the
goods or services of the applicant, to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d). Our determination of the likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is based
on an analysis of all probative facts in the record that are relevant to the likelihood

8 Id. at TSDR 8-9, 34-36;
9 Id. at TSDR 10-33; February 4, 2020 Final Office Action at TSDR 2-19.
10 August 4, 2019 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 21-49, 106-358.
11 Id. at TSDR 54-72. Applicant claims to have made of record pages from its own website, 6
TTABVUE 6, and additional pages from the registrant’s website, but they are blank in the
TSDR database. August 4, 2019 Request for Reconsideration at 3-4, 50-53, 73-76. Applicant’s
specimen of use, however, is described as consisting of “[s]creenshots from Website.” April 18,
2019 Application at TSDR 1.
Serial No. 88391858
- 5 -

of confusion factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,
177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”). We consider each DuPont factor for
which there is evidence and argument. See, e.g., In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d
1376, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Two key DuPont factors in every Section 2(d) case are the first two factors
regarding the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks and the goods or services,
because 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.” Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ
24, 29 (CCPA 1976). Applicant addresses these two key factors, 6 TTABVUE 14-21,
as well as the third factor, the “similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-
continue trade channels,” the sixth factor, the “number and nature of similar marks
in use on similar goods,” DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567, 6 TTABVUE 9-14, 21-24, and the
eighth factor, the “length of time during and conditions under which there has been
concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.” DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567, 6
TTABVUE 7, 25.
A. The Number and Nature of Similar Marks in Use for Similar
Services
The sixth DuPont factor “considers ‘[t]he number and nature of similar marks in
use on similar goods [or services].’” Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha
Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 128 USPQ2d 1686, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567). We begin with this factor, as it potentially impacts our
analysis of the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks under the first DuPont factor
Serial No. 88391858
- 6 -

because the “purpose of introducing evidence of third-party use is ‘to show that
customers have become so conditioned by a plethora of such similar marks that
customers have been educated to distinguish between different [such] marks on the
bases of minute distinctions.”’ Id. (quoting Palm Bay Imps. v. Veuve Cliquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1694 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted)). The United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit “has held that evidence of the extensive registration
and use of a term by others can be powerful evidence of the term’s weakness.” Tao
Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1057 (TTAB 2017)
(citing Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. v. Millennium Sports,
S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Juice Generation,
Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Applicant argues that “[t]here are at least 22 additional ENDEAVOR-based
registrations in Class 41 alone (not including Applicant’s Mark or the Cited Mark),”
and that “many of these marks have registered for services that are far more similar
to the Registrant’s Services than Applicant’s services are.” 6 TTABVUE 11. Applicant
further argues that “[e]ven beyond registered trademarks, a large number of business
offering Class 35 and Class 41 services use ENDEAVOR in their names and
branding,” citing “at least 39 examples.” Id. at 12. Applicant concludes that “[t]hese
third-party uses demonstrate that the Cited Mark is weak,” id. at 13, that “[m]embers
of the public are used to seeing the word ‘ENDEAVOR’ used in connection with
education and lectures about business and leadership,” id. at 13-14, and that “[i]n
Serial No. 88391858
- 7 -

light of weakness of the Cited Mark, the differences between Applicant’s Mark and
the Cited Mark are sufficient for Applicant’s Mark to register.” Id. at 14.
The Examining Attorney responds that
Applicant’s chief contention is the respective marks are
weak and, as such, the concededly minor differences in the
marks should suffice to avoid a likelihood of confusion. In
attempts to support its position, applicant provides a
number of third-party registrations containing the similar
term “ENDEAVOR”. Further, the applicant attached a
number of screenshots purporting to show third-party use
of similar marks in connection with similar services. This
argument fails because the evidence provided does not
support applicant’s position. The attached registrations do
not demonstrate weakness of the term “ENDEAVOR” for
similar services because the registrations either (1) contain
additional distinctive elements or (2) are for dissimilar
services, or both. Specifically, the registrations are for
services such as charitable services, personal coaching
services, scientific research services, college admission
counseling, and proof reading services. Thus, this evidence
does not support the applicant’s argument because the
services are not similar. Similarly, the third-party evidence
shows use of the term “ENDEAVOR” in connection with
dissimilar services such as financial services, provision of
internet services, provision of energy services, project
management services, and real estate development
services. Because these third-party uses are for dissimilar
services, they do not demonstrate that “ENDEAVOR” is
weak with respect to the applied-for services.
8 TTABVUE 4-5.
1. Applicant’s Third-Party Registrations
Applicant’s third-party registration evidence “may bear on conceptual weakness
if a term is commonly registered for similar goods or services.” Tao Licensing, 125
USPQ2d at 1057. Like dictionary definitions, third-party registrations are relevant
“to prove that some segment of the [marks] has a normally understood and well
Serial No. 88391858
- 8 -

recognized descriptive or suggestive meaning, leading to the conclusion that that
segment is relatively weak.” Juice Generation, 115 USPQ2d at 1675 (internal
quotation marks omitted). See also Jack Wolfskin, 116 USPQ2d at 1136.
Applicant made of record 23 registrations of ENDEAVOR-formative marks in
Class 41. For ease of reference in following our analysis, we reproduce below a table
of those registrations from Applicant’s brief:12

12 Applicant included the cited Registration No. 2726743 in the record, August 4, 2020
Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 22, and in its table. One entity owns six of the other 22
registrations and a second entity owns two. Id. at TSDR 25-26, 32-33, 36-39, 43-44, 46-48.
Serial No. 88391858
- 9 -

6 TTABVUE 11-12.13
Applicant’s registration evidence is long on quantity, but short on quality. Only
four of the third-party registrations are for ENDEAVOR alone (with two in the plural
and one of those in stylized form), and they cover the following Class 41 services:
 Registration Nos. 5640498 and 5640499 of ENDEAVORS (stylized and in
standard characters) for “Charitable services, namely, providing vocational
guidance to indigent persons seeking employment; Educational services,
namely, conducting classes and small group instruction, namely, classes for
children, youth, active military personnel, veterans, Native Americans,
abused and traumatized individuals, low income individuals, homeless
individuals, mentally ill individuals, and individuals with disabilities in the
field of personal financial management, conflict resolution, healthy
relationships, problem solving, leadership and group decision skills, and
healthy parenting;”14

 Registration No. 5851742 of ENDEAVOR for “Providing fitness and
exercise facilities; providing sports facilities; personal fitness training
services; athletic training services; sports training consulting for athlete
development; physical fitness training and consulting services for
individuals and teams; providing an interactive web site featuring
information and links relating to physical fitness;”15 and

 Registration No. 5997776 of ENDEAVOR for “Education and
entertainment services, namely, providing motivational, educational,
comedic and theatrical lecturers and speakers; theatrical event,
entertainment event, and musical event booking agency services;
educational services, namely, providing classes, seminars, workshops, and
conferences in the fields of film, theatre, music, television, entertainment,
sports, fashion, esports, mass participation competitions and events, and
culinary art; providing websites featuring information, news, non-
downloadable videos, images and audio content in the fields of film, theatre,
music, television, entertainment, sports, mass participation competitions
and events in the fields of entertainment, education, culture, sports, and
other non-business and non-commercial fields; providing online non-
downloadable magazines, newspapers, articles, electronic books,

13 August 4, 2019 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 21-49.
14 Id. at TSDR 36-37. This entity owns three other registrations listed in Applicant’s table.
15 Id. at TSDR 42.
Serial No. 88391858
- 10 -

newsletters, and videos in the fields of film, theatre, music, television,
entertainment, sports, fashion, esports, and culinary arts; organizing,
arranging, conducting and producing mass participation competitions and
events in the fields of entertainment, education, culture, sports and other
non-business and non-commercial fields; organizing, arranging, conducting
and producing events in the fields of film, theatre, music, television,
entertainment, sports, fashion, esports, mass participation competitions
and events, and culinary arts; entertainment services in the nature of
development, creation, production, distribution, and post-production of
motion pictures, television shows and multimedia entertainment content;
publication of texts, books, magazines and other printed matter; publishing
of electronic publications; education services, namely, providing
kindergarten through 12th grade classroom instruction; providing classes,
workshops, seminars, camps, in the fields of entertainment, sports, fashion
and esports.”16

None of these four registrations covers the services identified in the cited
registration (“Educational services, namely, conducting lectures, workshops and
forums in the fields of strategic business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital
financing and philanthropy”) or the most pertinent services identified in the
application (“Arranging and conducting business conferences”). These registrations
have little probative value in showing that ENDEAVOR is conceptually weak in the
context of the involved services. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1745-
46 (TTAB 2018) (discussing limited probative value of registrations of similar marks
for related but not identical services), aff’d mem., 777 F. App’x 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Eighteen third-party registrations show marks that contain ENDEAVOR(S)
together with other elements. Only three cover services that are arguably similar to
those in the cited registration and in the application:

16 Id. at TSDR 43-44.
Serial No. 88391858
- 11 -

 Registration No. 3582088 of the mark CREATIVE ENDEAVORS for
“Workshops and seminars in the field of self-improvement, personal and
business development,”17

 Registration No. 5003350 of the mark QUANTUM ENDEAVORS for, inter
alia, “Business education and training services, namely, developing
customized leadership and executive development programs, providing
executive coaching services, and providing business education programs to
employees and executives; Business education and training services,
namely, developing customized in-company leadership and executive
development programs, providing executive coaching services, and
providing public and in-company keynote presentations to business
leaders,”18 and

 Registration No. 6065475 of the mark GREAT ENDEAVORS for, inter alia,
“Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, and
workshops in the field of marketing and networking.”19

These three registrations also have only limited probative value in showing that
ENDEAVOR is conceptually weak in the context of the services identified in the cited
registration. Cf. Inn at St. John’s, 126 USPQ2d at 1746 (discussing limited probative
value of registrations of marks containing non-identical terms for similar services).
The other 15 registrations are for the following marks:
 ALPINE ENDEAVORS for “Rock climbing and mountaineering guide
services; providing instruction in the field of rock climbing, ice climbing and
mountaineering;”20

 ENDEAVORS UNLIMITED for “Charitable services, namely, providing
services to adults with disabilities in the field of job training and supportive
employment;”21

17 Id. at TSDR 23.
18 Id. at TSDR 31.
19 Id. at TSDR 49.
20 Id. at TSDR 24.
21 Id. at TSDR 25. The owner of this registration also owns the two ENDEAVORS
registrations discussed above and the next three registrations that follow immediately below
in the text.
Serial No. 88391858
- 12 -

 FAMILY ENDEAVORS for “Charitable services, namely, providing
services to children, adults, seniors, veterans, and families in the field of
homelessness, supportive employment, education, childcare, disasters,
independent living and counseling;”22

 ENDEAVORS UNLIMITED BELIEVE ● BELONG ● BECOME and design
for various charitable services;23

 ENDEAVORS Smart Social Services and design for various charitable
services;24

 ENDEAVOR AWARDS for “Organizing and conducting social
entertainment events, the proceeds of which are donated to charity; Awards
for contributions to public benefit flying; Providing recognition and
incentives by way of awards to demonstrate excellence in the field of public
benefit air transport to those in need;”25

 ENDEAVORIST for “Providing a website featuring educational content and
information provided by others relating to ongoing research projects
initiated for greater knowledge and discovery by and through the conduct
of research;”26

 AURAL ENDEAVORS for “Entertainment and education services, namely,
providing audio recording, audio production, and audio post-production
services in the nature of audio editing and audio sampling services in the
field of music, videos, and film;”27

 COLLEGE ENDEAVORS LLC for “Admission consulting services, namely,
consulting in the field of college admissions, specifically, college selection,
completing admissions applications, and preparation for college admission
interviews; College consulting services, namely, assisting students in
finding colleges and universities and completing the application process to
post-secondary schools, colleges and universities;”28

22 Id. at TSDR 26.
23 Id. at TSDR 32-33.
24 Id. at TSDR 38-39.
25 Id. at TSDR 27.
26 Id. at TSDR 28.
27 Id. at TSDR 29.
28 Id. at TSDR 30.
Serial No. 88391858
- 13 -

 WRITING ENDEAVORS for “Copy editing; proof reading of manuscripts;”29

 ENDEAVOR HEALTH for “Educational services, namely, conducting
classes and seminars relating to health and wellness;”30

 LAVISH ENDEAVORS for “Arranging and conducting special events for
social entertainment purposes; Educational and entertainment services,
namely providing motivational speaking services in the fields of self-
improvement, brand awareness, college development, college preparation,
fashion and modeling, social media branding, social media preparation, and
religion; Fashion modeling for entertainment purposes; On-line journals,
namely, blogs featuring self-improvement, brand awareness, college
development, college preparation, fashion and modeling, social media
branding, social media preparation, religion, daily life teachings, and
travel;”31

 BLUE ENDEAVORS for “Educational services, namely, conducting classes,
seminars, conferences, and workshops in the field of ocean conservation,
ocean exploration and research scuba diving and distribution of course
materials in connection therewith;”32

 ENDEAVOR STORIES FROM THE FRONTLINES OF CANCER for
“Providing online non-downloadable articles, new [sic] stories and reports
in the fields of cancer, cancer research, and cancer prevention and
treatment; online electronic newsletters delivered by e-mail in the fields of
cancer, cancer research, and cancer prevention and treatment; providing
information regarding the educational materials and opportunities of
others in the fields of cancer, cancer research, and cancer prevention and
treatment, including links to the websites associated with those materials
and events; providing online journals, namely, blogs with articles and news
in the fields of cancer, cancer research, and cancer prevention and
treatment;”33 and

 ENDEAVOR AUDIO and design for “Providing ongoing podcasts in the
fields of entertainment, music, news, current events, public affairs, politics,
government, sports, fitness, recreation, health, medicine, business, finance,
history, arts, culture, society, education, science, technology, children,

29 Id. at TSDR 34.
30 Id. at TSDR 35.
31 Id. at TSDR 40.
32 Id. at TSDR 41.
33 Id. at TSDR 45.
Serial No. 88391858
- 14 -

families, religion, spirituality, games, hobbies, fiction, and topics of general
interest.”34
These third-party registrations for unrelated services have no probative value
regarding the conceptual weakness of the word ENDEAVOR. Cf. In re i.am.symbolic,
llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1751 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (disregarding third-party
registrations for goods in classes other than those at issue where the proffering party
had “neither introduced evidence, nor provided adequate explanation to support a
determination that the existence of I AM marks for goods in other classes . . . support
a finding that registrants’ marks are weak with respect to the goods identified in their
registrations.”).
Applicant’s evidence of a handful of “third-party registrations of varying probative
value,” Inn at St. John’s, 126 USPQ2d at 1746, is insufficient to show that
ENDEAVOR is conceptually weak for the involved services. Id.35
2. Applicant’s Third-Party Uses
Applicant’s third-party use evidence does not show that “[m]embers of the public
are used to seeing the word ‘ENDEAVOR’ used in connection with education and
lectures about business and leadership.” 6 TTABVUE 13-14.

34 Id. at TSDR 46-48.
35 Applicant’s brief contains a table captioned “Registered Class 41 Marks That Are More
Similar to the Cited Mark than Applicant’s Mark is.” 6 TTABVUE 21-23. Applicant argues
that “[a]ll five of the[se] marks are registered in the same class as the Cited Mark, and all for
some variant of providing educational speakers, lectures, seminars, and workshops” and that
“[o]ne of these marks (Reg. No. 5,997,776) is identical to the Cited Mark . . . .” Id. at 23. We
have found above that three of these registrations, including the one for ENDEAVOR alone,
cover services that are arguably related to those identified in the application and cited
registration, but even if we counted all five, they would be too few in number and too different
in nature to show the conceptual weakness of the cited mark.
Serial No. 88391858
- 15 -

Applicant made of record 39 third-party uses of ENDEAVOR-formative marks and
names. For ease of reference in following our analysis, we reproduce below a table of
those uses from Applicant’s brief:

Serial No. 88391858
- 16 -

6 TTABVUE 12-13.
The only third-party uses that are arguably related to the services identified in
the cited registration and in the application are uses of (1) “Endeavor Marketing
Group” to “[h]elp[ ] brands to achieve their goals and get to the next level in their
business,”36 (2) “Endeavor Business Consulting” in connection with business
consulting services,37 (3) “Endeavor” and “Endeavor Management” in connection with
business consulting services,38 and (4) “Endeavor” in connection with business
process design and optimization services.39
The other third-party uses are in connection with Internet and video streaming
services;40 podcasting services;41 product commercialization and supply chain
management services;42 banking services;43 employee placement services;44 power
generation project services;45 brokerage and asset management services;46

36 August 4, 2020 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 120-26.
37 Id. at TSDR 137-39.
38 Id. at TSDR 140-42.
39 Id. at TSDR 186-205.
40 Id. at TSDR 109-16, 157-58.
41 Id. at TSDR 117-19.
42 Id. at TSDR 127-32.
43 Id. at TSDR 133-36.
44 Id. at TSDR 143-44.
45 Id. at TSDR 145-48.
46 Id. at TSDR 149-50.
Serial No. 88391858
- 17 -

engineering services;47 branding services;48 oil drilling services;49 health, wellness,
self-defense, and fitness training services;50 commercial real estate and real estate
lending services;51 various programs and group activities offered by colleges and
universities;52 educational services offered by various elementary and preparatory
schools;53 parishioner education services offered by a church;54 special needs
programs;55 health insurance services;56 online news services;57 and a summit with
various speakers.58 These uses have no probative value regarding the commercial
weakness of the cited mark. Omaha Steaks, 128 USPQ2d at 1695 (third-party uses of
marks featuring use of the word “Omaha” that was common to the marks at issue “on
unrelated goods are properly understood as having no real probative value” on issue
of the strength of the opposer’s mark and comprised “irrelevant evidence”); Century
21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701
(Fed. Cir. 1992).

47 Id. at TSDR 151-56, 255-61, 267-69, 270-72.
48 Id. at TSDR 159-66.
49 Id. at TSRD 167-77.
50 Id. at TSDR 178-85, 325-37.
51 Id. at TSDR 206-25, 338-40.
52 Id. at TSDR 226-34.
53 Id. at TSDR 235-40, 241-51, 262-66, 273-90, 306-09, 341-58.
54 Id. at TSDR 252-54.
55 Id. at TSDR 291-95.
56 Id. at TSDR 296-99.
57 Id. at TSDR 300-05.
58 Id. at TSDR 311-24.
Serial No. 88391858
- 18 -

3. Summary
Applicant’s relevant third-party registration and use evidence “is a far cry from
the large quantum of evidence of third-party use and third-party registrations that
was held to be significant in both” Jack Wolfskin and Juice Generation. Inn at St.
John’s, 126 USPQ2d at 1746.59 The cited registration of ENDEAVOR issued without
a requirement of a showing of acquired distinctiveness, so we presume that the mark
is inherently distinctive. New Era Cap Co., v. Pro-Era LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10586, *10
(TTAB 2020) (“Opposer’s mark is inherently distinctive as evidenced by its
registration on the Principal Register without a showing of acquired distinctiveness
under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.”); see also Tea Bd. of India v. Republic of
Tea, 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1889 (TTAB 2006) (same). Applicant did not show that the
cited mark is conceptually weak, or has been weakened commercially by third-party
marks,60 and thus we accord the mark the normal scope of protection to which an

59 “[I]n Juice Generation, there were at least twenty-six relevant third-party uses or
registrations of record . . . and in Jack Wolfskin, there were at least fourteen . . . .” In re
Morinaga Nyugyo K.K., 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1746 n.8 (TTAB 2016) (citations omitted).
60 Applicant cites In re FabFitFun, Inc., 127 USPQ2d 1670 (TTAB 2018) and In re Big Kahuna
Donuts, Serial No. 86774996 (TTAB Aug. 28, 2017), in support of its arguments under the
sixth DuPont factor. 6 TTABVUE 10-11, 14. Applicant claims that ENDEAVOR “is weaker
than the SMOKIN’ HOT SHOW TIME mark in In re FabFitFun, Inc. and the BIG KAHUNA
CLIFF’S HAWAIIAN COFFEE mark in In re Big Kahuna Donuts”, id. at 11, but the cases
are easily distinguishable. In FabFitFun, the Board found the cited mark SMOKIN’ HOT
SHOW TIME for “cosmetics, mascara” to be “somewhat weak” based on “ten third-party uses
of SMOKIN’ HOT formatives as marks for cosmetics in general and, in particular,
eye makeup of various colors and shades.” FabFitFun, 127 USPQ2d at 1674-75. In Big
Kahuna Donuts, a non-precedential case that does not bind us, In re Medline Indus., Inc.,
2020 USPQ2d 10237, *3 n.23 (TTAB 2020), the Board found that the expression BIG
KAHUNA “has a laudatory suggestiveness and is commonly used to suggest size, importance
or greatness in general,” 9 TTABVUE 10 (Serial No. 86774996), based on 14 third-party uses
of BIG KAHUNA-formative marks and names for restaurants and other dining services. The
Board did not find, however, that “the cited mark is commercially weak for coffee and coffee
shops,” id. at 9-10, but rather concluded that “[i]n view of the suggestive nature of this term,
Serial No. 88391858
- 19 -

inherently distinctive mark is entitled. Bell’s Brewery, Inc. v. Innovation Brewing,
125 USPQ2d 1340, 1348-49 (TTAB 2017). The sixth DuPont factor is neutral in our
analysis of the likelihood of confusion.
B. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
The first DuPont factor considers “the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in
their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.”
Palm Bay Imps., 73 USPQ2d at 1691. “Similarity in any one of these elements may
be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” Inn at St. John’s, 126 USPQ2d at
1746 (quoting In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)).
The proper test regarding similarity “is not a side-by-side comparison of the
marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their
commercial impression such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely
to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d
1367, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph
Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)). “The proper perspective on which the
analysis must focus is on the recollection of the average customer, who retains a
general rather than specific impression of marks.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127

Registrant’s mark is not entitled to such a broad scope of protection that it will necessarily
bar the registration of every mark comprising, in whole or in part, the expression BIG
KAHUNA.” Id. at 10. To be sure, there are more third-party uses and registrations in the
record here than in FabFitFun and Big Kahuna Donuts, but more is not necessarily better,
and the records in those cases contained qualitatively far better evidence than is present
here.
Serial No. 88391858
- 20 -

USPQ2d 1627, 1630 (TTAB 2018) (citations omitted). Given the nature of Applicant’s
services of “Arranging and conducting business conferences,” the average consumer
is a businessperson interested in attending a business conference.
Applicant composite word-and-design mark is shown again below:

The cited mark is ENDEAVOR in standard characters. Applicant argues that its
mark “derives significant contribution from the ‘BUSINESS MEDIA’ word elements,”
which Applicant claims help “form the phrase ‘ENDEAVOR BUSINESS MEDIA’,”
and that the phrase “immediately signifies to a consumer a particular type of
services—services related to business media—that is not suggested by the word
‘ENDEAVOR’ alone.” 6 TTABVUE 16. Applicant argues that “‘Business Media’ is a
defined industry comprised of business-to-business publishing companies that offer
industry-specific services, which are distinguishable from the consulting, education,
and training services offered related to the Cited Mark.” Id. Applicant concludes that
“the elements ‘BUSINESS MEDIA’ contribute not only to the sight and sound, but
also to the meaning and commercial impression conveyed by Applicant’s Mark.” Id.
Applicant also argues that its mark features “a prominent design element,” id. at
17, and stylized words, which combine to give Applicant’s mark “a unique commercial
impression.” Id. Applicant contends that “the design elements in Applicant’s Mark
draw the attention of consumers and are integral to the mark’s commercial
Serial No. 88391858
- 21 -

impression.” Id. at 17-19. Applicant concludes that “the literal elements of Applicant’s
Mark and the Cited Mark meaningfully differ . . . and the design features of
Applicant’s Mark only enhance those differences.” Id. at 19.
The Examining Attorney responds that the wording BUSINESS MEDIA in
Applicant’s mark “is, at a minimum, descriptive of the applied-for services” and that
such disclaimed matter “is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing
marks.” 8 TTABVUE 5. The Examining Attorney argues that the word ENDEAVOR
is the dominant element of Applicant mark because of its size and positioning. He
points to the fact that the words BUSINESS MEDIA lack source-identifying
significance and that the design element in Applicant’s mark is less likely than the
word ENDEAVOR to be remembered by consumers, id. at 6, and argues that
“[b]ecause the wording in the applied-for mark is more dominant than the design
element, the marks create a similar commercial impression.” Id. He concludes that
the marks “are similar because they share an identical dominant element. Both of
the respective marks feature ‘ENDEAVOR’ as their dominant element. Because the
additional elements in applicant’s mark are less dominant in creating the overall
commercial impression of the mark, the marks are similar for purposes of likelihood
of confusion.” Id.
The marks must be considered in their entireties, but “in articulating reasons for
reaching a conclusion on the issue 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 consideration of the marks in
Serial No. 88391858
- 22 -

their entireties.” In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050
(Fed. Cir 2018) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751
(Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The Federal Circuit has held that although marks must be considered on a case-
by-case basis, “[i]n the case of a composite mark containing both words and a design,
‘the verbal portion of the mark is the one most likely to indicate the origin of the goods
to which it is affixed.’” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (quoting CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir.
1983)). The “words are normally accorded greater weight because they are likely to
make a greater impression upon purchasers, to be remembered by them, and to be
used to request the goods.” In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184
(TTAB 2018) (citing Viterra, 101 USPQ2d at 1908).
Applicant acknowledges this general principle, 6 TTABVUE 17, but cites Ferro
Corp. v. Ronco Labs., Inc., 356 F.2d 122, 148 USPQ 497 (CCPA 1966), In re
Covalinski, 113 USPQ2d 1166 (TTAB 2014), Parfums de Coeur Ltd. v. Lazarus, 83
USPQ2d 1012 (TTAB 2007), Steve’s Ice Cream v. Steve’s Famous Hot Dogs, 3 USPQ2d
1477 (TTAB 1987), and In re Primeway Int’l LLC, Serial No. 87059786 (TTAB Jan. 9,
2019), a non-precedential decision, in support of its argument that the arrow design
element of its mark dominates. 6 TTABVUE 17-19. In these cases, the composite
word-and-design marks shown below were found to have dominant design elements
and to be dissimilar to other marks containing word elements in the composite marks:
Serial No. 88391858
- 23 -

(Ferro)61
(Covalinski)62
(Parfums de Coeur)63

61 In Ferro, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that the applicant’s composite
mark for rust preventative oils was dissimilar to the opposer’s various FERRO-formative
marks for related goods.
62 In Covalinski, the Board found that the applicant’s composite mark for clothing was
dissimilar to the cited standard character mark RACEGIRL for identical goods.
63 In Parfums de Coeur, the Board found that the applicant’s composite mark for
entertainment services in the nature of an animated television series was dissimilar to the
opposer’s standard character marks BOD and BOD MAN for men’s fragrances.
Serial No. 88391858
- 24 -

(Steve’s Ice Cream)64
(Primeway)65
Unlike the mark in Covalinski, which the Board found to be dominated by the
highly stylized letters “RR” because “these graphic devices serve not only to draw

64 In Steve’s Ice Cream, the Board found that the applicant’s composite mark for restaurant
services was dissimilar to the opposer’s standard character mark STEVE’S for ice cream for
consumption on and off the premises.
65 In Primeway, the Board found that the applicant’s standard character mark INCOGNITO
for footwear was dissimilar to the cited composite mark for clothing.
Serial No. 88391858
- 25 -

attention to the RR letters apart from the wording, but also make the letters that
form the ‘a-c-e’ of the word ‘RACEGIRL’ difficult to notice,” Covalinski, 113 USPQ2d
at 1168, Applicant’s mark displays the word ENDEAVOR prominently, and the words
BUSINESS MEDIA less prominently, with both noticeably separate and apart from
the arrow design, and easy to read.
Applicant’s mark is thus more similar in nature to the marks in the other four
cases, where the design elements are distinct from the words, but as discussed above,
marks must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The composite marks in Ferro,
Steve’s Ice Cream, and Primeway display anthropomorphic characters, while the
composite mark in Parfums de Coeur displays “Bodyman,” a “superhero who is only
a torso, with no arms, legs or head.” Parfums de Coeur, 83 USPQ2d at 1015. We find
that the arrow design in Applicant’s mark is less unusual and eye-catching than the
design elements in these four cases. Applicant’s upward-facing arrow design,
consisting of a variant of common geometric shape, is too insignificant to serve as a
point of distinction from the cited ENDEAVOR mark. Cf. In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105
F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (in Section 2(d) analysis, holding
that rectangular “design is an ordinary geometric shape that serves as a background
for the word mark” and did not “offer[ ] sufficient distinctiveness to create a different
commercial impression.”).
In addition, while a “design is viewed, not spoken,” In re Electrolyte Labs, Inc., 913
F.2d 930, 16 USPQ2d 1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the characters in Ferro, Parfums
de Coeur, and Primeway are identified by accompanying words that can be spoken.
Serial No. 88391858
- 26 -

By contrast, the upward-facing arrow design in Applicant’s mark cannot be
verbalized in oral references to the mark, which would involve use of all or some
portion of the words ENDEAVOR BUSINESS MEDIA alone.
Finally, the general principle that “the verbal portion of a mark is the one most
likely to indicate the origin of the goods to which it is affixed” is “particularly true
when a mark appears in textual material, such as catalog descriptions, in which it is
often impossible or impractical to include the design features of a mark.” CBS, 218
USPQ at 200 & n.5. Only the verbal portion of Applicant’s mark appears in the text
in Applicant’s specimen of use.66 We find that the general principle discussed in CBS
and Viterra that designs in composite marks are generally subordinate to words
applies here.
The word ENDEAVOR is by far the most prominent of the three words in the
drawing of Applicant’s mark. ENDEAVOR is bolded and it appears above the phrase
BUSINESS MEDIA, which is not bolded, in type that is both taller and wider in size
than that in which the phrase is displayed. The phrase BUSINESS MEDIA also has
little or no source-identifying significance and has been disclaimed because it is
merely descriptive of a portion of the services identified in the application.67 We find
that of all of the visual and verbal elements in Applicant’s mark, the word

66 April 18, 2019 Application at TSDR 3-4.
67 July 9, 2019 Office Action at TSDR 1, 8-9, 34-36. Based on dictionary definitions of the
words “business” and “media,” the Examining Attorney found that their combination in the
phrase “business media” “describes the subject matter of the advertising and trade show
services” identified in the application. Id. at TSDR 1. As discussed below, Applicant argues
that the phrase is a term of art in Applicant’s industry, but that argument is not supported
by any dictionary definitions or other evidence of record.
Serial No. 88391858
- 27 -

ENDEAVOR is the one that is most “likely to make a greater impression upon
purchasers, to be remembered by them, and to be used to request the [services],”
Aquitaine Wine USA, 126 USPQ2d at 1184,68 and we agree with the Examining
Attorney that ENDEAVOR is the dominant portion of Applicant’s mark.
We turn now to the required comparison of the marks in their entireties, giving
greater weight in that comparison to the word ENDEAVOR in Applicant’s mark than
to its other visual and verbal elements.
With respect to the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in appearance, we first
note that because the cited mark is a standard character mark, we must assume that
it “may be presented in any font style, size or color, including the same font, size and
color as the literal portions of Applicant’s mark,” id. at 1186,69 which would result in
the mark being displayed as follows:

A consumer with a general recollection of this depiction of the cited mark who
subsequently encounters the Applicant’s composite mark, displayed again below,

68 The dominance of the word ENDEAVOR is also apparent in the mark as used in Applicant’s
specimen. April 18, 2019 Application at TSDR 3-4.
69 We cannot similarly assume, however, that a display of the cited mark in this fashion may
be accompanied by the arrow design in Applicant’s mark because when “we are comparing a
standard character mark to a word + design mark for Section 2(d) purposes, we will consider
variations of the depictions of the standard character mark only with regard to ‘font style,
size, or color’ of the ‘words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof.” Aquitaine Wine
USA, 126 USPQ2d at 1187 (emphasis in original) (citing Viterra, 101 USPQ2d at 1909 and
Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1259 (Fed. Cir.
2011)).
Serial No. 88391858
- 28 -

may notice the arrow design and the words BUSINESS MEDIA, but the similarities
between the marks in appearance resulting from the common presence of the
dominant word ENDEAVOR in an identical bolded font outweigh any perceived
differences.
With respect to the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in sound, a consumer
with a general recollection of hearing the word “Endeavor” when the registrant’s
mark is verbalized who subsequently hears Applicant’s mark verbalized as “Endeavor
Business Media” will find the marks more similar than dissimilar in sound because
Applicant’s mark begins with the identical word “Endeavor” that comprises the cited
mark. In addition, the Board has previously noted “the penchant of consumers to
shorten marks.” In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1961 (TTAB 2016)
(finding that it “is reasonable that such a practice would lead many consumers to
drop the highly descriptive/generic term ‘Blonde’ when calling for Applicant’s” beer
sold under the TIME TRAVELER BLONDE mark) (citing In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588
F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 219 (Rich, J. concurring: “the users of language have a
universal habit of shortening full names -- from haste or laziness or just economy of
words.”)). To the extent that consumers engage in this practice and shorten
Applicant’s mark to “Endeavor” alone when it is verbalized, the marks would sound
identical, not just similar.
Serial No. 88391858
- 29 -

Finally, with respect to connotation and commercial impression, Applicant argues
that “[t]he phrase ‘BUSINESS MEDIA’ immediately signifies to a consumer a
particular type of services—services related to business media—that is not suggested
by the word ‘ENDEAVOR’ alone.” 6 TTABVUE 16. As noted above, Applicant claims
that the phrase is a term of art for business-to-business (“B2B”) services that “are
distinguishable from the consulting, education, and training services offered related
to the Cited Mark.” Id.
The fundamental problem with Applicant’s position is that it is based solely on
argument of counsel, which is “no substitute for evidence.” In re OEP Enters., Inc.,
2019 USPQ2d 309323, *46 (TTAB 2019) (quoting Cai, 127 USPQ2d at 1799). The
Examining Attorney made of record dictionary definitions of “business” as the
“activity of buying and selling commodities, products, or services,”70 and “media” as a
“means of mass communications, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, or
television,”71 but Applicant did not provide any countervailing evidence that when
the words are combined, they identify B2B services.72 Applicant’s only support for
this claim is a quotation from an unpublished federal district court decision, CE
Design Ltd. v. Prism Business Media, Inc., No. 07 C 5838 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2009), in
which the court apparently described the defendant as a “business-to-business media
company” that “publishes more than 100 trademark magazines and electronic

70 July 9, 2019 Office Action at TSDR 1, 8 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY).
71 Id. at TSDR 1, 35 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY).
72 As discussed below in connection with the second DuPont factor, the broad identification
of services in the application makes no reference to B2B services, and must be read to
encompass all services falling within “Arranging and conducting business conferences.”
Serial No. 88391858
- 30 -

newsletters, and sponsors national industry-specific trade shows both in the United
States and abroad.”73 Id. We are not bound by this decision, and we do not know why
the court characterized the defendant, and described its business, in this manner.
For consumers with a general recollection of the cited ENDEAVOR mark who
subsequently encounter Applicant’s mark, the presence of the words BUSINESS
MEDIA in Applicant’s mark could readily be understood as reflecting a variant of the
registered ENDEAVOR mark, or an extension of the registrant’s services from those
identified in the cited registration as “conducting lectures, workshops and forums in
the fields of strategic business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital financing
and philanthropy” into those identified in the application as “Arranging and
conducting business conferences.” See, e.g., Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Dev.,
2019 USPQ2d 377409, *7 (TTAB 2019) (“ROAD WARRIOR looks, sounds, and
conveys the impression of being a line extension of WARRIOR”); Joel Gott Wines LLC
v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1433 (TTAB 2013) (“Purchasers of
opposer’s GOTT and JOEL GOTT wines are likely to assume that applicant’s goods,
sold under the mark GOTT LIGHT and design, are merely a line extension of goods
emanating from opposer”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1271
(TTAB 2009) (holding that VANTAGE TITAN for MRI diagnostic apparatus and
TITAN for medical ultrasound device were confusingly similar and that the addition
of applicant’s “product mark” VANTAGE to the registered mark would not avoid
confusion); Schieffelin & Co. v. Molson Cos., 9 USPQ2d 2069, 2073 (TTAB 1989)

73 Applicant did not provide a copy of this decision.
Serial No. 88391858
- 31 -

(“Those consumers who do recognize the differences in the [BRADOR and BRAS
D’OR] marks may believe that applicant’s mark is a variation of opposer’s mark that
opposer has adopted for use on a different product.”); see also Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (CCPA 1975)
(BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design found to be confusingly similar).
We find that when the marks are considered in their entireties, they are more
similar than dissimilar in connotation and commercial impression due to the common
presence of the dominant word ENDEAVOR and the fact that the record does not
show that Applicant’s mark is imbued with the meaning that Applicant attributes to
it because of the presence of the disclaimed and descriptive term BUSINESS
MEDIA.74
The marks are more similar than dissimilar in appearance, sound, connotation,
and commercial impression, and the first DuPont factor supports a finding of a
likelihood of confusion.
C. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Services and Channels of
Trade
The second DuPont factor “considers ‘[t]he similarity or dissimilarity and nature
of the goods or services as described in an application or registration,” Detroit Athletic

74 Applicant relies on the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Hearst Corp., 982 F.2d 493, 25
USPQ2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1992), in which the court reversed the Board’s decision affirming a
refusal to register VARGA GIRL for calendars over a registration of VARGAS for the same
goods. As noted above, each case must be decided on its own facts, but we find that
ENDEAVOR and ENDEAVOR BUSINESS MEDIA and design are more similar in meaning
than VARGA GIRL and VARGAS given the common presence in the marks here of the
identical term ENDEAVOR.
Serial No. 88391858
- 32 -

Co., 128 USPQ2d at 1051 (quoting DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567), while the third DuPont
factor considers “the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue
trade channels.’” Id. at 1052 (quoting DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567). See also Stone Lion
Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161-
63 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The services need not be identical, but “need only be related in some manner
and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could
give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.” Coach
Servs., 101 USPQ2d at 1722 (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715,
1724 (TTAB 2007)).
Evidence of relatedness may include news articles or
evidence from computer databases showing that the
relevant [services] are used together or used by the same
purchasers; advertisements showing that the relevant
[services] are advertised together or sold by the same
manufacturer or dealer; or copies of prior use-based
registrations of the same mark for both applicant’s
[services] and the [services] listed in the cited registration.
In re Ox Paperboard, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10878, *5 (TTAB 2020) (citing Davia, 110
USPQ2d at 1817).
“The Examining Attorney need not prove, and we need not find, similarity as to
each [service] listed in the description of [services]. ‘[I]t is sufficient for finding a
likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any item encompassed by the
identification of [services] within a particular class in the application.’” In re St.
Julian Wine Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10595, *3-4 (TTAB 2020) (quoting In re Aquamar,
Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 n.5 (TTAB 2015)); see also Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.
Serial No. 88391858
- 33 -

Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981). The most
pertinent services identified in the application are “Arranging and conducting
business conferences,” while the services identified in the cited registration are
“Educational services, namely, conducting lectures, workshops and forums in the
fields of strategic business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital financing and
philanthropy.” Neither set of services is limited to a particular type of business or
industry.
Applicant argues that “the services specified in Applicant’s application differ from
the Registrant’s Services in their nature and purpose.” 6 TTABVUE 20. Applicant
acknowledges that both it and the cited registrant hold meetings, but argues that
“both the Application and Registrant’s registration specify the different purposes
of their respective meetings. Specifically, Applicant’s services include ‘arranging
and conducting business conferences for business and promotional purposes’ and
‘arranging and conducting trade exhibitions for business and promotional
purposes,” such that “all of the types of meetings referenced in Applicant’s
application are explicitly qualified as meetings ‘for business and promotional
purposes,’” while the registrant’s services “are explicitly ‘educational services,
namely, conducting lectures, workshops and forums in the field of strategic
business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital financing and philanthropy.’”
Id. (emphasis in original).
Applicant concludes that
The identifications of services reflect differences in the
types of meetings held by Applicant and Registrant.
Serial No. 88391858
- 34 -

Applicant does not hold lectures, workshops, or forums that
[sic] for the sole purpose of educating attendees about
business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital
financing, or philanthropy. Applicant holds events for
people to engage in business, whereas Registrant holds
events solely to teach or mentor people about business. In
sum, the differences between Applicant’s Services and
Registrant’s Services are more than sufficient for
Applicant’s mark to register. Given that the Cited Mark is
entitled only to a narrow scope of protection, the scope of
that protection should not be extended to broadly cover the
holding of meetings for any purpose.
Id. at 20-21.
The Examining Attorney responds that Internet webpages in the record “show
that entities commonly offer applicant and registrant’s respective identified services
under the same mark.” 8 TTABVUE 8. According to the Examining Attorney, “this
evidence shows that it is common for entities to provide educational services in the
nature of lectures, workshops, and forums in various business fields and to arrange
and conduct business conferences and trade exhibitions.” Id.
In assessing relatedness, and contrary to the gist of Applicant’s arguments, “[t]he
issue, of course, is not whether purchasers would confuse the services, but rather
whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the services.” In re
Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1535 (TTAB 2009) (citing In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830
(TTAB 1984)). We must determine whether
the respective services are related in some manner, and/or
that the conditions and activities surrounding the
marketing of the services are such that they would or could
be encountered by the same persons under circumstances
that could, because of the similarity of the marks, give rise
to the mistaken belief that they originated from the same
producer.
Serial No. 88391858
- 35 -

Id. at 1534-35.
“We begin with the identifications of . . . services in the registration and
application under consideration,” Country Oven, 2019 USPQ2d 443903 at *5, because
Applicant claims that the “Application and Registrant’s registration specify the
different purposes of their respective meetings.” 6 TTABVUE 20 (emphasis in
original). We reject Applicant’s argument that “all of the types of meetings referenced
in Applicant’s Application are explicitly qualified as meetings ‘for business and
promotional purposes.’” Id. The qualifying phrase “for business and promotional
purposes,” which Applicant argues defines “events for people to engage in business,”
id. (emphasis in original), appears in the identification of services in the application
only after the language “Arranging and conducting trade exhibitions . . . .”75 Those
services are separated by a semicolon from the services identified as “Arranging and
conducting business conferences,” which indicates that the two services are discrete.
In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1166 n.4 (TTAB 2013)
(“Under standard examination practice, a semicolon is used to separate distinct
categories of goods or services.”). Accordingly, the services identified as “Arranging
and conducting business conferences” are not limited to conferences “for people to
engage in business,” but cover all types of “business conferences,” including those

75 Applicant’s original identification of services read “Arranging and conducting business
conferences; Arranging and conducting trade exhibitions.” April 18, 2019 Application at
TSDR 1. The Examining Attorney required Applicant to provide a field-of-use or purpose
clarification to the services identified as “Arranging and conducting trade exhibitions,” July
9, 2019 Office Action at TSDR 1, and Applicant amended that portion of its identification to
“Arranging and conducting trade exhibitions for business and promotional purposes.”
January 9, 2020 Response to Office Action at TSDR 1. Applicant never similarly amended
the portion of the identification reading “Arranging and conducting business conferences.”
Serial No. 88391858
- 36 -

that the record shows include sessions teaching and mentoring attendees about
business.76
We find, on the face of the identifications, that the services identified in the cited
registration as “conducting lectures, workshops and forums in the fields of strategic
business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital financing and philanthropy”
are a natural adjunct to the services identified in the application as “Arranging and
conducting business conferences,” and that the latter services are broad enough to
encompass business conferences that include educational sessions in these areas.
Indeed, the Internet evidence of record shows that business conferences often include
such educational sessions.77
The website of the Small Business Expo touts “America’s Biggest Event for
Entrepreneurs & Business Leaders,” described as “America’s BIGGEST Business to
Business Trade Show, Conference & Networking Event” for small business owners,
entrepreneurs, and start-up companies.”78 The Expo offers “Seminars presented by
Industry Experts” and “Business-Critical Workshops to drive immediate action &

76 As noted above, Applicant also argues that it “does not hold lectures, workshops, or forums
. . . for the sole purpose of educating attendees about business planning, entrepreneurship,
venture capital financing, or philanthropy.” 6 TTABVUE 20. These claimed restrictions are
not reflected in Applicant’s identification of its services as “Arranging and conducting
business conferences.” Applicant cannot restrict the scope of these services by extrinsic
evidence of use, or attorney argument, where its identification is unrestricted. See In re
Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986).
77 Applicant does not address this evidence, focusing instead improperly on arguments
regarding its actual use of its mark, and on arguments and extrinsic evidence regarding the
registrant’s use of its mark. 6 TTABVUE 6-8, 24-25.
78 July 9, 2019 Office Action at TSDR 10-11; February 4, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 2-
3.
Serial No. 88391858
- 37 -

business growth.”79 The 2019 workshops covered topics such as “Managing Credit for
Business Success” and “Understanding Your Business Insurance.”80
The website of Startup Grind discusses “monthly events featuring local founders,
innovators, educators and investors who share lessons learned on the road to building
great companies.”81 Startup Grind states that it “has helped millions of entrepreneurs
build their businesses, connect with strategic partners, and secure funding.”82
The website of Collision discusses the “fastest growing tech conference in North
America,”83 which it touts as “a crossroads for the world’s largest buyers and sellers
of technology, alongside many of the world’s most disruptive emerging technology
companies.”84 The conference offers “stages cover[ing] topics ranging from data
science and content to autotech and environmental sustainability.”85
The website of 99U discusses the Adobe 99U conference to be held in June 2020
in New York City.86 The conference was scheduled to include “Main Stage Talks”

79 July 9, 2019 Office Action at TSDR 11.
80 Id. at TSDR 13.
81 Id. at TSDR 16.
82 Id.
83 Id. at TSDR 31-32.
84 Id. at TSDR 32.
85 Id. at TSDR 33.
86 February 4, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 8. The website pages were downloaded by
the Examining Attorney in February 2020, before the Covid-19 pandemic required the
cancellation of in-person events of this nature in New York City and elsewhere.
Serial No. 88391858
- 38 -

where attendees could “[l]earn from industry leaders in a series of insight-driven
talks,”87 and various workshops.88
The website of Pubcon discusses the Pubcon Austin 2020 business conference to
be held on February 6, 2020.89 The conference included educational breakout sessions
for marketers and business owners.90
The record is sufficient to confirm that “conducting lectures, workshops and
forums in the fields of strategic business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital
financing and philanthropy” is frequently part and parcel of “Arranging and
conducting business conferences.” See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d
1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009). We find that the second DuPont factor supports a finding of
a likelihood of confusion.
With respect to the third DuPont factor, Applicant argues that “Applicant and
Registrant also target discrete subsets of consumers through distinct marketing
channels.” 6 TTABVUE 24. According to Applicant, it is “a business media company
that facilitates business to business marketing by hosting live events for business
and promotional purposes and not solely to educate attendees,” while the cited
registrant “is a nonprofit that selects ‘innovative founders based in emerging
markets’ who are interested in becoming ‘thought leaders and role models’ and

87 Id. at TSDR 9.
88 Id. at TSDR 10-12.
89 Id. at TSDR 14. The website also refers to 2020 Pubcon conferences in Florida and Las
Vegas. Id. at TSDR 14-15, 19.
90 Id. at TSDR 14-16.
Serial No. 88391858
- 39 -

provides educational lectures and workshops.” Id. at 24-25. Applicant bases this claim
on argument of counsel regarding its activities, and extrinsic evidence of the
registrant’s actual use of the cited mark. Applicant concludes that
[g]iven the big differences in the goals and targets of
Applicant and Registrant, confusion is very unlikely.
Specifically, it is unlikely that a businessperson looking to
promote its products to other businesses would be confused
into applying for a program of mentorship to help become
a thought leader. And, conversely, someone interested in
the latter is unlikely to be confused into obtaining the
former from Applicant.
Id. at 25.
Applicant once again improperly argues that the services themselves will be
confused, and it relies on its counsel’s description of its business and evidence of the
cited registrant’s actual use of its mark. As the Board has repeatedly held, “[w]e must
look to the [services] as identified in the involved application[ ] and cited registration,
not to any extrinsic evidence of actual use,” In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737
(TTAB 2018), or to argument of counsel masquerading as such evidence. Cf. In re
Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638 (TTAB 2009) (“We have no authority to read
any restrictions or limitations into the registrant’s description of goods”); In re La
Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1647 (TTAB 2008) (“applicant’s reliance on
registrant’s website in an attempt to restrict the scope of registrant’s goods is to no
avail” because “an applicant may not restrict the scope of the goods covered in the
cited registration by argument or extrinsic evidence.”). As discussed above, the
involved services as identified in the application and in the cited registration are
offered together through the same channels of trade (business conferences) to the
Serial No. 88391858
- 40 -

same consumers (attendees), such that the third DuPont factor also supports a
finding of a likelihood of confusion.
D. The Absence of Actual Confusion
The eighth DuPont factor considers “the length of time during and conditions
under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.” In
re Guild Mortg. Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10279, *6 (TTAB 2020) (quoting DuPont, 177
USPQ at 567). Applicant argues that it has been using its mark “since at least
December of 2017 [and] has not received any notice of actual confusion between
Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark (or any other mark),” 6 TTABVUE 25, and that
“[t]his further supports a finding that there is not a likelihood of consumer confusion
sufficient to prevent registration of Applicant’s Mark.” Id.
In Guild Mortg., the Board held that unlike other DuPont factors, the eighth factor
“requires us to look at actual market conditions, to the extent there is evidence of
such conditions of record.” Guild Mortg. Co., 2020 USPQ2d 10279 at *6 (emphasis in
original). Here, “there is [no] evidence of such conditions of record,” id., because
Applicant relies solely on the argument of its counsel. We find that the eighth DuPont
factor is neutral in our analysis of the likelihood of confusion.
E. Conclusion
The first, second, and third DuPont factors support a finding of a likelihood of
confusion and the sixth and eighth DuPont factors are neutral. The marks are more
similar than dissimilar, the strength of the cited ENDEAVOR mark has not been
diminished due to third-party use or registration of ENDEAVOR-formative marks,
Serial No. 88391858
- 41 -

the services, channels of trade, and classes of consumers are related, and the absence
of evidence of actual confusion is inconsequential.
We find, on the basis of the record as a whole, that a consumer familiar with the
cited ENDEAVOR mark for “conducting lectures, workshops and forums in the fields
of strategic business planning, entrepreneurship, venture capital financing and
philanthropy” who encounters Applicant’s mark used in connection with the services
of “Arranging and conducting business conferences” is likely to believe mistakenly
that those services originate with, or are sponsored or authorized by, the owner of the
cited registration.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.