Guidos Burritos LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2020

87931059 (T.T.A.B. May. 12, 2020)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: May 12, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Guidos Burritos LLC
_____

Serial No. 87931059
_____

Jay E. Eckhaus of Business Law Center of the Palm Beaches
for Applicant, Guidos Burritos LLC.

Susan Leslie DuBois, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
Christopher Doninger, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Mermelstein, Kuczma and Dunn,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Guidos Burritos LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the mark:

for:
Serial No. 87931059

- 2 -
Clothing, namely, t-shirts and hoodies in International
Class 25; and
Mexican Restaurant and Tequila Cantina in International
Class 43.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under § 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), citing Registration No.
2405367, owned by Guido’s Premium Pizza, Inc. (“Registrant”), for the mark
GUIDO’S for “Restaurant services” in International Class 422, as a bar to
registration.
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed to this
Board and requested reconsideration of the refusal which was denied. Applicant and
the Examining Attorney submitted briefs. For the reasons set forth below, the refusal
to register is affirmed.

1 Application Serial No. 87931059 was filed on May 22, 2018, based upon Applicant’s claim of
first use and first use in commerce of the mark for the goods in Class 25 and the services in
Class 43 on May 1, 2011, under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a). The
mark is described as follows: The mark consists of two stylized horns and two crowns. The
horns and crowns are mirrored to each other. Above the horns and crowns is the stylized
word “Guido’s.” Below the horns and crowns is the stylized word “Burritos.” The background
in the color black is only a placard and not a part of the mark. Additionally, BURRITOS is
disclaimed and color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
2 Registration No. 2405367 issued November 21, 2000; renewed. The mark shown in
Registration No. 2405367 is depicted as a typed drawing. Before November 2, 2003, “standard
character” drawings were known as “typed” drawings. A typed mark is the legal equivalent
of a standard character mark. Trademark Rule 2.52, 37 C.F.R. 2.52; TRADEMARK MANUAL OF
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) § 807.03(i) (Oct. 2018). Additionally, restaurant services
were classified in International Class 42 at the time the Registration issued, but are now
classified in International Class 43. TMEP § 1401.09 and § 1401.11.

Page references to the application record refer to the downloadable .pdf version of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Trademark Status & Document Retrieval
(TSDR) system. References to the briefs refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.

Serial No. 87931059

- 3 -
Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under § 2(d) is based on an analysis of all probative facts in
evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of likelihood of confusion
enunciated in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563,
567 (CCPA 1973), cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138,
113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311,
65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two
key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities
between the goods and services. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 123
USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.,
308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Ft.
Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“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.”). Additionally, we consider
the similarity of the trade channels and customers; the conditions under which and
buyers to whom sales are made i.e., impulse versus careful sophisticated purchasing;
and the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar services and goods.
We have considered all of the evidence as it pertains to the relevant DuPont
factors, as well as Applicant’s arguments (including any evidence and arguments not
specifically discussed in this opinion). DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567-68; see also Cai v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1800 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (not all
Serial No. 87931059

- 4 -
of the DuPont factors are relevant to every case, only factors of significance to the
particular mark need be considered). The other factors we treat as neutral.
Similarity of the Services and Goods
We turn first to the DuPont factor involving the similarity of Applicant’s services
and goods, i.e., Mexican restaurant and tequila cantina services, and t-shirts and
hoodies, to Registrant’s restaurant services. The issue is whether Applicant’s services
and goods are identical or related to Registrant’s services. They 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 [the goods and services] emanate
from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356,
101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83
USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)).
Inasmuch as Registrant’s registered services are “restaurant services,” without
limitation as to the nature or type of cuisine offered, they necessarily encompass
Applicant’s more narrowly identified “Mexican restaurant and tequila cantina”
services. Therefore, Applicant’s services are encompassed by Registrant’s services,
making them legally identical. In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d
1531, 1533 (1997) (“restaurant services specializing in Southern-style cuisine” are
legally identical to “restaurant services”). See also, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127
USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101
USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion
Serial No. 87931059

- 5 -
Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Denisi,
225 USPQ 624, 625-26 (TTAB 1985).
The USPTO classification of Applicant’s Mexican restaurant and tequila cantina
services in International Class 43 and Registrant’s earlier-registered restaurant
services in International Class 42 does not establish that these services are unrelated
under § 2(d). See TMEP §1207.01(d)(v). The determination concerning the proper
classification of goods or services is a purely administrative determination unrelated
to the determination of likelihood of confusion. In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 83
USPQ2d 1541, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 29
USPQ2d 1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, effective January 1, 2002, the Nice
Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the
Purposes of the Registration of Marks was amended to add three new service classes
(Classes 43 through 45) arising from the extensive restructuring of Class 42. In the
course of that restructuring, many activities were removed from Class 42 and placed
in one of the three new classes. TMEP § 1401.11. Restaurant services have been
reclassified in International Class 43 (Hotels and restaurants) which covers among
other services “services for providing food and drink.” TMEP § 1401.02(a).
Nonetheless, the restructuring of Class 42 and creation of Class 43 have no
substantive effect. Jean Patou, 29 USPQ2d at 1774.
Notwithstanding Applicant’s argument and evidence regarding the differences in
the actual scope of its own and the cited Registrant’s commercial uses of their marks,
the nature, scope and similarity of the services and goods must be determined based
Serial No. 87931059

- 6 -
on the identification of services and goods listed in the application and cited
registration. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, 123 USPQ2d at 1749); In re Dixie Rests.,
41 USPQ2d at 1534; In re Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1134, 1137
(TTAB 2015); 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.”). Therefore, Applicant’s evidence and arguments that it has not broadly
identified its services and that “Mexican restaurants are not competitive with
Registrant’s services which include pizza and other Italian fare,”3 are not relevant.
Based on the services as identified in the application and cited registration,
Applicant’s Mexican Restaurant and Tequila Cantina services are legally identical to
Registrant’s restaurant services.
Applicant’s application also covers t-shirts and hoodies in Class 25, and we find
those goods to be related to Registrant’s restaurant services. To support a likelihood
of confusion it is not necessary that the goods or services on or in connection with
which the marks are used be identical or even competitive in order to find that they

3 Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 12 (9 TTABVUE 17). Applicant’s argument at pp. 12-13 (9
TTABVUE 17-18) regarding cancelled Registration No. 2862884 for the mark SENOR
GUIDO CHANGS for “restaurants featuring a combination of Mexican cuisine, Italian
cuisine and Chinese cuisine for takeout, delivery and sit-down service” that issued
subsequent to Registrant’s GUIDO’S registration, see Request for Reconsideration at TSDR
466, is not considered. It is well-established that an expired or cancelled registration has no
probative value. Action Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Labor Force Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 10 USPQ2d
1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[A] cancelled registration does not provide constructive notice
of anything”); Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987)
(expired registration has no probative valve other than for what it shows on its face, i.e., that
the registration issued). However, even if that Registration was considered, it is for a mark
that is different in nature and readily distinguishable from Applicant’s mark.
Serial No. 87931059

- 7 -
are related for purposes of our likelihood of confusion analysis. It is enough if there
is a relationship between them or they are marketed under the same or similar
conditions and surroundings to the same general class of purchasers such that
persons encountering them under their respective marks are likely to assume that
they originate at the same source or that there is some association between their
sources. That is, the issue is not whether customers would confuse the goods and
services themselves, but rather whether they would be confused as to the source of
the goods and services or find an association between their sources. J.C. Hall Co. v.
Hallmark Cards, Inc., 144 USPQ 435, 438 (CCPA 1965); McDonald’s Corp. v.
McKinley, 13 USPQ2d 1895, 1898 (TTAB 1989); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228
USPQ 949, 951 (TTAB 1986) (holding 21 CLUB for various items of clothing and THE
“21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services likely to cause confusion); In re Rexel
Inc., 223 USPQ 830, 831 (TTAB 1984).
The Examining Attorney argues that clothing is related to restaurant services
because many restaurants sell clothing items with their logos prominently displayed,
submitting webpages from a couple of restaurants offering clothing items for
purchase.4 Additionally, she submits an article from Gourmet Marketing
acknowledging that “[t]he sale of T-shirts, mugs, hats and other merchandise
provides a supplemental revenue source for some restaurants. . . . So your customers

4 See Examining Attorney’s Brief (11 TTABVUE 5) citing September 13, 2018 Office Action,
TSDR 2-3, 16-19, 20-22.
Serial No. 87931059

- 8 -
may want to buy merchandise and bring home something from your restaurant;”5 and
an article from LA Weekly titled “7 Restaurant T-Shirts Cool Enough to Actually
Wear” which notes that “industry swag has reached a whole new level,” discussing
the impact that creative and fun clothing items can have on a restaurant’s bottom
line.6
In further support of the refusal, the Examining Attorney submits evidence from
the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a sample of third-party marks
registered for use in connection with the same or similar services and goods as those
of both Applicant and Registrant, i.e., restaurant services (Classes 42/43) and
clothing items including t-shirts and/or hats (Class 25), under the same mark7:
Registration Number Mark Goods and Services
Reg. No. 21532608 MAUI TACO T-shirts Class 25 and
restaurant services Class
42
Reg. No. 25215539 THUNDER CANYON
BREWERY
RESTAURANT & PUB
T-shirts etc. Class 25,
beer, soft drinks Class 32
and restaurant services
Class 42

5 See September 13, 2018 Office Action, “Selling Restaurant Merchandise” January 17, 2020
https://www.gourmetmarketing.net/selling-restaurant-merchandise/ 09/13/2018 at TSDR 8-
12.
6 Id. “7 Restaurant T-Shirts Cool Enough to Actually Wear” September 19, 2016
https://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/la-loves-alexs-lemonade-raises-14-million-to-fight-
childhood-cancer-9846155 09/13/2018 at TSDR 13-15.
7 See August 1, 2019 Request for Reconsideration Denied (5 TTABVUE 4); Registration No.
4395771 (5 TTABVUE 41-43) has been cancelled and has not been considered.
8 August 1, 2019 Request for Reconsideration Denied (5 TTABVUE 5-6); Registration
renewed second time.
9 Id. (5 TTABVUE 7-9); Registration renewed.
Serial No. 87931059

- 9 -
Registration Number Mark Goods and Services
Reg. No. 256149410 TAQUERIA ARANDAS
SABROSO
….SABROSITO!!! &
Design
Shirts and baseball caps
Class 25, Mexican food
restaurant and bar
services Class 42 (and
Classes 16 & 35)
Reg. No. 327856511 SANITARY FISH
MARKET AND
RESTAURANT
T-shirts, hats etc. Class
25, Food products in Class
30, restaurant services
Class 43
Reg. No. 424617712 CAFÉ CREPE t-shirts, baseball caps
Class 25 and restaurant
services Class 43
Reg. No. 346171713 THE QUIET WOMAN
RESTAURANT & BAR &
Design
Shirts, sweatshirts, etc.
Class 25 and restaurant
services Class 43
Reg. No. 375827714 HAPPY AS A CLAM
LINDSEY’S
RESTAURANT
BUZZARDS BAY, MASS
& Design
Tee-shirts, sweatshirts
and hats Class 25, and
restaurant services Class
43, and mugs Class 21
Reg. No. 442702615 O’LEARY’S EST 1988
BAR & RESTAURANT &
Design
Shirts, hats etc., Class 25
and restaurant services
Class 43, and tableware in
Class 21, food items in
Classes 29 & 30, beers,
fruit drinks in Class 32
Reg. No. 459507216 DEATH CAFE t-shirts, baseball hats etc.
Class 25; restaurant
services Class 43; greeting
cards etc. in Class 16; and
organizing and arranging

10 Id. (5 TTABVUE 10-12); Registration renewed.
11 Id. (5 TTABVUE 13-15); Registration renewed.
12 Id. (5 TTABVUE 16-18); §§ 8 & 15 declaration accepted and acknowledged.
13 Id. (5 TTABVUE 19-21); Registration renewed.
14 Id. (5 TTABVUE 22-24); partial §§ 8 & 15 declaration accepted and acknowledged.
15 Id. (5 TTABVUE 25-27); this Registration issued on November 5, 2013 and to date, no § 8
declaration of use has been filed.
16 Id. (5 TTABVUE 28-30).
Serial No. 87931059

- 10 -
Registration Number Mark Goods and Services
conferences and events
etc. in Class 41
Reg. No. 581614417 CAFÉ KITSUNÉ Tee-shirts, caps etc. Class
25, restaurant services
Class 43, Household
utensils in Class 21, food
items in Class 30
Reg. No. 449183418 RISTORANTE AL MARE t-shirts, hats etc. Class 25,
restaurant services Class
43, key chains in Class 6
and cups and mugs in
Class 21
Reg. No. 449206319 RISTORANTE AL MARE
& Design
t-shirts, hats etc. Class 25,
restaurant services Class
43, key chains in Class 6
and cups and mugs in
Class 21
Reg. No. 443533020 DON JUAN BAJA
BEACH TACOS & Design
Shirts and headwear
Class 25, restaurant
services Class 43
Reg. No. 473218821 MUSETTE CAFFE T-shirts, hats etc. Class
25, restaurant and coffee
bar services Class 43, and
shoulder and sport bags in
Class 18
Reg. No. 482587122 DONNA’S CARIBBEAN
RESTAURANT & Design
Shirts, caps and visors
Class 25, restaurant
services Class 43
Reg. No. 533789523 KWALITY SWEETS &
RESTAURANT & Design
t-shirts, caps etc. Class 25,
restaurant and food
preparation services Class

17 Id. (5 TTABVUE 31-34).
18 Id. (5 TTABVUE 35-37).
19 Id. (5 TTABVUE 38-40); this Registration is owned by the same owner as Registration No.
4491834.
20 Id. (5 TTABVUE 44-46); §§ 8 & 15 declaration accepted and acknowledged.
21 Id. (5 TTABVUE 47-49).
22 Id. (5 TTABVUE 50-52).
23 Id. (5 TTABVUE 53-57).
Serial No. 87931059

- 11 -
Registration Number Mark Goods and Services
43; food products Classes
29 & 30, beverages Class
32, ice cream store
services Class 35, event
planning Class 41
Reg. No. 536240624 FATTY’S SEAFOOD
RESTAURANT & Design
Hats and shirts Class 25,
Restaurant services Class
43; glasses, cups and
mugs in Class 21
Reg. No. 562838625 PIZZA SQUAD t-shirts and hats etc.
Class 25, restaurant
services Class 43, pizza
Class 30, and customer
loyalty programs in Class
35
Reg. No. 568297126 LIVE LUCKY Retail and online store
services featuring
headwear, shirts etc.
Class 35, and restaurant
services in Class 43
Reg. No. 564427927 ANDYTOWN COFFEE
ROASTERS
Shirts, beanies, infant
and toddler clothing Class
25, and restaurant
services Class 43; and food
items Class 30, Totebags
Class 18 and drinking
glasses, mugs Class 21
Reg. No. 564431628 ZIG ZAG SMOKIN
BURGER & Design
T-shirts, caps etc. Class
25, Restaurant services
Class 43, and on-line
restaurant take-out and
delivery ordering services
Class 35

24 Id. (5 TTABVUE 58-60).
25 Id. (5 TTABVUE 61-63).
26 Id. (5 TTABVUE 64-66).
27 Id. (5 TTABVUE 67-69).
28 Id. (5 TTABVUE 70-72).
Serial No. 87931059

- 12 -
Registration Number Mark Goods and Services
Reg. No. 564431729 MILE HIGH MEATBALL
EATERY AND
LIBATIONS & Design
T-shirts, hats etc. Class
25; Restaurant services
Class 43, on-line
restaurant take-out and
delivery ordering services
in Class 35
Reg. No. 556674630 SMOKY ROSE & Design T-shirts, caps, etc. Class
25, restaurant services
Class 43; and household
and kitchen use items in
Class 21
Reg. No. 568140731 BIRD CREEK TRD MRK
ESTB XX17 BURGER
CO. & Design
Shirts Class 25, and
restaurant and bar
services Class 43
Reg. No. 567109932 BIRD CREEK – BURGER
CO. – & Design
Shirts Class 25, and
restaurant and bar
services Class 43
Reg. No. 560429833 FISH SHACK & Design Shirts, hats Class 25 and
restaurant services Class
43
Reg. No. 565174034 ADVENTURES ON THE
GORGE
Retail store services
featuring clothing
souvenirs etc. Class 35,
restaurant services Class
43, and rental of
mountain biking and boat
equipment etc. Class 39,
providing facilities for

29 Id. (5 TTABVUE 73-75).
30 Id. (5 TTABVUE 76-78).
31 Id. (5 TTABVUE 79-81).
32 Id. (5 TTABVUE 82-84); this Registration is owned by the same owner as Registration No.
5681407.
33 Id. (5 TTABVUE 85-87).
34 Id. (5 TTABVUE 88-90).
Serial No. 87931059

- 13 -
Registration Number Mark Goods and Services
recreational activities
Class 41
Reg. No. 561300335 WINGHOUSE BAR +
GRILL & Design
T-shirts, hats etc. Class
25; restaurant and bar
services Class 43 (and
Classes 18 and 21)
Reg. No. 557209236 THE ASPEN WAY
UNITY – LOVE –
RESPECT – COMMIT &
Design
T-shirts, hats etc. Class
25, restaurant services
Class 43; and providing
adventure park facilities,
providing recreational
facilities Class 41
Reg. No. 553543237 OTHER HALF Retail apparel and
clothing stores Class 35;
Restaurant and bar
services Class 43; Beers
Class 32
Reg. No. 554974538 O H & Design Retail apparel and
clothing stores in Class
35; Restaurant and bar
services Class 43; Beers in
Class 32
Reg. No. 561676639 E.A.T. ITALIAN & Design Hooded sweatshirts, hats
etc. Class 25, restaurant
services Class 43
Reg. No. 565416540 TRIUMPH BREWING
COMPANY & Design
Shirts, hats Class 25;
brew pub and restaurant
services Class 43
Reg. No. 564793641 FITTINGLY
DELICCIOUS
Tee-shirts etc. Class 25,
restaurant services Class
43

35 Id. (5 TTABVUE 91-93).
36 Id. (5 TTABVUE 94-96).
37 Id. (5 TTABVUE 97-99).
38 Id. (5 TTABVUE 100-102); this Registration is owned by the same owner as Registration
No. 5535432.
39 Id. (5 TTABVUE 103-105).
40 Id. (5 TTABVUE 106-108).
41 Id. (5 TTABVUE 109-111).
Serial No. 87931059

- 14 -
Registration Number Mark Goods and Services
Reg. No. 558639842 RED HOT & BLUE t-shirts, golf hats etc.
Class 25, restaurant
services Class 43

This evidence shows that the services and goods listed in these registrations,
namely restaurant services and clothing items, are of a kind that may emanate from
a single source under a single mark, and thus are related for the purpose of
determining likelihood of confusion. In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB
2018); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re
Phillips-Van Heusen, 228 USPQ at 951 (likelihood of confusion found between the
mark 21 CLUB for shirts and the mark THE “21” CLUB for restaurant services
finding that clothing, especially shirts, is a natural area for the “collateral product”
use of commercial trademarks); see also L.C. Licensing Inc. v. Berman, 86 USPQ2d
1883, 1889 (TTAB 2008) (“It is common knowledge, and a fact of which we can take
judicial notice, that the licensing of commercial trademarks on ‘collateral products’
has become a part of everyday life.”).
Therefore, inasmuch as Applicant’s Mexican restaurant services are legally
identical to Registrant’s restaurant services, and Applicant’s t-shirts and hoodies are
related to Registrant’s restaurant services, the similarity of the services and goods
favors finding a likelihood of confusion.

42 Id. (5 TTABVUE 112-114).
Serial No. 87931059

- 15 -
Channels of Trade and Classes of Customers
With respect to the channels of trade and classes of customers, our determinations
under these factors are also based on the services identified in the cited Registration
and the services and goods identified in Applicant’s application. See Stone Lion v.
Lion Capital, 110 USPQ2d at 1162 (“It was proper, however, for the Board to focus
on the application and registrations rather than on real world conditions, because
‘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 . . . .’” (quoting Octocom Sys.,
Inc. v. Hous. Comptr. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir.
1990))); Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning, 101 USPQ2d at 1722-23; In re Dixie
Rests., 41 USPQ2d at 1534.
Given the legal identity of the restaurant services, and the lack of restrictions on
trade channels and classes of customers in the recitations of services, we presume
that these services travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of
customers. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d
1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281
F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); In re Yawata Iron & Steel Co.,
403 F.2d 752, 159 USPQ 721, 723 (CCPA 1968) (where there are legally identical
goods, the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are considered to be the same).
The evidence Applicant submits in support of its argument that Registrant’s and
Applicant’s services are found in differing trade channels is not pertinent.43 Given

43 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief pp. 16-18 (9 TTABVUE 21-23).
Serial No. 87931059

- 16 -
the overlapping relationship between the registered restaurant services, which are
presumed to encompass Mexican restaurant services, and Applicant’s Mexican
restaurant and tequila cantina services, at least some of Registrant’s customers are
part of the general consuming public for Applicant’s services. Therefore, because
Applicant’s services and Registrant’s services are offered to the general consuming
public, the channels of trade and classes of customers overlap. This overlap weighs in
favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion, under the third DuPont factor. In re
Wilson, 57 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 2001).
Additionally, as set forth above, Applicant’s t-shirts and hoodies in Class 25 are
related to the services of Applicant and Registrant. The evidence shows a commercial
practice of offering apparel with the restaurant name for sale to restaurant
customers. Therefore, while they may travel in separate trades of channel for apparel,
we find Applicant’s t-shirts and hoodies also travel in the same trade channels to the
same classes of customers as the registered restaurant services.
Accordingly, the DuPont factor relating to channels of trade and classes of
customers favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Conditions Under Which and Buyers to Whom Sales are Made, i.e.,
“Impulse” vs. Careful, Sophisticated Purchasing
Applicant argues that the relevant purchasers, i.e., customers of restaurant
services, are sophisticated and careful purchasers. Sophistication under the fourth
DuPont factor is important because sophisticated purchasers may be expected to
exercise greater care avoiding a likelihood of confusion. See Elec. Design & Sales Inc.
v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 954 F.2d 713, 21 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Serial No. 87931059

- 17 -
Applicant contends that “consumers choose where to dine based largely on
Internet search results, and consideration of the type of food the consumer wants to
consume (e.g. Mexican Food, Pizza-Italian or Chinese cuisine) and not by brand.”44
Based on the evidence it submits, Applicant concludes that “a consumer looking for
pizza or other Italian themed cuisine is unlikely to consider dining at Guido’s
Burritos, which clearly evokes Mexican themed cuisine.”45 Even assuming that
consumers rely on Internet search results and consideration of the type of food served
in selecting a restaurant, this misses the point. The ultimate issue that must be
decided is not whether customers can differentiate Registrant’s restaurant services
from Applicant’s Mexican restaurant services, but rather whether consumers are
likely to be confused as to the source of the services, or as to an affiliation, connection
or sponsorship of them when the services are offered in connection with Applicant’s
mark and the registered mark. See Hilson Rsch. Inc. v. Soc. for Human Resource
Mgmt., 27 USPQ2d 1423, 1429 (TTAB 1993). Thus, it is not necessary that the
services and goods be similar or even competitive to support a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
The confusion which the Trademark Act is concerned with is not only that a
customer would mistakenly choose Applicant’s or Registrant’s restaurant but also
whether such a customer, familiar with Registrant’s restaurant would believe that
Applicant’s Mexican restaurant was yet another restaurant emanating from

44 Applicant’s Appeal Brief pp. 14-15 (9 TTABVUE 19-20).
45 Applicant’ Appeal Brief p. 16 (9 TTABVUE 21).
Serial No. 87931059

- 18 -
Registrant (or vice versa), or that the two restaurants were somehow associated with
the same source. In re Uncle Sam Chem. Co., 229 USPQ 233, 235 (TTAB 1986). See
also Hard Rock Café Licensing Corp. v. Elsea, 48 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (TTAB 1998)
(“While ordinary consumers can be said to choose their restaurants with a certain
degree of care based on their own experience and the recommendations of others, we
do not find this fact to warrant the conclusion, with respect to likelihood of confusion,
that consumers exercise a high degree of discrimination or sophistication with regard
to their decision to patronize certain eating establishments.”).
The class of restaurant patrons and t-shirt (and hoodie) purchasers is
unquestionably large, including the vast majority of adults. Despite the fact that
some of these customers may be “sophisticated,” many undoubtedly are not. Our
decision must be based on the least sophisticated customers in that relevant group.
Stone Lion v. Lion Capital, 110 USPQ2d at 1163 (“Although the services recited in
the application also encompass sophisticated investors, Board precedent requires the
decision to be based ‘on the least sophisticated potential purchasers.’”). Inasmuch as
there is no evidence to suggest that customers of the relevant restaurant services and
t-shirts (and hoodies) are any more sophisticated than customers of any other retail
services and goods, the customers are ordinary average consumers who are likely to
be confused by similar marks used in connection with services that are, in part,
legally identical. In re Research & Trading Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 230 USPQ 49, 50
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (“That the relevant class of buyers may exercise care does not
Serial No. 87931059

- 19 -
necessarily impose on that class the responsibility of distinguishing between similar
trademarks for similar goods.”).
Even if some of the relevant customers of the compared restaurant and Mexican
restaurant services are sophisticated and discriminating about restaurants does not
necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of
trademarks or immune from source confusion. Being knowledgeable or sophisticated
in a particular field does not necessarily endow one with knowledge and
sophistication in connection with the use of trademarks. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992
F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (indicating that “even
sophisticated purchasers can be confused by very similar marks”); Top Tobacco, LP
v. N. Atl. Operating Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1170 (TTAB 2011) (even consumers who
exercise a higher degree of care are not necessarily knowledgeable regarding the
trademarks at issue, and therefore immune from source confusion); In re Decombe, 9
USPQ2d 1812, 1814-15 (TTAB 1988).
In view of the overlapping identification of services and the presumption that the
services are offered to the same customers, which are not necessarily sophisticated,
this factor supports a likelihood of confusion.
Similarity of the Marks
It is well settled that marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. Stone Lion v. Lion
Capital, 110 USPQ2d at 1160 (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir.
Serial No. 87931059

- 20 -
2005)); In re Viterra, 101 USPQ2d at 1908. When the goods or services are identical
or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks necessary to support
a determination that confusion is likely declines. See Bridgestone Americas Tire
Operations, LLC v. Fed. Corp., 673 F.3d 1330, 102 USPQ2d 1061, 1064 (Fed. Cir.
2012); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1248 (TTAB 2010).
The term “GUIDO’S” forms the dominant impression of both marks. It is
presented as the first term in Applicant’s mark GUIDO’S BURRITOS and the only
term in Registrant’s mark GUIDO’S, resulting in marks that are similar in sound
and sight. It is significant that Applicant’s mark begins with the same word as the
registered mark. In such cases, similarity has often been found because consumers
are generally more inclined to focus on the first word in any trademark or service
mark, which in this case is identical. See also In re Detroit Athletic, 128 USPQ2d at
1049 (finding “[t]he identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant
because consumers typically notice those words first”); China Healthways Inst., Inc.
v. Wang, 491 F.3d 1337, 83 USPQ2d 1123, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (the shared word in
CHI and CHI PLUS is likely to cause confusion despite differences in the marks’
designs); Palm Bay Imps. v. Veuve Clicquot, 73 USPQ2d at 1692 (the presence of the
strong distinctive term VEUVE as the first word in both parties’ marks renders the
marks similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Memphis, Tennessee, Inc. v. Joseph E.
Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (CCPA 1975) (BENGAL
LANCER for non-alcoholic club soda, quinine water and ginger ale similar to
BENGAL for gin); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016)
Serial No. 87931059

- 21 -
(finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9
USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (MACHO COMBO likely to cause confusion with
registered MACHO mark); In re Denisi, 225 USPQ at 626 (PERRY’S PIZZA for
restaurant services specializing in pizza and PERRY’S for restaurant and bar
services); Johnson Pub’g Co. v. Int’l Dev. Ltd., 221 USPQ 155, 156 (TTAB 1982)
(EBONY for cosmetics and EBONY DRUM for hairdressing and conditioner); In re
South Bend Toy Mfg. Co., 218 USPQ 479, 480 (TTAB 1983) (LIL’ LADY BUG for toy
doll carriages and LITTLE LADY for doll clothing).
Applicant contends that word “BURRITOS” in its mark is not descriptive of its
goods and services but rather is suggestive of the type of food a consumer might
purchase and distinguishes its mark from the Registrant’s mark. While we agree with
Applicant that suggestive marks imply or suggest, but do not explicitly describe,
qualities or functions of a particular product or service, the term “BURRITOS” in
Applicant’s mark is not suggestive; it describes the type of food served at its
restaurant, i.e., burritos and related products.46 See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823
F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding CHURRASCOS generic
for a class of restaurants that serve churrascos (grilled meat)). Thus, the word
“BURRITOS” in Applicant’s mark is at least descriptive of Applicant’s identified

46 See Applicant’s menu offering “BURRITOS” as well as “GUIDO’S BURRITO” and other
related Mexican menu items. January 10, 2019, Response to Office Action, p. 3 and Exhibit
3, TSDR 12, 48-49; also a news article titled History and Origins of Burritos identifying them
as “the lauded Mexican fast food item.” July 24, 2019 Request for Reconsideration,
https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2018/04/history-origin-burritos, TSDR 634.
Serial No. 87931059

- 22 -
services, and has been appropriately disclaimed by Applicant.47 It is well-settled that
disclaimed, descriptive matter may have less significance in likelihood of confusion
determinations. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d
1842, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ
749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Regarding descriptive terms, this court has noted that the
descriptive component of a mark may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion
on the likelihood of confusion”)); In re Dixie Rests., 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34 (“DELTA,”
not the disclaimed generic term “CAFE,” is the dominant portion of the mark THE
DELTA CAFE); In re Code Consultants, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (TTAB 2001)
(disclaimed matter is often “less significant in creating the mark’s commercial
impression”).
Inasmuch as the word “BURRITOS” in Applicant’s mark is at least merely
descriptive of menu items offered for sale and served in its restaurant, the dominant
first element in Applicant’s mark is identical to the distinctive term “GUIDO’S” in
Registrant’s mark. See In re Viterra, 101 USPQ2d at 1908 (the court may place more
weight on a dominant portion of a mark, for example if another feature of the mark
is descriptive or generic standing alone, however, the ultimate conclusion nonetheless
must rest on consideration of the marks in total). There is nothing improper in stating
that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature
of a mark, such as a common dominant element, provided the ultimate conclusion

47 See September 13, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 3; and January 10, 2019 Response to Office
Action, TSDR 9.
Serial No. 87931059

- 23 -
rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties. In re Nat’l Data, 224 USPQ
at 751. The difference in the marks due to the inclusion of the descriptive word
“BURRITOS” following “GUIDO’S” in Applicant’s mark, is not sufficient to
distinguish them. Because Applicant’s mark begins with identical wording to that
found in the registered mark and does not contain additional wording that
distinguishes it from Registrant’s mark, the marks look and sound alike, and the
commercial impression of the marks is very similar.48
Applicant contends that its mark “is strikingly dissimilar combining GUIDO’S
with BURRITOS and with prominent design elements consisting of two horns and
crowns mirrored to each other.” Applicant maintains that the “overall commercial
impression of [its] mark is dominated by its design features (bull horns and crowns),
and weigh[s] heavily against a conclusion that confusion is likely based solely on the
overlap of the term ‘GUIDO’S,’” citing In re Covalinski, 113 USPQ2d 1166 (TTAB
2014). In re Covalinski involved the mark which is very different
from Applicant’s mark because the letters RR rather than the wording in the mark
was found to be the dominant portion of the mark.49

48 In its Request for Reconsideration, Applicant argues that the term “GUIDO’S” in its mark
is juxtaposed with the term “BURRITOS” lending a sing-song or rhyming quality to the literal
portion of its mark which is absent from Registrant’s single word mark. Request for
Reconsideration at TSDR, 324 of 7268. Even if the term “BURRITOS” does lend a sing-song
or rhyming quality to the literal portion of Applicant’s mark, that alone does diminish the
identical similarity in sound between Registrant’s mark and Applicant’s mark particularly
in light of the descriptiveness of BURRITO.
49 Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 3 (9 TTABVUE 8).
Serial No. 87931059

- 24 -
Here, the wording in Applicant’s mark and particularly the
first word “GUIDO’S,” is the dominant portion of the mark appearing in the largest
font, with the decorative bull horns and crown design located underneath “GUIDO’S”
and above the second descriptive word “BURRITOS.” Contrary to Applicant’s
contention, the bull horns and crowns are not the dominant portion of its mark as
customers seeing Applicant’s mark would readily recognize the wording GUIDO’S
BURRITOS and use it to identify Applicant’s restaurant services and other goods.
The addition of a design element in Applicant’s mark does not obviate the fact that
Applicant’s mark incorporates Registrant’s mark as its first and most significant
element. The horn-and-crown design element is visually subordinate to the larger
and more prominent wording. Thus, the term “GUIDO’S” dominates the commercial
impression of Applicant’s mark and renders it similar to Registrant’s mark. See In re
Max Capital, 93 USPQ2d at 1248 (holding applicant’s MAX with pillar design mark,
and registrant’s MAX mark likely to cause confusion, noting that the “addition of a
column design to the cited mark ... is not sufficient to convey that [the] marks ...
identify different sources for legally identical insurance services”).
Applicant’s reliance on In re White Rock Distilleries, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1282 (TTAB
2009) is misplaced.50 In White Rock, the applicant’s mark VOLTA and the cited

50 Applicant’s Appeal Brief pp. 4-5 (9 TTABVUE 9-10).
Serial No. 87931059

- 25 -
registrant’s mark were used on unrelated alcoholic beverages and were not
found to be similar in appearance. Additionally, White Rock’s citation of Fossil Inc. v.
Fossil Grp., 49 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (TTAB 1998), quoted by Applicant at p. 5 of its
Brief, simply reiterates that an opposer’s rights in its registered mark affords opposer
a scope of protection which encompasses “all reasonable” manners in which the
opposer’s mark could be depicted, but it does not afford opposer rights in the mark
combined with other wording or with designs.51 In re White Rock, 92 USPQ2d at 1284.
However, the Federal Circuit subsequently noted that the “reasonable manners” in
which a mark could be depicted “is ambiguous and unduly narrow” and “limits the
range of marks considered in the DuPont analysis.” Citigroup v. Capital City Bank,
98 USPQ2d at 1259. While rights in a term are not automatically extended to include
protection for that term combined with other matter such as a design element or
additional wording, White Rock and Fossil did not say that such marks could not be
found similar when considered in their entireties.
In evaluating similarities of marks, if one of the marks comprises both a word
portion and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in
determining whether the marks are similar because it would be more likely to be
impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and used by purchasers to request the

51 Applicant’s Appeal Brief pp. 4-5 (9 TTABVUE 9-10).
Serial No. 87931059

- 26 -
services. CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In
re Kysela Pere et Fils Ltd., 98 USPQ2d 1261, 1267-68 (TTAB 2011); In re Dakin’s
Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999). Moreover, because restaurants
are often recommended by word of mouth and referred to orally the word portion of a
composite word and design mark is generally accorded greater weight. See In re Dixie
Rests., 41 USPQ2d at 1534; In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554
(TTAB 1987). Thus, customers will likely use the wording of Applicant’s GUIDO’S
BURRITOS mark in describing and requesting its services. In re Viterra, 101
USPQ2d at 1908 (“In 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not agree with Applicant’s contention that the Examining Attorney
“considered the ‘GUIDO’ overlap, and disregarded all other elements of the
Applicant’s mark that make it dissimilar to the Cited Registration,” and more
importantly, we do not ignore any element of the marks in reaching our decision. Nor
do we agree that the refusal is contrary to the inter partes decisions in Jack Wolfskin
Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KDAA v. Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d
1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Steve’s Ice Cream v. Steve’s
Famous Hot Dogs, 3 USPQ2d 1477, 1478-79 (TTAB 1978), which Applicant argues
that “in [those] cases, as here, more weight may be accorded to a more distinctive
element in the mark.”52

52 Applicant’s Appeal Brief pp. 5-6 (9 TTABVUE 10-11).
Serial No. 87931059

- 27 -
In Jack Wolfskin, the Federal Circuit noted that “the Board essentially
disregarded the verbal portion of [opposer’s] mark [ ] and found that the
two paw print designs [in applicant’s mark versus opposer’s ] were
substantially similar. This analysis did not consider the marks as a whole.” 116
USPQ2d at 1135. Here, we address both marks as a whole in finding them similar.
In Steve’s Ice Cream v. Steve’s Famous Hot Dogs, the Board found that the
applicant’s mark , and opposer’s mark STEVE’S, when considered in
their entireties, were readily distinguishable as applicant’s mark is extremely
suggestive of the fact that applicant’s restaurants feature hot dogs, and opposer’s ice
cream sold under its mark differed from applicant’s restaurant services rendered
under its mark, such that prospective purchasers would not be confused. A significant
difference in this case is that here, unlike in Steve’s Ice Cream, Applicant’s and
Registrant’s services are identical.
Lastly, Applicant argues that its composite mark will have a greater visual impact
and therefore, a greater commercial impression on consumers than Registrant’s
standard character mark.53 In support, Applicant cites articles from Forbes
Magazine, Digital Marketing and the treatise Brain Rules, noting the migration away
from text toward the use of images in electronic media, marketing and

53 Applicant’s Appeal Brief pp. 8-10 (9 TTABVUE 13-15).
Serial No. 87931059

- 28 -
presentations.54 While the importance or significance of the use of images may be
changing, Applicant offers no evidence or explanation of how the “greater visual
impact and greater commercial impression” of images will result in avoiding a
likelihood of confusion between its mark and the cited mark which include partially
identical textual portions.
Thus, viewing Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks as a whole, they are similar in
appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression.
Strength of Cited Mark
Under the sixth DuPont factor, “extensive evidence of third-party use and
registrations is ‘powerful on its face, even where the specific extent and impact of the
usage has not been established.” Jack Wolfskin v. New Millennium Sports, 116
USPQ2d at 1136 (quoting Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334,
115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Use evidence may reflect commercial weakness, while third-party registration
evidence, which does not equate to proof of third-party use, may bear on conceptual
weakness if a term is commonly registered for similar goods or services. Applicant

54 See July 24, 2019 Request for Reconsideration, Exhibit 7, The Shift From Words To
Pictures And Implications For Digital Marketers, by Apu Gupta, July 2, 2013,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2013/07/02/the-shift-from-words-to-pictures-and-
implications-for-digital-marketers/#76c54ac5405a, TSDR 661-664; Exhibit 8 (Digital
Marketing, Visual Marketing: A Picture’s Worth 60,000 Words, Cresset Wealth Advisors,
Ritu Pant, January 16, 2015, https://www.business2community.com/digital-marketing/vis
ual-marketingpictures-worth-60000-words-01126256), TSDR 665-669; Exhibit 9 (Brain
Rules, 9. Vision, John Medina, Pear Press, 2014, pp. 191-197), TSDR 670-677.
Serial No. 87931059

- 29 -
argues that “GUIDO” is a weak term, noting third-party registrations as well as its
evidence offered in support of third-party uses.
Three registrations for marks containing the term “GUIDO” for restaurant
services and clothing items are in the record55:
Registration No. Mark Goods or Services
3954823 GUIDO LOMBARDI Belts; Coats; Dresses;
Hats; Hosiery; Jackets;
Lingerie; Pants; Scarves;
Socks; Ties; Tops;
Wearable garments and
clothing, namely, shirts;
Wraps in Int’l Class 25
4762316

Bandanas; berets; short-
sleeve shirts; hats; knitted
caps; pullovers; etc. (and
other goods in Int’l Class
25, and in Classes 9 and
16)
5075721

Cafes; restaurants; fast-
food restaurants and
snackbars; self-service
restaurants; food

55 Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 8 (9 TTABVUE 13) and July 24, 2019 Request for
Reconsideration, TSDR 326-27, reciting Registrations cited by the Examining Attorney
including Registration Nos. 3954823 and 4762316 both registered for clothing items. See
January 30, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 2, 12-16, 20-22; see also Exhibit 1 to July 24,
2019 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 344, 354-358, 362-364. Registration No. 5075721
was also cited in the January 30, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 2, 17-19; see also Exhibit
1 to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 344, 359-361.
Also cited were Registration Nos. 2262534 for the mark GA GUIDO ANGELONI & Design,
and 4200550 for the mark SG GUIDO SGARIGLIA & Design (cited by the Examining
Attorney in the January 30, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 2, 5-7, 9-11; see also Exhibit 1
to Request for Reconsideration 347-349, 351-353) which have been cancelled. It is well-
established that an expired or cancelled registration is evidence of nothing but the fact that
it once issued. Action Temp. Servs. v. Labor Force, 10 USPQ2d at 1309 (“[A] cancelled
registration does not provide constructive notice of anything”); Sunnen Prods. v. Sunex Int’l,
1 USPQ2d at 1747 (expired registration has no probative valve other than for what it shows
on its face, i.e., that the registration issued). Accordingly, we give those registrations no
consideration.
Serial No. 87931059

- 30 -
preparation services;
providing temporary
accommodation in Int’l
Class 43 (and other food
and beverage items in
Classes 29, 30 and 33)

All that these third-party registrations demonstrate is that their owners believe
the marks including the terms “Guido” or “Guido-” are appropriate for a trademark
for restaurant services, food items and clothing. “The question still remains whether
[Applicant’s and Registrant’s] marks viewed as a whole are confusingly similar. The
existence of third-party registrations of similar marks has very little weight on this
question.” Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406, 407
(CCPA 1967). These Registrations are entitled to little, if any, weight given the
differences in the manner of use of “GUIDO” in the marks which contain additional,
non-descriptive surnames rendering a different commercial impression from
Registrant’s mark that does not support the weakness of Registrant’s mark
“GUIDO’S.” More importantly, the existence of these Registrations is not evidence of
what happens in the marketplace or that customers are familiar with the use of those
marks. 153 USPQ 407.
Applicant submits evidence of third-party uses consisting of internet search
results conducted on the Bing and Google search engines for “guido restaurant,” and
a Dun & Bradstreet search of business names that contain the term “Guido” in the
restaurant services industry. Applicant contends this evidence shows the extensive
Serial No. 87931059

- 31 -
use of the term “Guido” in the restaurant services industry, frequently associated
with Italian foods, i.e., pizza, pasta, etc.56
Looking more closely at the listings, some of them identify restaurants located
outside of the United States which are not relevant. Other listings do not appear to
be for restaurants, for example, Guidos Italian Deli, Guido’s Fresh Marketplace
selling organic fresh food, Guido’s Chicago Meat & Deli, Guido Fenu obituary, and
are also not relevant.57 Although some of the listings do not identify relevant “Guido”
restaurants, and some of the listings are duplicate listings for the same restaurants,
the search results identify at least a few dozen restaurants featuring Italian food with
GUIDO in the name, a sufficient number to warrant consideration.58

56 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 6, 19-20 (9 TTABVUE 11, 24-25) regarding the Bing, Google
and Dun & Bradstreet internet searches, citing to Affidavit of Edmundo Bulacio, an
“Administrative Assistant at The Business Law Center of the Palm Beaches, for Attorney
Jay Eckhaus, Applicant’s attorney of record,” with supporting Exhibits A-D (TSDR 719-828)
submitted with the July 24, 2019 Request for Reconsideration (see TSDR 325-326).
Applicant contends that its Bing search for “Guido Restaurant” (Exhibit A, TSDR 726-745)
listed more than 140 search results related to restaurant businesses that use the term
“Guido” on the first 10 pages of search results including Registrant’s GUIDO’S restaurant;
the Google search results for “Guido Restaurant” (Exhibit B, TSDR 746-765) resulted in more
than 100 listings for restaurant related businesses using “Guido” on the first 10 pages of
search results including Registrant’s GUIDO’S restaurant; the Dun & Bradstreet search
results (Exhibits C-D, TSDR 766-828) identified 85 companies using “Guido” in the
restaurant services industry in the United States, with “13 restaurants are related to the
Registrant and of these 13, 2 are closed and 5 are listed more than once as having common
addresses.” See Request for Reconsideration at fn.2 (at TSDR 325) and Affidavit of Edmundo
Bulacio ¶¶ 4-6, TSDR 719-720.
57 Id. TSDR at 469, 470, 482, 484, 485.
58 For example, the first page of the Bing search results contains two listings for restaurants
located outside of the U.S.; another listing for Gaido’s Seafood Restaurant; three listings that
do not identify the city where the Guido’s restaurant is located; and two others that do not
identify any restaurants. Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 726. However, the Bing and
Google search results identified “Guido’s” restaurants located in: Anchorage, AK; Daphne
and Mobile, AL; Prescott and Scottsdale, AZ; Boise, ID; Middlefield, CT; Champaign, IL;
Annapolis and Ocean City, MD; Norfolk and Walpole, MA; St. Louis, MO; Camden, NJ;
Serial No. 87931059

- 32 -
Evidence in the form of listings and advertisements, such as in yellow and white
page phone book listings, triggers a presumption that a third-party service mark is
in fact in use by third-parties, possibly making a registrant’s mark weak. Lloyd’s Food
Prods., Inc. v. Eli’s, Inc., 987 F.2d 766, 25 USPQ2d 2027, 2029 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(showing that the mark appears in advertising, in the form of current listings in the
yellow and white pages, carries the presumption that the service mark is being used
by third-parties in connection with the offering of the advertised services). See also
In re Broadway Chicken, Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1559 (TTAB 1996) (Under the Lloyd’s rule,
evidence of hundreds of yellow and white pages listings of a restaurant name
containing the word BROADWAY, almost 600 similar entries from the American
Business Directory, and more than 500 similar entries from the Dun & Bradstreet
database are together sufficient to establish that a significant number of persons are
using names and marks containing the word “Broadway” for restaurant services and
related goods. This makes the cited registration of BROADWAY PIZZA weak and no
obstacle to the registration of BROADWAY CHICKEN for restaurant services.);
Steve’s Ice Cream v. Steve’s Famous Hot Dogs, 3 USPQ2d at 1479 (numerous third-
party uses [of STEVE’S] demonstrate that the purchasing public has become
conditioned to recognize that many businesses in the restaurant and food store fields
use the term … and that this purchasing public is able to distinguish between these
businesses based on small distinctions among the marks). While the evidence

Houston, TX; Byron, WI; as well as several locations in California, Florida, Michigan and
Ohio; some of which identify Applicant’s and Registrant’s restaurants.
Serial No. 87931059

- 33 -
Applicant submits is not the same as telephone phone book listings, it is somewhat
similar in nature.
Citing to Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta Int’l, Inc. v. Anthony’s Pizza Holding Co., 95
USPQ2d 1271 (TTAB 2009) (testimony, third-party registrations, and telephone
listings are sufficient to show “Anthony’s” has been extensively adopted, registered
and used as a trademark for restaurant services; thus, mark comprising, in whole or
in part, the name ‘Anthony’s’ for restaurant services given a restricted scope of
protection), aff’d, 415 F. App’x 222 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Applicant argues that the
evidence submitted calls for the cited Registration to be given a restricted scope of
protection.59 As Applicant explains in its Brief:
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.’” Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v.
Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396
F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (cite omitted). Third-party
use is “relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and
entitled to only a narrow scope of protection.” Id. at 1373.
Omaha Steaks Int’l v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908
F.3d 1315, 128 USPQ2d 1686, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2018).60
“The weaker [Registrant’s] mark, the closer [Applicant’s] mark can come without
causing a likelihood of confusion and thereby invading what amounts to its
comparatively narrower range of protection.” Juice Generation v. GS Enters., 115
USPQ2d at 1674. Evidence of third-party use of similar marks on similar goods “can

59 Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 8 (9 TTABVUE 13).
60 Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 19 (9 TTABVUE 24) (citation revised).
Serial No. 87931059

- 34 -
show that customers have been educated to distinguish between different marks on
the basis of minute distinctions.” Jack Wolfskin v. New Millennium Sports, 116
USPQ2d at 1136 (citing Palm Bay Imps. v. Veuve Clicquot, 73 USPQ2d at 1693
(“Evidence of third-party use of similar marks on similar goods is relevant to show
that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection.”)).
Although Applicant’s evidence does not show the actual use of “GUIDO” by the
restaurants, it reveals numerous listings for restaurants containing the name
“Guido” as the first word in the restaurant name without any other distinctive
wording.61 Overall, the evidence submitted supports that a mark comprising, in whole
or in part, the word “GUIDO” in connection with Italian restaurant services should
be given a limited scope of protection. Registrant’s mark GUIDO is not entitled a
broad scope of protection that would bar the registration of every mark comprising,
in whole or in part, the word “Guido;” it will only bar the registration of marks “as to
which the resemblance to [Registrant’s mark] is striking enough to cause one seeing
it to assume that there is some connection, association or sponsorship between the
two.” Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta v. Anthony’s Pizza, 95 USPQ2d at 1278 (quoting Pizza
Inn, Inc. v. Russo, 221 USPQ 281, 283 (TTAB1983)); Primrose Retirement
Communities, LLC v. Edward Rose Senior Living, LLC, 122 USPQ2d 1030, 1036-37
(TTAB 2016).

61 Some of the listings show names that include “Guido” but are easily distinguished,
including for example, Frank Guido’s Little Italy, Café Guido & The Book Nook coffee house,
Charcoal Guido’s, Little Guido’s Pizza, and Guido and Vito’s Italian restaurant, and thus are
not relevant. See Request for Reconsideration, Exhibit 7 from Bing (TSDR 467-476) and
Exhibit 8 from Google (TSDR 477-486).
Serial No. 87931059

- 35 -
While Registrant’s mark is weak, it is well recognized that marks deemed “weak”
are still entitled to protection under § 2(d) against the registration by a subsequent
user of a similar mark for closely related goods or services. See King Candy Co. v.
Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (CCPA 1974);
Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta v. Anthony’s Pizza, 95 USPQ2d at 1283; In re FabFitFun,
Inc., 127 USPQ2d 1670, 1676 (TTAB 2018) (citing China Healthways v. Wang, 83
USPQ2d at 1125); In re Max Capital, 93 USPQ2d at 1246.
On this record, Registrant’s mark GUIDO’S is not so weak as to permit the
registration of a very similar mark, GUIDO’S BURRITOS, that shares the identical
first word “GUIDO’S” for use on legally identical services and related goods that
travel in the same trade channels to the same customers. Thus, the evidence of third-
party use under the sixth DuPont factor is neutral.
Conclusion
Based on the record, we find the marks, which begin with the same key first word,
are similar in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression and
inasmuch as the services are legally identical and the goods set forth in Applicant’s
application are related, they travel through the same trade channels and are
purchased by the same classes of customers. Further, although the cited registered
mark is weak, such weakness does not render confusion unlikely because even weak
marks are entitled to protection against registration of similar marks for identical
services and related goods if confusion is likely.
Serial No. 87931059

- 36 -
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark GUIDO’S BURRITOS under
§ 2(d) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.