Industrias AS, S.A. de C.V.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 20, 1999

No. 75114705 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 1999)

Paper No. 14
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB AUG. 20 ,99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Industrias AS, S.A. de C.V.
________
Serial No. 75/114,705
_______
Stephen J. Nataupsky of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
for Industrias AS, S.A. de C.V.
Martha Santomartino, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 112 (Janice O’Lear, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Hanak and Hairston, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Industrias AS, S.A. de C.V. has filed an application
to register the mark LOGIC for “non-metal folding doors” in
class 19; and “window coverings, namely, horizontal blinds
and parts therefor, modular cabinets and shelves and parts
therefor” in class 20.1
Ser No. 75/114,705
2
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the
ground that applicant’s mark, when applied to modular
cabients and shelves and parts therefor2, so resembles each
of the following marks, which are registered to different
entities, as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or
deception:
LOGIC SEATING (SEATING is disclaimed) for
“furniture; namely, chairs for residential,
commercial, and industrial use”;3
CASE LOGIC (CASE is disclaimed) for, in
relevant part, “furniture; namely,
non-metal cabinets and shelves”;4 and
LOGIX for “modular seating; namely,
seats”.5

1 Application Serial No. 75/114,705 filed June 5, 1996, based
upon applicant’s bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
2 We note that the Examining Attorney did not make a refusal with
respect to the goods in class 19, i.e., non-metal folding doors.
Thus, at the very least, the application will issue for the goods
in class 19.
3 Registration No. 1,665,473 issued November 19, 1991; Section 8
affidavit filed.
4 Registration No. 1,988,078 issued July 23, 1996. While this
registration covers other items such as cases for audio and video
cassettes, the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register is based
on a likelihood of confusion with the identified goods.
5 Registration No. 2,010,658 issued October 22, 1996.
Ser No. 75/114,705
3
Applicant has appealed. Briefs have been filed6, but
an oral hearing was not requested.
We turn first to the question of likelihood of
confusion vis-à-vis the registration for LOGIC SEATING,
since this is the most pertinent of the cited
registrations.
Turning first to the marks, we agree with the
Examining Attorney that, when compared in their entireties,
applicant’s and registrant’s marks are very similar. In
considering the marks, we recognize that the disclaimed
portion of registrant’s mark cannot be ignored. Giant
Food, Inc. v. National Food Service, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565,
218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, there is nothing
improper in giving more weight, for rational reasons, to a
particular feature of a mark. Here, we have given more
weight to the LOGIC portion of registrant’s mark because of

6 We note that applicant, in its brief, listed several third-
party registrations for marks which include the word “Logic.” As
correctly noted by the Examining Attorney, the submission of a
mere list of third-party registrations is insufficient to make
them properly of record. Copies of the third-party registrations
themselves, or the electronic equivalent thereof, that is,
printouts of the registrations from the electronic records of the
PTO’s trademark automated search system, must be furnished.
Also, evidence submitted for the first time with a brief on
appeal is generally considered by the Board to be untimely and
will be given no consideration. Thus, in reaching our decision
herein, we have given no consideration to the third-party
registrations listed in applicant’s brief.
Ser No. 75/114,705
4
the descriptive (if not generic) nature of the word SEATING
in registrant’s mark. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d
1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the LOGIC
portion of registrant’s mark that purchasers are most
likely to remember.
Turning next to the goods, it is essentially
applicant’s position that the goods are dissimilar and that
purchasers would not confuse chairs, on the one hand, with
cabinets and shelves, on the other hand. The inquiry is
not whether purchasers would confuse cabinets and shelves
with chairs, but rather whether these kinds of goods might
be assumed to originate from a single source. We note that
it is not necessary that goods be identical or even
competitive in nature in order to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion. It is sufficient that the goods
are related in some manner and/or that the circumstances
surrounding their marketing are such that they would be
likely to be encountered by the same persons under
circumstances that would give rise, because of the marks
used in connection therewith, to the mistaken belief that
the goods originated from or are in some way associated
with the same source. In re International Telephone &
Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).
Ser No. 75/114,705
5
In this case, in the absence of any limitations in
applicant’s application, we must presume that applicant’s
modular cabinets and shelves travel in the same channels of
trade as registrant’s chairs for residential use, e.g.,
furniture stores and the like, to the same class of
purchasers, namely, ordinary consumers. Further, these
kinds of home furnishings may be displayed together in
model room settings. Because such goods are purchased not
only for functional, but decorative purposes, they are
often coordinated for a particular look.
We find, therefore, that the respective goods are
sufficiently related that purchasers familiar with
registrant’s chairs for residential use, in particular,
offered under the mark LOGIC SEATING, would be likely to
believe, upon encountering LOGIC modular cabinets and
shelves, that the goods originated from the same source.
See e.g., Drexel Enterprises, Inc. v H. J. Scheirich
Company, 167 USPQ 125 (TTAB 1970) [Use of identical mark
HERMITAGE for kitchen cabinets and furniture is likely to
cause confusion]. In this case, purchasers may well assume
that registrant has extended its line to include modular
cabinets and shelves.
In reaching our decision, we have not overlooked
applicant’s argument that the existence of the three cited
Ser No. 75/114,705
6
registrations for marks which include the term LOGIC or a
variation thereof for various furniture items indicates
that consumers will be able to differentiate between the
sources. Third-party registrations by themselves are
entitled to little weight on the question of likelihood of
confusion. See In re Hub Distributing, Inc., 218 USPQ 284,
285 (TTAB 1983). This is because third-party registrations
are not evidence of what happens in the marketplace or that
the public is familiar with the marks which are the subject
of the registrations. See National Aeronautics & Space
Administration v. Record Chemical Co., Inc., 185 USPQ 562,
567 (TTAB 1975).
In view of our decision herein, we need not reach the
question of likelihood of confusion vis-à-vis applicant’s
LOGIC mark and the other two cited marks.
Ser No. 75/114,705
7
Decision: The refusal to register the goods in class
20 with respect to Registration No. 1,665,473 is affirmed.
As previously indicated, the application will issue for the
goods in class 19.
R. L. Simms
E. W. Hanak
P. T. Hairston
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/114,705
8