Liberty Hardware Mfg. Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2009

No. 77141134 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2009)

Mailed:
March 31, 2009
Bucher

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Liberty Hardware Mfg. Corp.
________

Serial No. 77141134
_______

Edgar A. Zarins of Masco Corporation for Liberty Hardware
Mfg. Corp.

Kim T. Moninghoff, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
113 (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Bucher and Ritchie, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Liberty Hardware Mfg. Corp. seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark ARTESIA (in standard character
format) for goods identified in the application, as amended,
as “metal hardware namely knobs and pulls for cabinetry”1 in
International Class 6.
This case is now before the Board on appeal from the
final refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to
register this designation based upon Section 2(d) of the

1 Application Serial No. 77141134 was filed on March 27, 2007
based upon applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention to use
the mark in commerce.

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 77141134
- 2 -
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). The Trademark Examining
Attorney has found that applicant’s mark, when used in
connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark
ARTESIAN (in standard character format) for, inter alia,
“drapery hardware, namely rods, end caps, clips, rings,
brackets and finials”2 in International Class 20, as to be
likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive.
The Trademark Examining Attorney and applicant have
filed briefs in the case.
We affirm the refusal to register.
In arguing for registrability, applicant argues that
the marks are not identical, the goods are dissimilar and
they will move in different channels of trade.
By contrast, the Trademark Examining Attorney contends
that the marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation
and commercial impression, and that the goods are related
and will move through the same channels of trade to the
same classes of ordinary purchasers.
Likelihood of Confusion
We turn then to a consideration of the issue of
likelihood of confusion. Our determination of likelihood of

2 Registration No. 3243618 issued to Cassidy West, Inc. on
May 22, 2007.
Serial No. 77141134
- 3 -
confusion is based upon our analysis of all of the probative
facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing
on this issue. See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also, In re
Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2003); and In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d
1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In any likelihood of
confusion analysis, however, two key, although not
exclusive, considerations are the similarities between the
marks and the relationship between the goods and/or
services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper
Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
The similarities in the marks
We turn to the du Pont factor focusing on the
similarities or dissimilarities in the appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression of the respective
marks. Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692
(Fed. Cir. 2005).
Applicant argues that the marks are not identical, but
concedes they are similar, and has presented no evidence to
overcome the similarity of the marks. In any case, we find
that they are quite similar as to sound and appearance.
Serial No. 77141134
- 4 -
Both marks have three syllables. All seven letters of
applicant’s mark are contained within registrant’s mark.
Effectively, applicant has taken registrant’s mark and
removed the eighth and final letter “N.” This one letter
difference in appearance is minor and may not be noticed by
many consumers. See Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates
Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [TMS
and TMM found to look and sound alike and to create
likelihood of confusion even among discriminating purchasers
of expensive software systems].
As to connotation, consumers would likely perceive
applicant’s mark, “Artesia,” as having a similar
connotation to the registered mark, “Artesian.” The
suggestion in both cases is to water in underground sources
such as aquifers and wells. To the extent there are
arguable differences in connotations, we still would find
them similar, for likelihood of confusion purposes, because
of their nearly identical appearance and pronunciation. See
Weiss Associates, 14 USPQ2d at 1842, and Spoons Restaurants,
Inc. v. Morrison, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735 (TTAB 1991), aff’d.
No. 92-1086 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 1992) [likelihood of
confusion found when marks looked and sounded alike, even
though they arguably might have different connotations, in
part because of fallibility of customer memory].
Serial No. 77141134
- 5 -
The strong similarity in appearance and pronunciation
also supports a finding that the marks will create similar
commercial impressions.
Accordingly, the similarity of the marks, when compared
in their entireties, is a du Pont factor that favors the
position of the Trademark Examining Attorney that there is
likelihood of confusion herein.
Relationship of the Goods
Much of applicant’s brief is devoted to the argument
that these goods are dissimilar:
Applicant’s goods are cabinet hardware —
pulls and knobs designed to be mounted to the
drawers and doors of cabinetry to facilitate
their opening and closing. These goods are
sold in conjunction with cabinetry or in the
hardware section of do-it-yourself retail
centers. In contrast, registrant’s goods are
drapery hardware in Class 20. Again,
registrant's goods are for a specific
purpose, namely the ornamentation of drapery
rods. Consumers are not likely to confuse
these very different products nor will they
consider them to emanate from the same source
given the differences in the marks and the
goods themselves.

… [T]he goods are sufficiently dissimilar that
consumers will not make any comparisons as to
source. The respective channels of trade and
the goals of the consumer are so different as
to eliminate any association. Cabinet
hardware is purchased at do-it-yourself
hardware centers. Draperies and their
mountings are marketed to interior designers
and consumers looking to dress up a window
treatment. The channels of trade are simply
Serial No. 77141134
- 6 -
so distinct that consumers will make no
association as to source.”

Initially, in response to applicant’s arguments as to
different classifications for the respective goods, we note
that a difference in the classification of goods has no
bearing on the question of likelihood of confusion. The
classification system is simply for the convenience of the
Office and has no bearing on the relationship of the goods.
See In re Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc., 185 USPQ
242 (TTAB 1974). For registrant’s and applicant’s
respective goods, the classification differences are
determined solely by material composition (e.g., metal
versus non-metal). Rather, it is the manner in which the
applicant and/or registrant have identified their goods or
services that is controlling. Jean Patou Inc. v. Theon
Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 29 USPQ2d 1771 (Fed. Cir. 1993); National
Football League v. Jasper Alliance Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212,
1216 n.5 (TTAB 1990).
Furthermore, inasmuch as the cited registration
describes the goods broadly without any limitations as to
their channels of trade or classes of purchasers, it is
presumed that the registration encompasses all goods of the
type described, that they move in all normal channels of
trade, and that they are available to all potential
Serial No. 77141134
- 7 -
customers. In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716 (TTAB
1992).
Additionally, the Trademark Examining Attorney has
demonstrated that cabinetry hardware of the kind to be
sold by applicant and drapery hardware of the type
marketed by registrant are closely related and would be
found in the same channels of trade, such as retail stores
that offer decorative home furnishings and decorative
hardware or via websites, and both would be offered
directly to ordinary homeowners. He did this convincingly
from articles extracted from the LEXIS/NEXIS® database,
representative third-party trademark registrations, as
well as vendor’s websites drawn from the Internet, all of
which were attached to his Office actions during
prosecution.
We turn first to the LEXIS/NEXIS® excerpts:
HEADLINE: “Get a Grip: Cheaper than remodeling, new Handles
can instantly update a room with styles from whimsical
to elegant”

… Artist and sculptor Linda Winklemann, head of
I.W. Designs, sculpted and designed fine jewelry for 18
years before deciding that hardware could take on
sculptural shapes. Her metal knobs, pulls, handles,
hooks, towel bars and drapery holders are first
sculpted in clay then cast. Her Sasha “Assemblage”
knobs and pulls in fine pewter with hand-color
applications, retail from $16 to $40.
San Francisco sculptor Cari Jaye Sokoloff’s
Serial No. 77141134
- 8 -
“Manhandles”3 for Sōko4 are highly artistic male stick-
figure-like cabinet knobs and pulls that can also be
used as towel hooks …5

* * * *
HEADLINE: “The Science of model home design”

… Alegro stocks hardware for draperies, cabinets
and furniture… 6

* * * *
HEADLINE: “Stanley Works chief says Newell merger would
cause upheaval”

He described Stanley and Newell as vigorous
competitors in such markets as home improvement
hardware, door, window and cabinet hardware, drapery
hardware …7

* * * *
HEADLINE: “Specialists in products and services for
renovation”

This company has been making decorative hardware
in brass, bronze, silver, nickel, iron, pewter, chrome
and gold since 1857. It has been at the same address
since 1902 and has many original molds. It offers over
50,000 designs of drapery and furniture hardware …
Prices range from 75 cents for a brass cabinet knob to
$2,825 for a finial of rock crystal and gold leaf…8

* * * *

3 See Reg. No. 2228213 at footnote 24.

4 See also Reg. No. 2351353 made of record by the Trademark
Examining Attorney with Office Action of December 26, 2007.

5 Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), August 31, 2001.

6 San Antonio Express-News, July 22, 2006.

7 The Hartford Courant (Connecticut), August 4, 1992.

8 The New York Times, October 17, 1985.

Serial No. 77141134
- 9 -
HEADLINE: “Variety rules at the amazing Gracious Home”

… That’s particularly true in the showroom area,
which includes high-end bath fixtures cross
merchandised with what may be the industry’s most
exhaustive assortment of hardware for doors, cabinets
and drapery.9

* * * *
HEADLINE: “Bombay Kids appeals to a hip crowd”

Bombay Kids gives accessories a lot of attention.
Numerous displays around the store featured items such
as curtain/bed panels, drawer pulls, finials, window
hardware and mini lampshades.10

* * * *
HEADLINE: “Downtown Texas”

… They carry everything from antique doors and
door hardware, stained glass, garden urns and planters,
cabinet knobs and bridge pulls, to cast-iron finials
and masonry stars, just to name a few.11

* * * *
HEADLINE: “Curtain Call”

… Artifact, Michael Graves’s collection of
curtain hardware for Blome, includes curtain rods,
finials, brackets and rings, holdbacks, swag holders,
furniture knobs, drawer pulls,12 coat hooks and stair
rods…13

* * * *

9 National Home Center News, March 17, 1997.

10 Kids Today, September 1, 2005.

11 Texas Monthly, September 2001.

12 See also Reg. No. 3164407 at footnote 30.

13 Architectural Record, January 1999.

Serial No. 77141134
- 10 -
HEADLINE: “Shopping for Handmade Glass”

… His skill in metalwork and engineering were
crucial to setting up his workshop as well as
fabricating his “stock-in-trade” – knobs, handles,
stoppers and finials…14

* * * *
HEADLINE: “Home Fashion”

… Susan Goldstick’s artists sculpt fantastical
knobs, drawer pulls, finials,15 and curtain tiebacks by
hand, and then paint them in metallic tones with names
like amethyst, emerald and sapphire…16

* * * *
HEADLINE: “No place for wet towels? Hang on.”

… Besides door hooks, consider drawer pulls,
wooden post finials and decorative curtain holdbacks,
all in a variety of finishes (wood, iron, ceramic,
etc.)…17

* * * *
HEADLINE: “Get that Look / Finials Decoration Lends Drapes a
Final Touch”

Light fixtures, lamps and metal drawer pulls also
offer design cues, she adds, whether they’re pewter,
nickel, chrome or polished brass. Highly ornate
finials with a silver or gold finish project an ultra
dress look…18

* * * *

14 Newsday (New York), May 31, 2007.

15 See also Susan Goldstick’s web page at footnote 33.

16 The Boston Globe Magazine, February 12, 2006.

17 Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas), April 12, 2003.

18 The Sunday Oregonian, August 4, 2002.

Serial No. 77141134
- 11 -
HEADLINE: “Get your holiday shopping on track”

The Cut & Dried Hardware store carries distinctive
hardware, including knobs, pulls and finials in 20
resin colors, metals and crystal with faux emeralds,
lapis, topaz and gold accents…19

* * * *
In addition, the Trademark Examining Attorney has put
into the record third-party registrations showing the same
mark registered for both cabinetry hardware and drapery
hardware. This is another common method for showing a
relationship between otherwise different products. See In
re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 1993):

for, inter alia, “curtain, shelf
and cabinet hardware made of
metal; namely, knobs, pulls,
trim, supports, brackets,
fasteners, rails, finials …” in
International Class 6;20
KEELER BRASS COMPANY for, inter alia, “metal hardware
for furniture; namely, … finials,
… pulls, … knobs, plates,
pendants, corners, bail and back
assemblies, bails, rings, end
caps, and table and chair foot
covers” in International Class
6;21

19 Orange County Register (California), November 28, 1998.

20 Registration No. 1666426 issued on December 3, 1991;
renewed.

21 Registration No. 1707758 issued on August 18, 1992; renewed.

Serial No. 77141134
- 12 -

COORDINATES ETCETERA for “clips, brackets, head and
bottom rails, valances, endcaps,
guiding member, tracks, rails,
handles, pins, locks, screws,
clamps, hooks, knobs, eyelets,
rings, supports for soft window
shades, draperies and curtains”
in International Class 6;22
for “furniture, door, window,
kitchen and bathroom hardware,
namely drawer pulls, clothes
hooks and door handles, cast in
or made of bronze or aluminum” in
International Class 6;
“curtain rods cast in bronze or
aluminum, picture frames and
wooden jewelry boxes” in
International Class 20;23
MANHANDLES for “decorative metal hardware,
namely cabinet handles, cabinet
knobs, cabinet pulls, drawer
handles, drawer knobs, drawer
pulls, door handles, doorknobs,
and door pulls, hooks, and
curtain finials” in International
Class 6;24
GAYLE BRIGHT for, inter alia, “hardware in
bronze and pewter, namely, knobs,
handles, drawer pulls, hooks,
finials, towel bars, and hinges;
pewter figurines; bronze
figurines; boxes made from bronze

22 Registration No. 1811345 issued on December 14, 1993;
renewed.

23 Registration No. 1894821 issued on May 23, 1995; renewed.

24 Registration No. 2228213 issued on March 2, 1999; Section 8
affidavit (six-year) accepted and Section 15 affidavit
acknowledged.

Serial No. 77141134
- 13 -
and pewter” in International
Class 6;25
SERIERARE PARIS for, “bronze metal door handles
and knobs, crutch door handles,
finger plates, door knocker,
bolts, mail boxes, drawer handles
and knobs, and key entries,
namely, keys and key cylinders,
all made of bronze metal: in
International Class 6;
“curtain accessories, namely,
curtain rods, rings, drapery
hold-backs, and brackets” in
International Class 20;26

for “decorative hardware made of
metal for doors, drapery,
windows, and furniture, namely,
drawer knobs, drawer pulls, door
knobs, door handles, and door
pulls, but not including
reproduction of antiques” in
International Class 6;
“decorative hardware made of
plastic for doors, drapery,
windows, and furniture, namely,
drawer knobs, drawer pulls, door
knobs, door handles, door pulls,
curtain rods, drapery hold backs,
and decorative window finials,
but not including reproduction of
antiques” in Int. Class 20;27

25 Registration No. 2420468 issued on January 16, 2001; Section
8 affidavit (six-year) accepted and Section 15 affidavit
acknowledged.

26 Registration No. 2557994 issued on April 9, 2002; Section 8
affidavit (six-year) accepted and Section 15 affidavit
acknowledged. No claim is made to the word “Paris” apart from
the mark as shown.

27 Registration No. 2671014 issued on January 7, 2003; Section
8 affidavit (six-year) accepted and Section 15 affidavit
acknowledged. No claim is made to the word “Collection” apart
from the mark as shown.

Serial No. 77141134
- 14 -
FESTIVE ACCENTS for, inter alia, “ … metal drawer
handles; metal knobs for
cabinets; … ” in International
Class 6;
“ … window decorations, namely
decorative objects and clips to
hang on curtains or shades and to
hang in windows” in International
Class 20;28
BEME for, inter alia, “metal
decorative drapery hardware for
use in the home, namely rods,
brackets, hooks, rings, cords,
and finials, … metal decorative
cabinet and wall hardware,
namely, hinges, drawer handles,
drawer knobs, drawer pulls,
drawer stops and catches, door
handles, doorknobs, door pulls
and hooks;29
for, inter alia, “metal
weathervanes, metal cabinet and
drawer knobs and pulls …” in
International Class 6; and
“ … metal curtain rods and
holdbacks …” in International
Class 20.30

Finally, the Trademark Examining Attorney also put into
the record reprints from various websites which show that
cabinetry hardware and drapery hardware are often sold by

28 Registration No. 2795730 issued on December 16, 2003. No
claim is made to the word “Accents” apart from the mark as shown.

29 Registration No. 2856642 issued on June 22, 2004.

30 Registration No. 3164407 issued on October 31, 2006. No
claim is made to the word “Design” apart from the mark as shown.
Michael Graves is a living individual who consents to the
registration of this mark.
Serial No. 77141134
- 15 -
the same online vendors. This is probative evidence of the
related nature of the goods which applicant has not
challenged in any way:
31

31 `http://www.eagle-emporium.com/wrought.htm
Serial No. 77141134
- 16 -
Wrought Iron Drawer Pull Door Handle

Here by popular demand! Wrought iron drawer
pulls for your kitchen or bath! These wrought
iron handles are perfect for your kitchen cabinets
or drawers. They are simple, and stylish with just
the right amount of primitive charm. Great for
bathroom vanities and cabinets too! Use them
vertically for cabinets and horizontally for
drawers. Each wrought iron cabinet pull is hand
made, so the measurements can vary a little bit.
Overall length of each drawer or cabinet pull is 4
3/4". The width is 1/2" and finger area is 3/4".
The holes are 3 1/2 inches on center but there can
be slight variation. 2 one inch screws are included.

32
33

32 http://www.eagle-emporium.com/cquest2.html

33 http://www.susangoldstick.com/
Serial No. 77141134
- 17 -
34

34 http://www.timberbronzeonline.com/
Serial No. 77141134
- 18 -
35

35 http://www.allcurtainhardware.com/drapery-fittings.html
Serial No. 77141134
- 19 -
36
37

36 http://www.brass-hardware.com/

37 http://www.builderironmongery.com/antique_cabinet
_fittings/index.html and http://www.builderironmongery.com/
curtain_accessories/curtain_brackets.html
Serial No. 77141134
- 20 -
38

38 http://www.firstimpressionsint.com/customfabrication.html
Serial No. 77141134
- 21 -
39

39 http://www.ironhardware.com/exec/display_page_4/
page_hardware.php
Serial No. 77141134
- 22 -
40

40 http://www.craftsmenhardware.com/siteindex.html
Serial No. 77141134
- 23 -

41

41 http://www.decorative-hardware.com/products.html and
http://www.decorative-
hardware.com/products/prodfurntrhdwr/cabinet.html

Serial No. 77141134
- 24 -
42

42 http://www.dimestorecowboys.com/retail/catalog/
product_info.php?cPath=30_46&products_id=170
Serial No. 77141134
- 25 -
43

The record contains evidence from other websites too
voluminous to reproduce herein where items of drapery
hardware like rods and finials are pictured along with items
of cabinet hardware like knobs and pulls.44

43 http://www.beme.net/BathClassic.htm and
http://www.beme.net/DraperyWood.htm

44 http://www.knobsandhardware.com/draperyrods_730.html,
http://www.knobsandhardware.com/cabinetknobs_675.html,
http://www.knobsandthings.com/,
http://www.rejuvenation.com/catalog/cabinet.html?iqg=7648d0e41de9
02cb96e16a421a96cdeb,
http://www.rejuvenation.com/typepageDrapery%20Rod%20Sets/template
s/houseparts_group.html
Serial No. 77141134
- 26 -
This provides substantial evidence that these
respective goods are frequently sold by the same retail
sources, both web-based and through brick-and-mortar
locations that offer decorative home furnishings, including
hardware stores and metal-working artisans, that they are
both selected for ornamental as well as utilitarian
purposes, and that consumers are accustomed to viewing the
same mark used in connection with registrant’s and
applicant’s listed goods. As seen throughout this record
in Nexis articles and on the Internet, vendors of
decorative home furnishings often follow up listing of
cabinet knobs and drawer pulls with, for example, finials
for drapery rods. In the event that the respective goods
are being sold under marks that create the same commercial
impression, we agree with the Trademark Examining Attorney
that there is a good chance that purchasers would mistakenly
believe that the goods emanate from a common source.
Moreover, we find that many of the specific items of
drapery and cabinetry hardware that appear in this record
will be sold inexpensively to ordinary purchasers,
exercising a relatively low level of care. Hence, the
du Pont factor focusing on the conditions under which the
goods are being sold also supports a finding of a
likelihood of confusion.
Serial No. 77141134
- 27 -
Finally, any doubt that we may retain at the conclusion
of our likelihood of confusion determination must be
resolved in favor of registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes
(Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Conclusion
Applicant’s ARTESIA mark is confusingly similar to
registrant’s ARTESIAN mark, and applicant’s goods are
related to registrant’s goods, and will be marketed through
the same trade channels to the same classes of ordinary
consumers. Accordingly, weighing all the relevant
du Pont factors, we find that applicant’s mark for its
identified goods is likely to cause confusion with the cited
registration.
Decision: We hereby affirm the refusal of the
Trademark Examining Attorney to register this mark based
upon Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.