Loro Piana S.p.A.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2012

No. 77402406 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2012)

Mailed:
September 7, 2012

United States Patent and Trademark Office
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Loro Piana S.p.A.
________
Serial No. 77402406
_______
Stephen P. Demm and Janet W. Cho of Hunton & Williams LLP for Loro Pi-
ana S.p.A.
Katherine C. Weigle, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101 (Ronald
R. Sussman, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Bucher, Wolfson and Shaw, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Loro Piana S.p.A. (“applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Regis-
ter of the mark shown below for “high-end designer clothing made from the
wool of dark-colored and black sheep for men, women and children, namely,
jackets, coats, skirts, trousers, cloaks, mantles, overcoats, vests, scarves, muf-
flers, shawls and gloves, footwear, headwear.”1

1 Application Serial No. 77402406 was filed February 21, 2008 on the basis of appli-
cant’s bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce on “yarns and threads” in Inter-
national Class 23; “textiles and textile goods, namely fabrics for the manufacture of
clothing, bedding namely blankets, duvet covers, mattress covers, and pillow covers,
fabric table cloths, textile napkins and placemats” in International Class 24; and
“clothing for men, women and children, namely jackets, coats, skirts, trousers, cloaks,
mantles, overcoats, vests, scarves, mufflers, shawls and gloves; footwear; headwear”
in International Class 25. The identification of goods was amended to indicate that
the goods are “made from the wool of dark-colored and black sheep.” The application

This Opinion is NOT a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 77402406
- 2 -

Applicant has indicated that the name “Loro Piana,” shown in the mark,
identifies a living individual “whose consent to register is submitted.”2 Appli-
cant has further indicated that the foreign wording in the mark, “pecora ne-
ra,” translates into English as black sheep.3 The registration includes the fol-
lowing disclaimer: No claim is made to the exclusive right to use PECORA
NERA, in class 25, apart from the mark as shown.
The trademark examining attorney refused registration of applicant’s
mark under Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), having determined
that registration would lead to a likelihood of confusion in view of two regis-
trations owned by American Recreation Products, LLC: Reg. Nos. 0785434
and 1302411 for the mark BLACK SHEEP for, inter alia, “sportswear and
clothing-namely, hunting jackets, shirts, pants, coats, vests, camouflage cloth-

was divided on September 14, 2011 into Serial Nos. 77402406 (Class 25, parent) and
77982525 (Classes 23 and 24, child). The goods of the child application are “yarns
and threads made from the wool of dark-colored and black sheep,” in International
Class 23 and “textiles and textile goods made from the wool of dark-colored and black
sheep, namely, fabrics for the manufacture of clothing, bedding, namely, blankets,
duvet covers, mattress covers, and pillow covers, fabric table cloths, textile napkins
and place-mats,” in International Class 24. The refusal to register applies only to the
parent application, No. 77402406 (Class 25). On July 24, 2012, a first request for ex-
tension of time to file a Statement of Use with respect to Serial No. 77982525 (child)
was granted.
2 Applicant’s Response to Office action, October 29, 2008.
3 Id.
Serial No. 77402406
- 3 -
ing, chaps, underwear, coveralls, and caps” (Reg. No. 0785434) and “clothing
for hunters and outdoorsmen-namely, poplin, cotton, mesh, flannel and vinyl
hats (insulated and uninsulated); elastic suspenders; leather utility belts; in-
sulated nylon sportsman's booties; and insulated nylon hoods” (Reg. No.
1302411) in International Class 25.4
After the examining attorney made the refusal final, applicant appealed
to this Board. We affirm the refusal.
II. Applicable Law
Our determination under Trademark Act § 2(d) is based on an analysis
of the probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on a
likelihood of confusion. See In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d
1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973); see also Palm Bay Imp., Inc. v. Veuve
Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689

4 Reg. No. 0785434 for the mark BLACK SHEEP for “baggage-namely, duffle bags;
firearm equipment-namely, cartridge belts, cartridge pouches, cartridge boxes, slings,
pistol rugs and cases, rifle and shotgun cases, and saddle scabbards; sporting goods-
namely, campers' sleeping bags, game carriers and bags; sportswear and clothing-
namely, hunting jackets, shirts, pants, coats, vests, camouflage clothing, chaps, un-
derwear, coveralls, and caps”; registered February 23, 1965; renewed.
Reg. No. 1302411 for the mark BLACK SHEEP for “flotation equipment-namely,
jackets; vests; belts and cushions; leather holsters; rifle and shotgun recoil pads;
leather cartridge slides; nylon ammunition [sic] bags; nylon duffle bags; nylon gar-
ment bags for travel; nylon pullman bags; nylon cosmetic and toilet bags sold empty;
baggage carrying shoulder straps; nylon backpacks; sportsmen’s stools; sleeping bag
totes; camping pillows; insulated seat cushions; and merchandise display racks;
clothing for hunters and outdoorsmen-namely, poplin, cotton, mesh, flannel and vinyl
hats (insulated and uninsulated); elastic suspenders; leather utility belts; insulated
nylon sportsman’s booties; and insulated nylon hoods”; registered October 30, 1984;
renewed.

Serial No. 77402406
- 4 -
(Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003); and In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In considering the evidence of record on these factors,
we keep in mind that “[t]he fundamental inquiry mandated by Section 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 How-
ard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976); see also In re
Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999).
III. Discussion
A. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Parties’ Goods; Trade Chan-
nels and Classes of Purchasers
With respect to the relatedness of the goods, it is well settled that the
question of likelihood of confusion must be determined based on an analysis of
the goods or services identified in applicant’s application vis-à-vis the goods or
services identified in the cited registration. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204,
26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and Canadian Imperial Bank v.
Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As we
stated in In re Association of the United States Army,
“[T]he issue is not whether consumers would confuse the goods
and/or services themselves, but rather whether they would be con-
fused as to the source of the goods and/or services. It is sufficient
that the goods and/or services be related in some manner, or that
the circumstances surrounding their use be such that they would
be likely to be encountered by the same persons in situations that
would give rise, because of the marks used thereon, to a mistaken
belief that they originate from or are in some way associated with
Serial No. 77402406
- 5 -
the same source or that there is an association or connection be-
tween the sources of the respective goods and/or services.”

In re Association of the United States Army, 85 USPQ2d 1264, 1270 (TTAB
2007). See also, In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197
USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978). Where the goods in the application at issue and/or in
the cited registration are broadly identified as to their nature and type, such
that there is an absence of any restrictions as to the channels of trade and no
limitation as to the classes of purchasers, it is presumed that in scope the
identification of goods encompasses not only all the goods of the nature and
type described therein, but that the identified goods are offered in all channels
of trade which would be normal therefore, and that they would be purchased
by all potential buyers thereof. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB
1981).
Applicant seeks registration of the mark for “high-end design-
er clothing made from the wool of dark-colored and black sheep for men, wom-
en and children, namely, jackets, coats, skirts, trousers, cloaks, mantles, over-
coats, vests, scarves, mufflers, shawls and gloves, footwear, headwear.” Reg.
No. 0785434 covers, inter alia, “sportswear and clothing-namely, hunting
jackets, shirts, pants, coats, vests, camouflage clothing, chaps, underwear,
coveralls, and caps” and Reg. No. 1302411 covers, inter alia, “clothing for
hunters and outdoorsmen-namely, poplin, cotton, mesh, flannel and vinyl hats
Serial No. 77402406
- 6 -
(insulated and uninsulated); elastic suspenders; leather utility belts; insulated
nylon sportsman's booties; and insulated nylon hoods.”
Applicant argues in its brief that “clothing for hunters and outdoorsmen”
are unrelated to “high-end designer clothing,” and that “the market and con-
sumers of [the parties’] goods are very different in that applicant’s goods are
targeted at men, women and children seeking luxury attire whereas the goods
in the cited registration [sic] are targeted at hunters and sportsmen.” Howev-
er, not all of the goods listed in the identification of goods of Reg. No. 0785434
are directed to hunters and outdoorsmen. Some, such as “pants,” “coats,”
“vests,” and “caps” contain no restrictions as to type or target consumer.
Moreover, both applicant and registrant’s goods may include high-end cloth-
ing, either fashion clothing or outdoor sportswear. This relatedness of the
goods is corroborated by the examining attorney’s Internet evidence showing
the existence of a high-end outdoor sportswear market.5 The examining at-
torney made the following website evidence of record:
At www.killerstartups.com, Marmot.com advertises itself as “the
e-commerce website of Marmot, an American high-end outdoor
clothing and sporting goods company based in Santa Rosa, Cali-
fornia.”

At www.usoutdoorstore.com, an affiliate program is advertised by
“US Outdoor,” inviting retailers to use “links from your website
[to] refer your visitors to USOUTDOOR.com.” Through its part-
nerships, the company advertises that it offers “the best in high-
end outdoor equipment and clothing since 1957.”

5 See Office Action dated July 15, 2010.
Serial No. 77402406
- 7 -
At www.mountainmanoutdoors.com, the Mountainman Outdoor
Supply Company offers “essential gear for all of your outdoor rec-
reational needs,” including “outdoor clothing.” The company ad-
vertises: “From high-end to affordable, we have it all.”

At http://nymag.com, a store search displaying results for “camp-
ing/hiking gear” displays an entry for The North Face, which de-
scribes its merchandise as “high-end outdoor gear and high-
fashion apparel for hiking, camping, and urban sports.”

In an earlier decision, In re Ing. Loro Piana & C.S.p.A., Serial No.
79014582, slip op. (TTAB November 7, 2007), the Board affirmed the refusal
to register applicant’s application for the mark PECORA NERA for “clothing
for men, women and children, namely jackets, coats, skirts, trousers, cloaks,
mantles, overcoats, vests, scarves, mufflers, shawls, and gloves; footwear;
head wear,” finding it confusingly similar to registrant’s same two BLACK
SHEEP registrations as are cited in this proceeding. Recognizing that “the
identification of goods in opposer’s Registration No. 1302411 is prefaced with
the limiting terminology ‘clothing for hunters and outdoorsmen,’”6 the Board
in Serial No. 79014582 confined its decision to Reg. No. 0785434, noting that
the identification of goods in Reg. No. 0785434 “is not so limited,” but contains
some goods unrestricted as to class of consumer, such as “coats” and “vests,”
which identical goods are included in applicant’s identification. Likewise, we
may confine our decision to Reg. No. 0785434, since, “of the two registrations

6 Slip op., p. 6.
Serial No. 77402406
- 8 -
cited by the examining attorney, [it] forms the strongest basis for affirmance
of the refusal.”7 The Board reasoned:
Thus, except in the case of “hunting jackets” (and, arguably,
(“camouflage clothing”), opposer’s clothing is not limited to use by
hunters and outdoorsmen. Based on a comparison of applicant’s
identification of goods and registrant’s identification of goods in
Registration No. 0785434, we find that the goods are identical in
part, and otherwise related. More specifically, there is an overlap
with respect to pants, coats, vests and headwear/caps. See Tuxedo
Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209
USPQ 986 (CCPA 1981) [likelihood of confusion found on basis of
overlap of any item encompassed by the identifications of goods].
Inasmuch as the identifications of goods are legally identical, at
least in part, we must presume, for purposes of the likelihood of
confusion analysis, that the trade channels and classes of pur-
chasers are identical. Id. Further, purchasers would include or-
dinary members of the general public as well as those able to af-
ford luxury apparel.

In re Ing. Loro Piana, slip op. at 6, Serial No. 79014582 .

The partial identity between the goods, and the identity in trade chan-
nels and classes of purchasers are du Pont factors that weigh heavily in favor
of finding a likelihood of confusion. Applicant’s restriction of its goods to
“high-end designer clothing made from the wool of dark-colored and black
sheep” does not, therefore, prevent the overlap of goods, trade channels, or
classes of purchasers. See Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computers Ser-
vices Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The author-
ity is legion that 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

7 Id., at footnote 4.
Serial No. 77402406
- 9 -
regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an ap-
plicant’s goods, the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to
which the sales of goods are directed.”).
B. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks in Their Entireties
In a likelihood of confusion analysis, we compare the marks for similari-
ties and dissimilarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression. Palm Bay, 73 USPQ2d at 1692. In comparing the marks, the test
is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-
side comparison, but rather, whether the marks are sufficiently similar in
terms of their overall commercial impression so that confusion as to the
source of those goods or services offered under the respective marks is likely
to result. Coach Services Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1713,
1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The focus is on the recollection of the average purchas-
er, who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trade-
marks. L'Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); Sealed
Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975). The decision
must be based on the entire mark, not just part of the mark. In re National
Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985). On the other
hand, different features may be analyzed to determine whether the marks are
similar. Price Candy Company v. Gold Medal Candy Corporation, 220 F.2d
759, 105 USPQ 266, 268 (CCPA 1955); In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ
at 751 (“[T]here is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more
Serial No. 77402406
- 10 -
or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the
ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties.”).
In comparing the marks, we are mindful that where, as here, the goods
are identical, the degree of similarity necessary to find likelihood of confusion
need not be as great as where there is a recognizable disparity between the
goods. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874,
23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Jansen Enterprises Inc. v. Rind, 85
USPQ2d 1104, 1108 (TTAB 2007); Schering-Plough HealthCare Products Inc.
v. Ing-Jing Huang, 84 USPQ2d 1323, 1325 (TTAB 2007).
The marks at issue in this case, BLACK SHEEP and , are dif-
ferent in sound and appearance. With respect to meaning, however, they
share the similar expression “black sheep,” or “pecora nera,” which means
“black sheep” in Italian.8 Pursuant to the doctrine of foreign equivalents,
when it is likely that the ordinary American purchaser would “stop and trans-
late” a mark consisting of a foreign word taken from a common, modern lan-
guage into its English equivalent, the English translation of the foreign word
is used to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re La Pere-
grina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1647 (TTAB 2008). See also, Palm Bay, 73

8 Applicant’s translation statement in the application translates “pecora nera” as
“black sheep,” and the examining attorney submitted a page from the Yahoo Babel
Fish website that translates the term “black sheep” in English as “pecora nera” in
Italian. At http://babelfish.yahoo.com; attached to the examiner’s December 11, 2009
Reconsideration Letter (denying applicant’s request for reconsideration). See also,
excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org, describing the Italian language as the “eighth
most spoken language in the [United States]”; Id.
Serial No. 77402406
- 11 -
USPQ2d at 1696; In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1024-25 (TTAB 2006)
(holding MARCHE NOIR for jewelry and BLACK MARKET MINERALS for
retail jewelry and mineral store services likely to cause confusion); In re Itha-
ca Indus., Inc., 230 USPQ 702, 704 (TTAB 1986) (LUPO for men’s and boys’
underwear, and WOLF and design for various clothing items, likely to cause
confusion); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ 284, 284-85 (TTAB 1983) (hold-
ing EL SOL for clothing, and SUN and design for footwear, likely to cause
confusion); and TMEP § 1207.01(b)(vi)(B) (8th ed. 2011). “The ‘ordinary Amer-
ican purchaser’ in this context refers to the ordinary American purchaser who
is knowledgeable in the foreign language.” In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024.
There is no dispute that an appreciable segment of American consumers are
speakers of Italian and would translate the Italian term “pecora nera” to the
English term “black sheep.”
Applicant argues that U.S. consumers familiar with the Italian language
will not “stop and translate” the words “pecora nera” in the mark into BLACK
SHEEP, but will “simply think of high-end designer clothing,” as the mark
will “immediately call to mind merino wool which is derived from the fleeces of
new Zealand’s dark-colored sheep.”9 Applicant has not provided any evidence
in support of this argument. Applicant further argues that an idiomatic
meaning of BLACK SHEEP is “misfit,” and that when the mark BLACK
SHEEP is used in connection with hunting clothing or sportswear, consumers

9 Appeal Brief, p. 10.
Serial No. 77402406
- 12 -
“immediately call to mind a ‘misfit’ …. because the manufacturers of hunting
clothing want to create a brand image that suggests their clothing is rugged
and physically resilient.”10 Again, there is no evidence to support this conten-
tion. We also may take judicial notice of the dictionary definitions from Ox-
ford Paravia Italian/English Dictionary (2001), Collins Italian/English Dic-
tionary (1995) and Streetwise Italian Dictionary/Thesaurus (2005) that were
cited in the Board’s earlier decision in Proceeding No. 79014582 in determin-
ing that the term PECORA NERA has the same figurative meaning in Italian
as in English, namely, “misfit.”11 Accordingly, we find that “pecora nera” in
Italian and “black sheep” in English have the same literal and idiomatic
meanings and likelihood of confusion is not obviated on this basis.
Likelihood of confusion has frequently been found where one mark in-
corporates the entirety of another mark. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Memphis,
Tennessee, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ
105, 106 (CCPA 1975) (BENGAL for gin and BENGAL LANCER for nonalco-
holic club soda, quinine water and ginger ale); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d
1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applicant’s mark ML is similar
to registrant’s mark ML MARK LEES); In re United States Shoe Corp., 229
USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE for women's clothing stores
and women's clothing likely to cause confusion with CREST CAREER

10 Appeal Brief, p. 10.
11 In re Ing. Loro Piana, slip op. at 13, Serial No. 79014582.
Serial No. 77402406
- 13 -
IMAGES for uniforms including items of women’s clothing); In re South Bend
Toy Manufacturing Company, Inc., 218 USPQ 479, 480 (TTAB 1983) (LIL’
LADY BUG for toy doll carriages and LITTLE LADY for doll clothing); and
Johnson Publishing Co. v. International Development Ltd., 221 USPQ 155,
156 (TTAB 1982) (EBONY for cosmetics and EBONY DRUM for hairdressing
and conditioner).
Applicant has appropriated registrant’s mark in its entirety as a domi-
nant portion of applicant’s mark, which also includes the name “Loro Piana”
and the design of a wreath and shield. While “it is often the first part of a
mark which is likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and re-
membered,” Presto Products, Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895,
1897 (TTAB 1988), here, the term PECORA NERA forms an equally dominant
portion in the overall mark as does the first literal portion, Loro Piana. The
term PECORA NERA appears in block, capital letters that are larger and in
black typeface, while Loro Piana is italicized and in smaller lettering. The
name Loro Piana identifies applicant’s designer and the wording PECORA
NERA identifies the material from which applicant’s clothing is made. The
equally dominant impression made by PECORA NERA is thus not lessened by
the fact that applicant apparently owns several registrations for marks in-
cluding the term LORO PIANA.12 Moreover, even though PECORA NERA

12 Response to Office action, January 3, 2011. A listing of the registrations applicant
claims to own was included with the response; the actual registration certificates or

Serial No. 77402406
- 14 -
has been disclaimed, the meaning of the wording is not thus made different
from the meaning of the wording BLACK SHEEP in registrant’s marks. Both
phrases connote “goods made from the wool of a black sheep” and have the
figurative meaning of “a renegade or misfit.” Further, the disclaimer in appli-
cant’s mark of PECORA NERA does not detract from the impact of the words,
as consumers are unlikely to be aware of the disclaimer. As stated by our re-
viewing court,
it is well settled that the disclaimed material still forms a part of
the mark and cannot be ignored in determining likelihood of con-
fusion. Such disclaimers are not helpful in preventing likelihood
of confusion in the mind of the consumer, because he or she is un-
aware of the existence of the disclaimer. Therefore, the disclaimed
portions must be considered in determining the likelihood of con-
fusion.

Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice, Inc., 70 F.2d 1565, 218 UPSQ2d 390,
392 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also, In re RSI Systems LLC, 88 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB
2008). As for the design element, it is less significant than either LORO
PIANA or PECORA NERA. See In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d
1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987) (When a mark “comprises both a word and a design,
then the word is normally accorded greater weight because it would be used
by purchasers to request the goods or services.”).
Applicant argues that BLACK SHEEP is weak and should be accorded
only a limited scope of protection. To this end, applicant submitted ten regis-

TARR printouts were not. The examining attorney did not object to the listing, and
we have therefore considered it.

Serial No. 77402406
- 15 -
trations of marks that include the word “sheep” and are registered for cloth-
ing.13 These registrations show only that marks which include the word
“sheep” have been allowed to coexist on the register. They tell us little about
whether marks that include the phrase “black sheep” would be likely to cause
confusion. Applicant has submitted one registration that includes the words
“black sheep,” but the term appears as part of a larger phrase and engenders
a very different commercial impression. The mark is and
the goods, various clothing items, are qualified as being “all for skateboard-
ing.” Given the differences in the marks and the goods, this single registra-
tion does not form a basis for determining that applicant’s mark is not confus-
ingly similar to the cited mark. Further, “[t]he existence of [third-party] reg-
istrations is not evidence of what happens in the market place or that con-
sumers are familiar with them nor should the existence on the register of con-
fusingly similar marks aid an applicant to register another likely to cause con-
fusion, mistake or to deceive.” AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.,
474 F.2d 1403, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (CCPA 1973); see also, In re Max Capital
Group Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1248 (TTAB 2010).14

13 Response, January 3, 2011. Two of these registrations are for the cited marks.
14 The two applications for marks using the term “black sheep” have no probative
value. Third-party applications are evidence only of the fact that they have been
filed. Interpayment Services Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463, 1468 n.6
(TTAB 2003).
Serial No.
NER
lents
this
lieve
turer
confu
IV.
and
in as
color
sion
cloth
ing,
for h
Deci
77402406
The comm
A from th
, a substa
into BLAC
that appli
as does re
For the ab
sion.
Conclus
We have
the eviden
sociation
ed and bla
with the r
ing-namel
chaps, und
unters and

sion: The
ercial im
e designer
ntial num
K SHEEP
cant’s PEC
gistrant’s
ove reason
ion
carefully c
ce submitt
with “high
ck sheep f
egistered m
y, hunting
erwear, c
outdoorsm
refusal to
pression o
Loro Pian
ber of pro
from Loro
ORA NER
BLACK S
s, this du
onsidered
ed. We fin
-end desig
or men, wo
ark BLAC
jackets, s
overalls, a
en” (Reg.
register u
- 16 -
f the mark
a. Applyin
spective c
Piana. T
A clothin
HEEP clot
Pont facto
the entire
d that us
ner clothi
men and c
K SHEEP
hirts, pant
nd caps” (
No. 13024
nder Trad

g the doct
ustomers
hus, consu
g comes fro
hing.
r favors a
record, in
e of applic
ng made f
hildren” i
for, inter
s, coats, ve
Reg. No. 0
11).
emark Act
is that
rine of for
are likely
mers are
m the sam
finding of
cluding al
ant’s mark
rom the w
s likely to
alia, “spo
sts, camou
785434) a
§ 2(d) is a
of PECOR
eign equiv
to transla
likely to b
e manufa
likelihood
l argumen

ool of dar
cause conf
rtswear an
flage clot
nd “clothin
ffirmed.
A
a-
te
e-
c-
of
ts

k-
u-
d
h-
g