Seacret Spa International LTD

Trademark Trial and Appeal BoardDec 3, 2014

No. 78811559 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014)

This Opinion is Not a Precedent of the TTAB Oral Hearing: September 3, 2014 Mailed: December 3, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ In re Seacret Spa International LTD1 _____ Serial No. 78811559 _____ Albert L. Schmeiser and Sean K. Enos of Schmeiser Olsen & Watts LLP, for Seacret Spa International LTD. Matthew Galan,2 Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113, Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney. _____ Before Bucher, Taylor and Masiello, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Taylor, Administrative Trademark Judge: Secret Spa International (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the stylized mark for goods ultimately identified as Products containing ingredients from the Dead Sea, namely, non-medicated skin care preparations, namely, moisturizers, facial cleansers, facial peels, masks, lotions, 1 We note Applicant’s communication, filed October 24, 2014, correcting the name to accurately reflect the mark owner’s name; “SPA” unintentionally was omitted at the filing of the Appeal Brief. The proceeding records accordingly have been amended to reflect Applicant’s name as Seacret Spa International LTD. 2 Mr. Galan represented the Office at oral hearing, and three other examining attorneys were responsible for the application during prosecution. Serial No. 78 The ma ‘E’ and c The that the marks i Whe reconsid Decemb Tradem Applica Septemb 3 Applic claim of 4 The Ex the mark the same in the “g have not 5 Regi acknowle 6 Regist 811559 cream cream rk is descr rossing th Trademar re is a li n the follow Regis stand Inter Regis “Pers n the re eration. T er 25, 201 ark Exam nt’s reque er 3, 2014 ation Seria first use an amining A and Registran race period based our stered Ma dged. ered, May 2 s, scrubs s, cuticle ibed as fol e ‘A.’” k Examin kelihood t ing regist tration N ard char national C tration N onal Deod fusal wa he Examin 3, and the ining Att st, an oral . We affirm l No. 78811 ywhere and ttorney also Registrati t that owns ” for filing decision on rch 30, 20 1, 1957; Se , soaps, oils; after lows: “The ing Attorn hat Applic rations, bo o. 309429 acter for lass 3; and o. 0645874 orant” in I s made ing Attorn appeal su orney ful hearing the refus 559 was fi use in com cited as a on No. 285 the cited m a renewal, those regist 06; Sectio cond Renew - 2 - nail care shave in In mark con ey has re ant’s mar th owned 35 for the mat) for 6 for the nternation final, App ey denied bsequentl ly briefed was held al to regis led on Febr merce since bar to regis 5101 for th arks listed Registrant rations. n 8 Affid al (10 year preparat ternationa sists of a w fused regi k would c by the sam mark S “Body mark al Class 3 licant ap the reque y was resu the issu before thi ter. uary 9, 20 at least as tration, Re e stylized above. Alth has not ye avit accep s). ions, han l Class 3. ave as th stration o ause confu e entity.4 ECRET (i spray” fo . pealed a st for reco med. App es on ap s panel of 06, based u early as A gistration N mark ough the r t done so. ted; Sectio d 3 e center o n the grou sion with n in r nd reque nsideratio licant and peal, and the Boar pon Applic ugust 11, 2 os. 285510 , both owne egistration Accordingly n 15 Affi f the nds the sted n on the at d on ant’s 005. 3 for d by s are , we davit Serial No. 78811559 - 3 - Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the likelihood of confusion issue. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities 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 marks We first consider the du Pont factor concerning the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks. In doing so, we must compare the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression to determine the similarity or dissimilarity between them. Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005), quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ at 567. However, there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of the mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “The proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression’ such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 Serial No. 78 USPQ2d recollect specific USPQ2d 106 (TT With the cited In te differen and the would r the visu element “S-E” an the lette the mid contenti stylized literal e between Registra particul 811559 1713, 1 ion of the impressio 1734, 17 AB 1975). these pri marks SE rms of app t because stylization elate to the al differen of all of th d ending r “A” betw dle of the m on, neithe that the s lement an Applicant nt’s cited ar font, sty 721 (Fed. average p n of trade 40 (TTAB nciples in CRET (st earance, A its applied of its ma “SEA” po ces betwee e marks i with the een the le ark, it m r its mar tylization d, thus, th ’s mark an standard le, size, o Cir. 201 urchaser, w marks. Se 2014); Sea mind, we andard ch pplicant e -for mark rk creates rtion of its n the mar s comprise letters “C- tters “E” a ay not be n k, nor the creates a u e differen d the cite characte r color, and - 4 - 2) (citatio ho norma e Inter IK led Air C compare A aracters) a ssentially and the c the appe mark. We ks sufficie d of a sing R-E-T.” A nd “C,” be oticed. Sim cited sty nique com t stylizati d marks. M r mark, i we there n omitted lly retains EA Sys. orp. v. Sco pplicant’s nd asserts th ited mark arance of a do not, as nt to differ le word b lthough A cause of it ilarly, an lized mar mercial im ons do not oreover, ts display fore must ). The fo a general B.V. v. A tt Paper C mark . at the mar s are spel wave wh Applicant entiate th eginning w pplicant’s s embedde d contrary k for that pression obviate t with partic is not l consider th cus is on rather th kea, LLC, o., 190 U ks are visu led differe ich consum suggests, em. The lit ith the let mark incl d placemen to Applica matter, i apart from he similar ular regar imited to at it migh the an a 110 SPQ to ally ntly ers find eral ters udes t in nt’s s so the ities d to any t be Serial No. 78811559 - 5 - used in any stylized display, including the same or similar stylization to the lettering used by Applicant. See e.g., Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If the registrant … obtains a standard character mark without claim to any particular font style, size or color, the registrant is entitled to depictions of the standard character mark regardless of font style, size, or color … .” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Weider Pub’s, LLC v. D&D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014). In terms of sound, Applicant asserts that English-speaking consumers will naturally place additional stress and emphasis on the first part of its mark because of the way it is written and this will change the way it is pronounced. Given that all of the letters of Applicant’s mark are presented in the same size and font, if the minimal stylization of the letter “A” is noted, it will not change the aural character of the spoken word. More importantly, as regards the pronunciation, it is settled that there is no correct way to pronounce a trademark. See In re Belgrade Shoe, 411 F.2d 1352, 162 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1969); Interlago AG v. Abrams/Gentile Entertainment Inc., 63 USPQ2d 1862 (TTAB 2002). See also In re Microsoft Corp., 68 USPQ 1195 (TTAB 2003) (it is not possible to control how consumers will vocalize marks). Moreover, the common word “secret” is pronounced with emphasis on the first syllable; so that emphasis on the first syllable of Applicant’s mark would not distinguish it from the most likely pronunciation of Registrant’s marks. Notwithstanding Applicant’s assertions to the contrary, we find the marks to be phonetic equivalents, which will be pronounced identically. See RE/MAX of Serial No. 78811559 - 6 - America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980) (similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion). See also, e.g., Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963). As regards meaning and commercial impression, the marks are also similar. Applicant’s assertions otherwise are unavailing. Applicant suggests that some consumers may ascribe the meaning of “sea” or “ocean” to the “SEA” portion of Applicant’s mark. However, customers will also readily recognize in Applicant’s mark a reference to the common word “secret.” Accordingly, when both Applicant’s mark and the cited marks are viewed in their entireties – keeping in mind that the average purchaser only retains a general impression of trademarks – they all will convey the ordinary meaning of “secret,” e.g., that the respective products contain “secret” ingredients. Indeed, although Applicant may have intended its applied-for mark to “principally conjure up images of the sea,” even Applicant acknowledges that the mark “secondarily conjure[s] a perception of “secret ingredients.” Br. p. 7. Applicant’s contention that its mark must be spoken before the “secondary” meaning is understood is unsupported and unavailing. For the reasons discussed, despite the minor differences in spelling and the different stylizations, when compared in their entireties, Applicant’s mark and the cited marks are substantially similar in appearance and connotation, identical in sound, and convey a highly similar commercial impression. We are not persuaded Serial No. 78811559 - 7 - that the “SEA” portion of Applicant’s mark dominates the applied-for mark such that it distinguishes Applicant’s mark from either of the cited marks. Relationship of the goods We turn then to the goods. It is well settled that the goods of Registrant and Applicant need not be identical or competitive, or even be offered through the same channels of trade, to support a holding of likelihood of confusion. It is sufficient that the respective goods of Registrant and Applicant are related in some manner, and/or that the conditions and activities surrounding the marketing of the goods are such that they would or could be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that could, because of the similarity of the marks, give rise to the mistaken belief that they originate from the same source. See Hilson Research, Inc. v. Society for Human Resource Management, 27 USPQ2d 1423 (TTAB 1993).7 The issue here, of course, is not whether purchasers would confuse the goods, but rather whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of these goods. L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (TTAB 2012); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984). In making our determination regarding the relatedness of the goods, we must look to the goods as identified in the application and the cited registrations. See Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Giovanni Food Co., 97 USPQ2d 1990, 1991 (TTAB 2011). Applicant’s goods are identified as “[p]roducts containing ingredients from 7 Applicant’s reliance on other “criteria” for determining the relatedness of the goods is misplaced. Serial No. 78811559 - 8 - the Dead Sea, namely, non-medicated skin care preparations, namely, moisturizers, facial cleansers, facial peels, masks, lotions, creams, scrubs, soaps, nail care preparations, hand creams, cuticle oils; after shave”; and Registrant’s goods are identified as “[b]ody sprays” and “[p]ersonal deodorant.” The Examining Attorney maintains that the goods are related, all being products used to care for the skin that would be sold to the same class of purchaser under circumstances that would lead one to mistakenly believe that they all originate from the same source. The Examining Attorney has supported the position that the goods are related with various use-based, third-party registrations covering both non-medicated skin care preparations and aftershave on the one hand and deodorant, antiperspirant and body spray on the other.8 These registrations made of record as attachments to the Office action dated June 29, 2012, the Notice of Suspension dated April 20, 2007, and the Denial of Request for Reconsideration dated January 25, 2013 include, for example: Registration No. 3623325 for the mark STOODIO BY BATHMARK for, inter alia, “body lotion, bath soap and hand lotion” and “body spray”; Registration No. 4120932 for the mark ENGLISH LEATHER for, inter alia, “after-shave, perfumed soaps, skin lotion and soaps for personal use” and “deodorant for personal use”; Registration No. 3230510 for the mark erbaviva for, inter alia, “body lotions, non-medicated skin care preparations, face and body care lotions and creams” and “deodorant and deodorants for personal use”; 8 We did not, however, consider the various third-party registrations that did not include goods of the type identified in both Applicant’s application and the cited registration. Serial No. 78 811559 Regis for, in “deod Regis RAFR medi name “deod Regis for, i arom enric deodo for b mine Regis alia, after- Regis inter deodo shavi Regis inter peels deodo Regis SERE skin soaps Regis inter “deod tration N ter alia, “ orants”; tration AICHISS cated skin ly, body orants”; tration N nter alia, atherapy b hed with rant, deod ody care, rals from t tration No “soaps and shave lotio tration No alia, “bod rant” and ng prepara tration N alia, “soa , body lo rants”; tration N NADE fo cleansing ” and “deo tration No alia, “s orant and o. 3169570 non-medic No. 3 ANT IMM care pre soaps, bo o. 4220407 “non-medi ody peels minerals orant for all being p he Dead S . 2831561 creams fo ns” and “p . 3772169 y spray us “skin mo tions”; o. 392604 ps for pe tions and o. 38245 r, inter a lotion, sk dorants”; . 2923290 having c body spray - 9 - for the ated skin c 184524 EDIAT f parations; dy cream for the m cated skin , … all be from the personal roduced f ea”; for the ma r the han ersonal de for the ma ed as a pe isturizer, 8 for the rsonal use hand cr 07 for th lia, “body in cleans for the m ream and ”; mark are prepar for th or, inter body car s, body l ark BLA care cre ing produ Dead Sea” use, [and] rom or en rk ds, face, an odorants” rk ONE P rsonal deo after-shav mark , liquid s eams” an e mark cream, b ing cream ark DIVID body l ations” an e mar alia, “non e product otions” an CK PEAR am, name ced from o and “bod deodoran riched wit for, int d body an ; LANET fo dorant an e balm an fo oaps, faci d “person NATURA ody lotion , and bod ENDS fo otion” an d k - s, d L ly r y ts h er d r, d d r, al al L s, y r, d Serial No. 78811559 - 10 - Registration No. 4013334 for the mark FAT BASTARD for, inter alia, “skin lotion, shaving cream and soap” and “body spray for men used as a personal deodorant and as a fragrance and anti-perspirant deodorant”; Registration No. 4140102 for the mark PRIMAJOLIE for, inter alia, “cosmetics and body care products, namely … skin cleaners and lotions” and “cosmetics and body care products, namely … personal deodorants; and Registration No. 2851449 for the mark PALEMO for, inter alia, “non-medicated dead sea salts for the bath; Dead Sea body mud and dead sea facial mud mask; soaps and creams for the hands, face, and after-shave lotions” and “personal deodorants.” In traversing the refusal, Applicant questions the probative value of third-party registrations to show the relatedness of the goods, arguing that each case is decided on its own facts and stands on its own merits. While these registrations are admittedly not evidence of use in commerce, they are sufficient to suggest that these goods are ones which might be provided by a single entity and offered to the public under the same mark. In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-1786 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988). The Examining Attorney also made of record webpages from the website www.burstein-deadsea.com showing that deodorant and antiperspirant, skin care preparations, aftershave and nail care cream, all containing minerals from the Dead Sea, are marketed under the same mark and offered to consumers at the same website;9 and webpages from the website www.ahavaus.com showing that skin care preparations containing ingredients from the Dead Sea and after shave are sold 9 Attachments to the Office action dated June 29, 2012. Serial No. 78811559 - 11 - under the same trademark as body spray.10 In addition, the Examining Attorney made of record evidence from the websites www.deadseapremium.com, www.magicspa.net, www.aroma-deadsea.com, www.lalineusa.com and www.jesusboat.com showing that goods of the types identified in Applicant’s application and the cited registrations, and which often contain ingredients from the Dead Sea, are offered for sale on the same Internet site.11 We find this evidence sufficient to show that Applicant’s non-medicated skin care preparations and after shave are closely related to Registrant’s body spray and personal deodorant, such goods all being skin care products that are often sold by the same source under the same mark, and are complementary to the extent that they may be used together in a personal care regimen. Applicant argues that there is no overlap in the goods whatsoever and, further, inasmuch as Registrant has used the mark SECRET for deodorant since 1956 without expanding its use of the mark to other goods (with the exception of one similar product, i.e., a fragrant body spray), there is no likelihood that Registrant would “bridge the gap” to produce non-medicated skin care preparations as defined in Applicant’s identification of goods. An ex parte proceeding, in which Registrant does not participate, is not an appropriate forum in which to speculate about and make findings regarding Registrant’s plans or ability to bridge the gap. Rather, in this ex parte context, we apply the traditional analysis of the relatedness of the 10 Id. 11 Attachments to the Office action dated June 29, 2012 and the Denial of Request for Reconsideration dated January 25, 2013. Serial No. 78811559 - 12 - involved goods. Here, the evidence of record clearly demonstrates that the goods are related and complementary, all being personal care items used to care for the skin. Applicant’s argument that a search of Amazon.com using particular search terms did not reveal overlapping marks or goods is not persuasive because Internet search results reflect character-specific searches. That is, Applicant’s search of the term “seacret” is unlikely to result in any information regarding the term “secret.” Channels of trade and buyers to whom sales are made Explaining that its products are sold mainly to a more sophisticated customer through kiosks on a one-to-one basis and with more expensive pricing than those of Registrant, Applicant also asserts that its goods and those of Registrant travel in distinct channels of trade. The problem with this argument is that there are no such limitations as to channels of trade and classes of consumers in the respective identifications. Where, as in this case, the goods in the application and cited registrations are broadly described, such that there are no restrictions as to trade channels and classes purchasers, it is presumed that the identification of goods encompasses not only all goods of the nature and type described therein, but that the identified goods are provided in all channels of trade which would be usual therefor, and that they would be purchased by all potential customers thereof. See, e.g., In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981). In this regard, the Examining Attorney has made of record excerpts from commercial websites, i.e., http://shopnordstrom.com, www.walgreens.com, www.drugstore.com, www.cvs.com and http://www1.macys.com, showing that goods of the type identified in both Serial No. 78 Applica departm promote thus fin With purchas arguend purchas as here Researc Carlisle 110, 112 not infa Appl substan been co indicati in orde Associat confusio 144 USP 811559 nt’s applica ent store d to all p d that the regard t ers, there o that Ap ing decisio , very sim h Trading Chemical (CCPA 1 llible.”). Cont icant also tial sales, ntemporan on of actua r to estab es Inc., 90 n carries l Q 435, 43 tion and t s, online otential cl channels o o Applica is no evid plicant’s ns, even c ilar marks Corp., 79 Works, Inc 970) (“Hum emporaneo states that and furth eous use l confusion lish likeli 2 F.2d 154 ittle weigh 8 (CCPA he cited re retail sto asses of co f trade an nt’s sugge ence supp customers areful pur are used 3 F.2d 127 . v. Hardm an memo us usage w its use of er asserts of Applic . It is not hood of co 6, 223 US t, J.C Ha 1965), espe - 13 - gistration res, as w nsumers d classes o stion that orting thi will exer chasers ca in connec 6, 230 US an & Hol ries even o ithout evi the that duri ant’s and necessary nfusion. S PQ 1025 ( ll Co. v. H cially in a s are comm ell as sp including f consume its cust s claim. H cise some n be confu tion with PQ 49, 5 den Ltd., 4 f discrimi dence of a mark h ng the las Registran , however, ee Weiss Fed. Cir. allmark C n ex parte only sold ecialty ki ordinary c rs overlap. omers are owever, e degree of sed as to related go 0 (Fed. Ci 34 F.2d 14 nating pur ctual confu as been n t seven ye t’s marks to show ac Associates 1990). The ards, Inc., context. I in drug sto osks, and onsumers sophistic ven assum care in t source, wh ods. See I r. 1986) c 03, 168 U chasers … sion ationwide ars, there without tual confu Inc. v. H lack of ac 340 F.2d n this ex p res, are . We ated ing heir ere, n re iting SPQ are with has any sion RL tual 960, arte Serial No. 78811559 - 14 - proceeding, we are not privy to what, if any, instances of confusion may have occurred in Registrant’s experience with respect to its own and Applicant’s marks. As the Board stated in In re General Motors Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1465, 1470 (TTAB 1992): We recognize, of course, that the above [evidence of an absence of actual confusion] is one-sided inasmuch as it provides only applicant’s experience in the marketplace and not that of registrant. Normally, in the absence of a detailed consent agreement, the registrant has no opportunity to be heard in an ex parte proceeding of this type and the Board, therefore, is not in a position to meaningfully assess whether the claimed period of contemporaneous use had provided ample opportunity for confusion to have arisen. See, e.g. In re Jeep Corp., [222 USPQ 333, 337 (TTAB 1984)]. The asserted absence of actual confusion, especially over a relatively short period of years, has thus often been asserted to be of “limited influence” or of “dubious probative value”. See, e.g., In re Barbizon International, Inc., 217 USPQ 735, 737 (TTAB 1983) and In re Whittaker Corp., 200 USPQ 54 (TTAB 1978), respectively. Thus, Applicant’s assertion of the absence of actual confusion is of little probative value in our determination on the issue of likelihood of confusion. Other alleged facts: No preclusive effect of earlier proceeding Last, Applicant states that in Opposition No. 91174407 between it and Registrant (as Opposer) concerning application Serial No. 78598113 (now Registration No. 4147145) for the mark SEAcret,12 “Registrant failed to file a [required] response and the opposition was dismissed with prejudice.” Br. p. 7. As 12 The goods identified in that registration are “Skin care products containing ingredients from the Dead Sea, namely, facial cream, facial peeling milk, facial mud mask, non- medicated facial serum, eye gel, anti-wrinkle cream, mud soap, mineral soap, after shave, hand cream, salt facial scrub, body cream with salt, non-medicated foot cream and body lotion.” Serial No. 78811559 - 15 - aptly explained by the Examining Attorney in his brief, and seemingly acknowledged by Applicant,13 that proceeding has no res judicata, collateral estoppel or stare decisis effect on this proceeding.14 Applicant nonetheless asserts that Registrant’s failure to pursue that opposition “further leads to the conclusion that Registrant did not find the Applicant’s marks confusingly similar.” Id. We disagree. The fact that Registrant did not pursue an opposition for a mark for goods which Applicant considers very similar to the mark and goods at issue herein has no relevance to this proceeding. As stated, no preclusive effect attached to the prior proceeding as it concerns this ex parte matter, and our task in this case is to determine, on the record before us, whether Applicant’s mark is registrable. Notably, the mark in the application that was the subject of that opposition, with its upper- and lower-case letters, created a different overall commercial impression. We also point out with regard to Registration No. 4147145 that we are not bound by the prior decisions of examining attorneys in allowing marks for registration. As has been noted many times, each case must be decided on its own facts. See In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to [Applicant’s] application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind the Board or this court.”); In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 13 Applicant specifically noted that “[t]he Examining Attorney may be correct with regard to res judicata, collateral estoppel or stare decisis.” Br. p. 7. 14 As regards any res judicata effect, we point out that while Registrant was a party to Opposition No. 91174407, Registrant is not a party to this proceeding and, further, that there were no issues actually adjudicated in that opposition. Serial No. 78811559 - 16 - USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In view of the foregoing, we are obligated to assess the registrability of Applicant’s mark in this proceeding on its own merits and not simply based on the existence of another registration. Conclusion When we consider the record, the relevant likelihood of confusion factors, and all of the arguments and evidence relating thereto, including those arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, we conclude that in view of the substantial similarity in the commercial impressions of the marks and the overlap in the channels of trade and classes of consumers, the contemporaneous use of the respective marks on related and complementary goods is likely to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of such goods. Decision: The refusal to register pursuant to Section 2(d) is affirmed.