Taylor Precision Products, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2011

No. 77528050 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2011)

Mailed: October 18, 2011

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Taylor Precision Products, Inc.1
________

Serial No. 77528050
_______

Jeffrey P. Thennisch of Dobrusin & Thennisch PC for Taylor
Precision Products, Inc.

Leslie L. Richards, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 106 (Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Zervas, Taylor and Shaw, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Taylor, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Taylor Precision Products, Inc.’s predecessor-in-
interest filed an application to register on the Principal
Register the mark PERFECT TEMP (in standard character
format) for goods ultimately identified as “heating,
cooking, warming, and steam generating apparatus and

1 Taylor Precision Products, Inc. is the owner of the involved
application by assignment from the original applicant, HoMedics
Group Limited. The assignment was executed on August 27, 2009
and is recorded with the Assignment Branch of the Office at
Reel/Frame 4054/0007.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Serial No. 77528050
2
appliances, namely electric portable warming ovens and
portable warming drawers” in Class 11.2
The examining attorney has refused registration under
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d),
asserting that a likelihood of confusion with the mark in
U.S. Registration No. 2048670, shown below

for “food storage, rethermalization and distribution
systems comprised of electrical circuit breakers,
controllers, display monitors, and thermalization carts and
cabinets” in International Class 9; and “thermalization
carts and cabinets comprised of electrical circuit
breakers, controllers, display monitors for food storage,
rethermalization and distribution sytems [sic]” in
International Class 11.3
After the refusal was made final, applicant appealed
and requested reconsideration of the final refusal. The
examining attorney denied the request for reconsideration
and the appeal was resumed on September 16, 2010.

2 Serial No. 77528050 was filed on July 22, 2008, with an
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce
under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 35 U.S.C § 1051(b). On May 4,
2009, the original applicant filed an amendment to allege use
which was accepted on June 26, 2009. By the amendment, applicant
alleged March 22, 2009 as the date of first use of the mark
anywhere and in commerce.
3 Issued April 1, 1997, renewed.
Serial No. 77528050
3
Applicant then, on October 19, 2010, requested that the
application be remanded to the examining attorney to
consider “newly obtained” evidence. The examining attorney
was not persuaded by this evidence and indicated that the
refusal made final in her January 25, 2010 Office action
was maintained and continued to be final. Proceedings at
the Board were resumed on January 7, 2011. Applicant and
the examining attorney filed briefs. For the reasons
discussed below, we affirm the refusal to register.
As a preliminary matter, the examining attorney has
objected to the materials first submitted with applicant’s
brief,4 arguing that they are untimely. We agree. As noted
by the examining attorney and set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
2.142(d), “[t]he record in the application should be
complete prior to the filing of an appeal.” As such, the
evidence submitted in the first instance with applicant’s
brief is untimely. Accordingly, the examining attorney’s
objection is sustained and this new evidence has not been
considered in this decision.
Also, in analyzing likelihood of confusion, we limit
our discussion of the goods in the cited mark to

4 The materials consist of copies of web pages from three
websites, i.e., www.wasserstrom.com, www.crescor.com, and
www.carter-hoffmann.com. As discussed, infra, even if we had
considered these web pages, our decision would have been the
same.
Serial No. 77528050
4
“thermalization carts and cabinets comprised of electrical
circuit breakers, controllers, display monitors for food
storage, rethermalization and distribution sytems [sic],”
as those goods are the closest to applicant’s recited
goods.
Our determination of the issue of likelihood of
confusion is based on an analysis of all the probative
facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors set
forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d
1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also, In re Majestic
Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201
(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/or
services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper
Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to the marks, we examine the similarities
and dissimilarities of the marks, in their entireties, in
terms of sound, appearance, meaning and commercial
impression. See Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d
1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The test under this du Pont factor
is not whether the marks can be distinguished when
subjected to a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether
Serial No. 77528050
5
the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their
overall commercial impressions that confusion as to the
source of the goods offered under the respective marks is
likely to result.
Applicant’s mark PERFECT TEMP (in standard character
form) is identical to the literal elements in the cited
mark . Hence, the marks are identical in
sound, connotation and commercial impression. With regard
to the appearance of the marks, we find them to be highly
similar; there is minimal stylization to registrant’s mark,
and applicant’s mark is in standard character form and,
thus, could be displayed in the same styled lettering as
registrant’s mark. 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)); and Squirtco v. Tomy Corp, 697 F.2d 1038, 216
USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[T]he argument concerning
a difference in type style is not viable where one party
asserts rights in no particular display. By presenting its
mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally
Serial No. 77528050
6
be asserted by that party.”). We further find that the
shaded dot (“•”) between the terms “PERFECT” and “TEMP” in
registrant’s mark merely serves to separate the two words
and, contrary to applicant’s assertion, its presence does
not change the commercial impression of the marks. See In
re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988) (when
the same words are used in marks, the presence or absence
of hyphens or other punctuation marks generally will be of
little significance); In re Burlington Industries, Inc.,
196 USPQ 718, 719 (TTAB 1977) (“[A]n exclamation point does
not serve to identify the source of the goods”). Indeed,
the shaded dot may not even be noticed by prospective
consumers.
The du Pont factor of the similarity/dissimilarity of
the marks thus favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Applicant essentially has argued that registrant’s
mark is weak because there are numerous marks that contain
the terms “PERFECT” and “TEMP.” Applicant has supported
this assertion with the following:5

5 Applicant also made of record copies of Registration No.
2641116, now cancelled, and pending application Serial Nos.
77560020 and 77318820. However, they have no value in this
appeal. Action Temporary Services 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”),
and the applications show only that they have been filed. See
Interpayment Services Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463
(TTAB 2003).
Serial No. 77528050
7
A. Third-party registrations
Registration
Number
Mark Goods/Services
3521911 PERFEC TEMP bakeware; cookware,
namely, pots and pans;
cookware, namely, roasting
pans; cookware, namely,
steamers; tea kettles
3495423 PERFECTEMP women’s clothing, namely,
coats, parkas, vests,
jackets, anoraks, shirts,
T-shirts, ski bibs, ski
overalls, rainwear,
sweaters, pants, underwear
2499523 temporary crown and bridge
material used in dentistry
1811506 PERFECTEMP heat pumps for swimming
pools
3612922 PERFECT TEMP DRAWER

TEMP DRAWER
disclaimed
Storage compartment
feature of domestic and
commercial refrigerators,
freezers and combination
refrigerator freezers,
namely, shelving, drawers,
bins and trays

B. Copies of web pages showing use of the marks in
Registration Nos. 3495423, 2499523, 1811506 and 3612922.
We find applicant’s evidence unpersuasive. As regards
the third-party registrations, while they are not evidence
that the registered marks are actually in use, they may be
given some weight to show the meaning of a mark, or the
meaning of a term in the mark, in the same way that
dictionaries are used. In re Box Solutions Corp., 79
USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006) (“[T]hird-party registrations
can be used in the manner of a dictionary definition to
illustrate how a term is perceived in the trade or
Serial No. 77528050
8
industry”). However, the goods identified in Registration
Nos. 3495423, 2499523 and 1811506 are unrelated to either
applicant’s warming ovens and drawers or registrant’s
thermalization systems, carts and cabinets. While the
bakeware and cookware identified in Registration No.
3521911, and the storage compartment features of domestic
and commercial refrigerators and freezers in Registration
No. 3612922, arguably are somewhat related to the goods at
issue here, two registrations are hardly a basis for us to
find an inherent weakness in the term “PERFECT TEMP.”
Further, while the internet materials submitted by
applicant evidence use, the probative value thereof is
limited because the goods listed in the web pages are
unrelated to those identified in applicant’s application
and the cited registration. See e.g., SBS Products Inc. v.
Sterling Plastic & Rubber Products Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1147,
1149 n.6 (TTAB 1988) (“Even if evidence of such third-party
uses were submitted, it would be of no aid to respondent
herein where the third-party usage was for goods unrelated
to either petitioner’s skin care products or respondent’s
stuffing box sealant.”). As such, the evidence simply does
not establish that there is widespread use of similar marks
for warming ovens, carts and cabinets such that
registrant’s mark is weak due to common usage. But see,
Serial No. 77528050
9
Broadway Chicken Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1559 (TTAB 1996) (Broadway
weak for restaurant services based on evidence that
hundreds of restaurants and eating establishments use
Broadway as a trademark or trade name).
Despite the lack of credible evidence in the record
suggesting that the terms in the marks are weak, the term
PERFECT TEMP is somewhat suggestive of registrant’s
identified goods in that it identifies a feature of the
goods, i.e., that they achieve the optimal temperature
(“temp” is an abbreviation of temperature6) for storing and
heating foods, and therefore registrant’s mark is not
entitled to the broadest scope of protection. But, even if
the scope of protection of registrant’s mark is somewhat
limited, we note that weak marks are entitled to protection
where confusion is likely. See Matsushita Electric Company
v. National Steel Co., 442 F.2d 1383, 170 USPQ 98, 99 (CCPA
1971) (“Even though a mark may be ‘weak’ in the sense of
being a common word in common use as a trademark, it is
entitled to be protected sufficiently to prevent confusion
from source arising”). Here, registrant is at least

6 www.merriam-webster.com. The Board may take judicial
notice of dictionary definitions, Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v.
J.C. Gourmet Food Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff'd, 703
F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983), including online
dictionaries that exist in printed format or have regular fixed
editions. In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (TTAB 2006).

Serial No. 77528050
10
entitled to protection from registration of applicant’s
virtually identical mark for closely related goods (see
discussion below regarding the goods).
We now consider the goods, keeping in mind that the
greater the degree of similarity between the marks at
issue, the lesser the degree of similarity between the
respective goods that is required to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion. See In re Opus One Inc., 60
USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001). If the marks are virtually
identical, as in this case, it is only necessary that there
be a viable relationship between the goods in order to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See In re
Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355, 356
(TTAB 1983). The issue remains, of course, not whether
purchasers would confuse the goods, but rather whether
there is a likelihood of confusion as to their source. In
re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984).
Further, the question of likelihood of confusion must
be determined based on an analysis of the goods recited in
applicant’s application vis-à-vis the goods recited in the
cited registration and we cannot read limitations into
those goods. See Hewlett-Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d
1261, 62 USPQ 2d 1001 (Fed. Cir 2002); and Octocom Systems
Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16
Serial No. 77528050
11
USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1987). If the application and
registration describes goods broadly, and there is no
limitation as to the nature, type, channels of trade or
class of purchasers, it is presumed that the registration
encompasses all goods of the type described, and that they
move in all channels of trade normal for these goods, and
that they are available to all classes of purchasers for
the described goods. See In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d
1716 (TTAB 1992).
With these principals in mind, we compare applicant’s
“heating, cooking, warming, and steam generating apparatus
and appliances, namely electric portable warming ovens and
portable warming drawers” with registrant’s “thermalization
carts and cabinets comprised of electrical circuit
breakers, controllers, display monitors for food storage,
rethermalization and distribution sytems [sic].” The
goods, as identified in the respective identifications, are
related to the extent that they may be used interchangeably
by the same people to distribute food, because both are
moveable and are used to warm, heat or keep food at a
constant temperature.7 We recognize that the wording “food

7 Notably, applicant acknowledges that both its “ovens” and
“drawers” and registrant’s “systems,” “carts” and “cabinets”
“serve the same potential function of warming food.”
Br. p. 8.

Serial No. 77528050
12
storage … and distribution systems” in registrant’s
identification of goods additionally implies other
functionality as well as institutional or other commercial
use.8 However, applicant’s broadly worded recitation
contains no such illuminating language and, thus, as
identified applicant’s goods, notwithstanding their
portability, could also have institutional and commercial
applications.
In addition, the examining attorney has made of record
the following evidence to show that applicant’s “heating,
cooking, warming, and steam generating apparatus and
appliances, namely electric portable warming ovens and
portable warming drawers” are related to registrant’s
“cabinets and thermalization carts and cabinets comprised
of electrical circuit breakers, controllers, display
monitors for food storage, rethermalization and
distribution sy[s]tems.”9
A. Various third-party web pages offering for sale goods
of the type listed in the application and
registration; according to the examining attorney,

8 Additionally, the identified circuit breakers and monitors are
simply components of registrant’s goods.
9 The examining attorney also made of record the definition of
the term “thermal,” which is defined in relevant part as
“relating to, affected by, or producing heat,” taken from the
Encarta® World English Dictionary [North America Edition] 2007.
Serial No. 77528050
13
such evidence shows that applicant’s and registrant’s
goods travel in the same channels of trade and that
consumers would believe that the goods emanate from a
single source. As pointed out by the examining
attorney, at Wasserstrom.com rethermalization
cabinets and other small kitchen appliances are sold
together particularly for use by caterers or in
restaurants and, in addition, Crescor.com and Carter-
Hoffman also sell cabinets for warming as well as
other small kitchen goods.
B. Various use-based, third-party registrations10
that identify the same or very similar goods to
those identified by both applicant and the
registrant. The third-party registrations
include, for example:
Registration No. 1576269 for, inter alia,
“cooking and holding ovens and heated
portable containers for storing hot food”
and “hot food holding cabinets, heated
buffet service counters and carts, and hot
sandwich services counters and carts”;

Registration No. 1994653 for, inter alia,
“domestic and commercial ovens” and “oven
cabinets and roasting oven cabinets in the

However, this definition is not particularly probative to our
determination of the relatedness of the goods.
10 In considering these registrations, we keep in mind that
applicant has broadly identified its portable warming ovens and
drawers and hence applicant’s identification includes ovens for
commercial use in the food service industry.
Serial No. 77528050
14
nature of ovens and roasting oven cabinets
for butchers, restaurants and caterers”;

Registration No. 2372120 for, inter alia,
“commercial and residential gas and electric
foodservice equipment, namely ovens” and
“commercial and residential gas and electric
foodservice equipment, namely heated …
cabinets [and] heated food-serving carts”;

Registration No. 2516207 for, inter alia,
“electric powered … ovens … [and] food
warmers” and “heated food display cabinets
and cases”;

Registration No. 2643437 for, inter alia,
“food service equipment, namely ovens, food
warmers … [and] heated holding cabinets”;

Registration No. 2546374 for “foodservice
equipment; namely, “food warmers” and
“cabinets for displaying, warming, cooking,
holding and transporting foods”;

Registration No. 2772911 for, inter alia,
“ovens” and “heated food display cabinets
and electric … cookers, steamers and warming
units”;

Registration No. 2894679 for, inter alia,
“food and beverage serving equipment for the
heating, cooking, rethermalization, …
storage and transport of food comprising
heat-activated or warmer-oriented equipment-
namely, electric cooking ovens and banquet
cabinets for preplated meals”;

Registration No. 3489138 for, inter alia,
“commercial food cooking and preparation
equipment, namely … gas and electric ovens”
and “cabinets used to control temperature
and humidity for heating and proofing food
goods”;

Registration No. 3718282 for, inter alia,
“cook- and hold- ovens” and “electric
cabinets used to control temperature and
Serial No. 77528050
15
humidity for heating and proofing food
goods”;

Registration Nos. 3207722 and 321047211 for,
inter alia, “electric food warmers” and
“radiant heated holding and transport
cabinets for bulk foods”;

Registration Nos. 3210472 and 320772212 for,
inter alia, “electric food warmers” and
“radiant heat holding and transport cabinets
for bulk foods”; and

Registration No. 3459421 for “food service
equipment, namely, “combination ovens” and
“food service equipment, namely, … holding
cabinets, roasting cabinets, [and] hot
cabinets”.

Third-party registrations that individually cover
different items and that are based on use in commerce serve
to suggest that the listed goods and services are of a type
that may emanate from a single source. See Mucky Duck
Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988) (Although
third-party registrations are “not evidence that the marks
shown therein are in use on a commercial scale or that the
public is familiar with them, [they] may nonetheless have
some probative value to the extent that they may serve to
suggest that such goods or services are of a type which may
emanate from a single source”). See also In re Albert
Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (TTAB 1993).

11 These registrations are owned by the same entity and cover the
same goods.
12 These registrations are owned by the same entity and cover the
same goods.
Serial No. 77528050
16
Based on the identifications themselves, as well as
the third party-registrations and internet materials
introduced by the examining attorney, we find that the
examining attorney has established that consumers would
expect that goods of the type identified in both
applicant’s application and the cited registration, i.e.,
warming ovens and drawers vis-à-vis thermalization carts
and cabinets, would emanate from the same source under a
common mark. Additionally, the goods may be used
interchangeably by the same people to distribute food. We
thus find the evidence sufficient to establish that
applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related for purposes
of our likelihood of confusion analysis.
We reiterate that in making our finding, we must bear
in mind that applicant’s goods are not limited to any
particular size, application or purpose. Nor are
registrant’s goods limited to any particular size. As
such, applicant’s assertion that “[t]he record … makes
clear and unequivocal that Applicant’s goods consist of
small kitchen countertop appliances for household use
whereas Carlisle’s [registrant] goods consist of large and
complex systems containing rethermalization carts and
cabinets and large rethermalization carts and cabinets
themselves, both of which are designed for use exclusively
Serial No. 77528050
17
in the foodservice industry”13 is unavailing. Contrary to
applicant’s assertion, “portable” in applicant’s
identification does not equate to small, kitchen
countertop, and for household use. Moreover, registrant’s
identification includes “carts,” which typically are mobile
and portable, and “cabinets” which could be of any size.
Furthermore, with respect to the channels of trade and
classes of purchasers, in the absence of any limitations to
the identification of goods in the application as to
channels of trade and classes of purchasers, we must
presume that applicant’s portable warming ovens and drawers
will move in all usual channels of trade which, as
demonstrated by the evidence of record, may include the
catering and other food service industries, and will be
used by all normal potential purchasers, including
caterers. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981). As
such, the channels of trade and classes of purchasers
overlap.
Applicant’s arguments regarding registrant’s specific
goods and function and their actual trade channels, and its
attempts to limit the same to use in the foodservice
industry, particularly hospital and nursing home settings,

13 Br. p. 6.

Serial No. 77528050
18
fail, inasmuch as an applicant may not restrict the scope
of goods in an otherwise unrestricted registration by
argument or extrinsic evidence. See In re Bercut-
Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986). In that
regard, applicant’s reliance on In re Trackmobile Inc., 15
USPQ2d 1152, 1153 (TTAB 1990) is misplaced. In that case,
the Board reiterated the well-established rule of law that
“the Board must compare applicant’s goods as set forth in
its application with the goods as set forth in the cited
registration. It is improper to decide the issue of
likelihood of confusion based upon a comparison of
applicant’s actual goods with registrant’s actual goods.”
Id. at 1153. The Board went on to state that “when the
description of goods for a cited registration is somewhat
unclear, as is the case herein, it is improper simply to
consider that description in a vacuum and attach all
possible interpretations to it when the applicant has
presented extrinsic evidence showing the description of
goods has a specific meaning to members of the trade.” Id.
at 1154. Trackmobile stands for the proposition that when
the nature of the goods is unclear (e.g., mobile railcar
movers v. light railway motor tractors), extrinsic evidence
may be used to demonstrate what a specific term means in an
industry to understand whether or not one is encompassed by
Serial No. 77528050
19
the other. The nature of the goods in this case is clear.
The absence of function and trade channel limitations does
not present a “vacuum”; it simply provides for broader
protection.
Last, we are not persuaded by applicant’s argument
that a likelihood of confusion is precluded because the
purchasers of registrant’s goods are “seasoned purchasers
of institutional food services products for special needs”
who are “purchasing an extremely expensive piece of
equipment that is responsible for providing meals to an
expansively large group of people (i.e., hospital patients
and nursing homes)”; whereas the purchasers of its goods,
while not as sophisticated as the professional purchasers
of registrant’s goods are “certainly sophisticated as
well.” Br. pp. 14-15. First, even if the purchasers of
the both applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods will
exercise a degree of care in their purchasing decisions,
contrary to applicant’s assertion, the identification in
registrant’s mark does not reflect that the goods would
only be sought only by professionals in the
hospital/nursing facility industries. Moreover, applicant
does not provide any evidence regarding the decision-making
process used by these purportedly professional or, in the
case of applicant, sophisticated, consumers, the role
Serial No. 77528050
20
trademarks play in their decision making-process, or how
observant and discriminating they are in practice.
Accordingly, the flaw in applicant’s argument is that there
is no corroborating evidence. See Refreshment Machinery
Inc. v. Reed Industries, Inc., 196 USPQ 840, 843 (TTAB
1977) (selling to a sophisticated purchaser does not
automatically eliminate the likelihood of confusion because
“[i]t must also be shown how the purchasers react to
trademarks, how observant and discriminating they are in
practice, or that the decision to purchase involves such
careful consideration over a long period of time that even
subtle differences are likely to result in recognition that
different marks are involved”). In any event, even
knowledgeable and careful purchasers can be confused as to
source, where, as here, very similar marks are used in
connection with closely related goods. See In re Research
Trading Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 230 USPQ 49, 50 (Fed. Cir.
1986) citing Carlisle Chemical Works, Inc. v. Hardman &
Holden Ltd., 434 F.2d 1403, 168 USPQ 110, 112 (CCPA 1970)
("Human memories even of discriminating purchasers … are
not infallible.").
We thus find this du Pont factor neutral.
When we consider the record and the relevant
likelihood of confusion factors, and all of applicant’s
Serial No. 77528050
21
arguments relating thereto, including those arguments not
specifically addressed herein, we conclude that in view of
the virtual identity in the commercial impressions of
applicant’s mark, PERFECT TEMP, and registrant’s mark,
, their contemporaneous use on the involved
related goods is likely to cause confusion as to the source
or sponsorship of such goods. Moreover, to the extent that
we have any doubts as to the correctness of this
conclusion, we resolve such doubts, as we must, against
applicant and in favor of registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes
(Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 840, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act is affirmed.