Vinod Bhandari

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 1999

No. 75255103 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 1999)

Paper No. 9
DEB
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDEN OF THE TTAB JUNE 18, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Vinod Bhandari
________
Serial No. 75/255,103
_______
Oliver E. Todd, Jr., of MacMillan Sobanski & Todd for Vinod
Bhandari.
Carol A. Spils, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
101 (Jerry Price, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hanak, Quinn and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Vinod Bhandari, a citizen of the United
Kingdom, filed an application for registration of the mark
“KIDS INN” for “hotel and motel services; restaurant
Ser. No. 75/255,103
2
services.”1 Applicant disclaimed the word “INN” apart from
the mark as shown.
The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final
refusal to register based upon Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the ground that
applicant's proposed mark, “KIDS INN,” when used on these
lodging and restaurant services, so resembles the
registered mark, “CHILDREN’S INN,” as applied to “lodging
services for use of children and their families who are
patients at NIH2,” as to be likely to cause confusion, or to
cause mistake, or to deceive.3
Applicant has appealed the final refusal to register.
Briefs have been filed, but applicant did not request an
oral hearing. We reverse the refusal to register.
The Trademark Examining Attorney takes the position
that the two marks have the same connotation since

1 Serial No. 75/255,103, in International Class 42, filed
March 10, 1997, based upon an allegation of a bona fide intention
to use the mark in commerce.
2 NIH is an initialism that stands here for “National
Institutes of Health.”
3 Registration No. 2,034,869 issued on February 4, 1997. The
registration sets forth dates of first use of June 1987.
Registrant disclaimed the word “INN” apart from the mark as
Ser. No. 75/255,103
3
“children’s” and “kids” have the same meaning, and are
followed by the same word “inn.” As to the services, she
contends that applicant’s broad recital of services
encompasses the more restrictive services of registrant.
By contrast, applicant argues that since the common
word, “inn,” is generic in the hotel business, and since
both marks are overall highly suggestive, some similarity
in meaning is insufficient to support a finding of
confusingly similarity between these two marks. In
addition to the differences in the sound and appearance of
the two marks, applicant argues that registrant’s services
are a restricted, specialized type of lodging services
directed to sophisticated purchasers. Such consumers would
never believe upon seeing applicant’s mark on general
lodging services that there was a connection, according to
applicant.
In the course of rendering this decision, we have
followed the guidance of In re E.I. du Pont DeNemours &
Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1362, 177 USPQ 563, 567-68 (CCPA 1973),
that sets forth the factors which, if relevant, should be
considered in determining likelihood of confusion.

shown, and this registration issued under Section 2(f),
Ser. No. 75/255,103
4
In placing these marks on the distinctiveness spectrum
of marks, we find that both marks are close to the line
separating “highly suggestive” from “merely descriptive.”
While registrant’s mark has a claim of acquired
distinctiveness, neither applicant’s mark nor registrant’s
mark is inherently strong. Accordingly, while the overall
meanings are quite similar, we are reluctant to accord the
registration a broader scope of protection than is
warranted. Hence, since the word “Kids” and the word
“Children’s” are sufficiently distinct in sound and
appearance, we conclude that in spite of these similar
connotations, when viewed as a whole, these two marks are
not confusingly similar.
We turn next to the similarity in the services as
described in the application and registration. While
registrant clearly directs its services to a most narrow
segment of purchasers, we agree with the general
proposition that, as in this case, an applicant’s broad
recital of services must be deemed to encompass a
registrant’s restricted scope of services. Furthermore,
the fact that registrant’s consumers are involved with the
NIH is insufficient by itself to have us conclude that
these are sophisticated purchasers.

reflecting a demonstration of acquired distinctiveness.
Ser. No. 75/255,103
5
On the other hand, to the extent we examine the
variety of services on which registrant’s mark is or is not
used, it seems unlikely that someone familiar with NIH’s
connections with “CHILDREN’S INN” would assume, upon seeing
“KIDS INN” on a hotel/motel/restaurant targeting the
general public, that registrant had expanded into this
general marketplace. Accordingly, given registrant’s most
specialized type of lodging services, the extent of
potential confusion appears to be de minimis.
Accordingly, although there is herein a potential of
overlapping lodging services in a legal sense, given the
overall differences in these highly suggestive marks and
the restrictions placed on registrant’s services, we find
the chance of confusion in the actual marketplace to be de
minimis.
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.
E. W. Hanak
T. J. Quinn
D. E. Bucher
Ser. No. 75/255,103
6
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board