October 27, 2025
Authored and Edited by Caleb D. Estes; Ryan V. McDonnell; Sonja W. Sahlsten
In Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., No. 2023-2143 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2025), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a TTAB decision refusing to register Apex’s trademark based on likelihood of confusion.
The USPTO granted Apex’s application for the mark ASPIRE BANK for “banking and financial services.” CC Serve, a credit card service, initiated a successful opposition at the TTAB based on its ASPIRE mark for “credit card services.” Apex appealed, arguing that the TTAB erred in analyzing three of the DuPont factors for evaluating likelihood of confusion, namely the first (overall similarity of the marks), second (similarity of goods and/or services), and sixth (third-party use of similar marks) factors.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s findings on the second factor and vacated its findings on the first and sixth factors. For the second factor, the court found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s analysis that “credit card services” and “banking and financial services” are similar, as each encompasses extending credit and the issuance of credit cards. For the sixth factor, the court found that the Board erred in considering evidence of third-party uses of similar marks for only credit card-related services to the exclusion of the broader financial services industry. The court clarified that the third-party use analysis should consider not only identical services but similar ones. Finally, the court vacated the Board’s analysis on the first factor because the overall similarity of the marks may be informed by the Board’s reconsideration of the sixth factor under the correct standard for third-party use. The court remanded for the TTAB to consider the number and nature of similar marks on similar goods and the appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression of the marks in light of its finding that the parties’ services are highly similar.
Copyright © 2025 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California
October 19-20, 2026
San Francisco
Hybrid Conference
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York
September 28-29, 2026
New York
Webinar
Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights
July 15, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.