• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board: Identical Marks For Complementary Goods Not Confusing

February 06, 2015

By Laura K. Johnson

In a precedential decision dated January 26, 2015, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed the Examining Attorney’s finding that a likelihood of confusion exists between identical TERRAIN marks covering related goods.

Applicant in In re Thor Tech, Inc. (Serial No. 85/667,188) sought registration of the word mark TERRAIN for “recreation vehicles, namely, towable trailers” in Class 12. The Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act based on a registration owned by General Motors for the word mark TERRAIN covering “motor vehicles, namely, trucks” in Class 12.

In reversing the refusal, the Board found that despite the marks being identical, the pending application and existing registration covered complementary, but not overlapping goods, and thus the similarity-of-goods factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion. In doing so, the Board heavily relied upon Applicant’s evidence of third-party registrations showing that the same or similar marks had previously been registered for trucks, SUVs or automobiles, on the one hand, and recreation vehicles, travel trailers, or motor homes, on the other hand. The Board found this co-existence evidenced that businesses in these two industries believe that their respective goods are distinct enough that confusion even between identical marks is unlikely.

Further, while the Board acknowledged the complementary nature of the parties’ goods (i.e., a trailer can be towed by a car or truck), the co-existing registrations suggested that consumers were aware that these types of goods were offered by different companies under the same or similar marks.

When balancing the likelihood-of-confusion factors as a whole, the Board found that in addition to the dissimilarities of the goods, the channels of trade and high degree of consumer care likely to be exercised by the relevant consumers supported the conclusion that Applicant’s TERRAIN mark was not likely to cause confusion with General Motor’s TERRAIN mark.

Tags

likelihood of confusion, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

Contacts

Laura_Johnson
Laura K. Johnson
Of Counsel
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1645
Email

Copyright © 2015 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.

Related Insights

Conference

2021 Bench & Bar Virtual Conference

June 21-25, 2021

Virtual

Conference

IPTA 2021 Annual Conference

May 26-29, 2021

Darwin

Webinar

Avoiding a Surprise Attack: Complying with “Intent-to-Use” Requirements Under U.S. Trademark Law

April 21, 2021

Webinar

Seminar

IP Master Class: Strategies for Federal Circuit, District Court, ITC, and PTAB

April 16, 2021

Virtual

Webinar

Is It Worth It? Effective and Practical Strategies for Due Diligence - Part II

April 14, 2021

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

Unexpected Results Should Be Commensurate with the “Full Scope” of the Claims

April 12, 2021

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit Finding Google’s Android Platform Made Fair Use of the Java API

April 8, 2021

IP Updates

SCOTUS Reverses Federal Circuit Finding Google’s Android Platform Made Fair Use of the Java API

April 8, 2021

At the PTAB Blog

A Real Party-in-Interest Determination Is Final and Non-Appealable, Including Denial of Related Motion to Dismiss and Discovery

April 7, 2021

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP