NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NORTH 61 LLC,

Appellant

v.

SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF.,

Appellee

______________________

2020-1709

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 

91237366.

______________________

Decided: January 13, 2021

______________________

SCOTT WEAVER JOHNSTON, Merchant & Gould P.C., 

Minneapolis, MN, for appellant. 

 MICHELE S. KATZ, Advitam IP, LLC, Chicago, IL, for appellee. 

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Case: 20-1709 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2021
2 NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF.

North 61 LLC (“North”) appeals from a judgment of the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and 

Appeal Board (“the Board”) sustaining an opposition and 

refusing its application to register the mark NORTH 61. 

Sjoklaedagerdin Hf. v. North 61 LLC, No. 91237366, 2020 

WL 1166478 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2020) (“Decision”). The 

Board refused North’s application on the ground that its

mark NORTH 61 would be confusingly similar to Sjoklaedagerdin Hf.’s (“Sjoklaedagerdin”) mark 660NORTH. For 

the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Sjoklaedagerdin and North both sell apparel. 

Sjoklaedagerdin has owned the registered mark 

660NORTH (standard characters) for use in connection 

with the sale of apparel and retail-store services since 

2016. J.A. 98–100 (Registration 5088873). In 2017, North 

filed an application to register the mark NORTH 61 (standard characters), also for use in connection with the sale of 

apparel and retail-store services. Decision, 2020 WL 

1166478, at *1. (Application 87358942).1 Subsequently, 

Sjoklaedagerdin filed an opposition to North’s mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), asserting that it would create a 

likelihood of confusion with Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark 

660NORTH. The Board agreed that registration of North’s 

1 North sought registration of its mark for use in connection with “Bottoms; Hoodies; Shirts; Tank tops; Tops; Tshirts in International Class 25; and On-line retail gift 

shops; On-line retail store services featuring clothing, 

sporting goods, novelty items, key chains, mugs, posters 

and stickers; Retail gift shops; Retail store services featuring clothing, sporting goods, novelty items, key chains, 

mugs, posters and stickers in International Class 35.” Decision, 2020 WL 1166478, at *1. 

Case: 20-1709 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2021
NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF. 3

mark would create a likelihood of confusion and thus sustained the opposition. 

The Board evaluated the likelihood of confusion between the two marks by referring to the factors set forth in 

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 

(C.C.P.A. 1973) (“the DuPont factors”). The Board first 

found that the parties’ similar goods, services, channels of 

trade, and classes of consumers pointed to a likelihood of 

confusion. Decision, 2020 WL 1166478, at *5. Next, the 

Board determined that Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark 660NORTH 

is not conceptually or commercially weak. Id. at *10. Additionally, the Board determined that the marks are similar because “each combines the word NORTH with a two

digit number in the sixties.” Id. at *6. Lastly, the Board 

found the following DuPont factor to be neutral: length of 

time during and conditions under which there has been 

concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion. Id. at 

*11. 

The Board weighed the relevant DuPont factors and 

concluded that North’s mark NORTH 61 is confusingly 

similar to Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark 660NORTH. Id. It accordingly sustained the opposition and refused North’s application to register its mark. North appealed to this court. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).

DISCUSSION

Under § 2(d) of the Lanham Act, a mark may be refused registration on the principal register if it is “likely, 

when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion” with another registered mark. 

15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is a legal determination based on underlying findings of fact relating 

to the DuPont factors. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. We review the Board’s factual findings on each relevant DuPont

factor for substantial evidence, but we review the Board’s 

weighing of the DuPont factors de novo. Stone Lion Capital 

Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321 

Case: 20-1709 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2021
4 NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF.

(Fed. Cir. 2014). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence as 

adequate to support the conclusion. Consol. Edison Co. v. 

NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). 

On appeal, North primarily challenges the Board’s 

analysis with respect to DuPont factor one, the similarity 

of the marks, and DuPont factor six, the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. We address 

each argument in turn.

I. DuPont Factor One

We turn first to North’s argument regarding DuPont

factor one. DuPont factor one concerns the “similarity or 

dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.” 

DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. North first asserts that the 

Board failed to compare the marks as a whole when conducting its similarity analysis. Specifically, North contends that the Board failed to properly consider the degree 

symbol in Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark 660NORTH. According 

to North, “[w]hile the degree symbol is only one character” 

it renders 660NORTH substantially different in “appearance, sound, meaning, and connotation” from the mark 

NORTH 61. Appellant Br. at 19.

We disagree with North’s assertion that the Board 

failed to analyze the marks in their entireties. It is not improper for the Board to determine that, “for rational reasons,” it should give “more or less weight . . . to a particular 

feature of the mark” provided that its “ultimate conclusion”

regarding the similarity of the marks “rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.” Packard Press, Inc. 

v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 227 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 

2000) (citing In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 

(Fed. Cir. 1985)). Here, the Board acknowledged that 

Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark 660NORTH “includes the symbol °, 

which is verbalized as the word ‘degree.’” Decision, 2020 

WL 1166478, at *6. However, it determined that it should 

Case: 20-1709 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2021
NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF. 5

accord less weight to the degree symbol because it is “so 

small and appears in the middle of the mark.” Id. Although the Board thus accorded less weight to the degree 

symbol, it still compared the marks in their entireties. It

specifically found that the “marks look and sound similar 

because each combines the word NORTH with a two digit 

number in the sixties” and that “[t]o the extent the degree 

symbol in [Sjoklaedagerdin’s] mark” creates any differences “the other similarities between the marks outweigh 

the differences.” Id. at *6, *8.

North next asserts that when conducting its similarity 

analysis, the Board ignored evidence that the parties’ 

marks convey distinct commercial impressions. Specifically, North argues that its mark NORTH 61 connotes Minnesota Highway 61, “a scenic, northbound highway” that 

“runs through Minnesota.” Appellant Br. at 3. In contrast, 

North contends that Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark 660NORTH 

connotes Icelandic imagery because “660” “derives its name 

from the latitudinal line of the Arctic Circle which touches 

Súgandafjörður,” the “town in Iceland where [Sjoklaedagerdin] was formed.” Id. at 9–10. As support for its argument, North points to the advertising context in which the 

parties’ marks are displayed, which, according to North, reflects the commercial impressions that the marks convey to 

consumers. For example, North cites evidence that it uses

its mark in connection with advertisements that “refer[] to

Minnesota Highway 61.” Appellant Br. at 33. North contrasts this evidence with Sjoklaedagerdin’s marketing materials, which display the 660NORTH mark in association 

with Icelandic imagery. 

We disagree with North. The Board expressly addressed North’s argument regarding the marks’ commercial impressions but found it unpersuasive because “other 

than the testimony of [North’s] own witnesses, [North] submitted no evidence to demonstrate that consumers understand either mark in the manner [North] posits.” Decision, 

2020 WL 1166478, at *8. It was reasonable for the Board 

Case: 20-1709 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2021
6 NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF.

to find in this case that North’s self-serving testimony and 

marketing materials were insufficient to demonstrate that 

consumers actually perceive that 660NORTH “connotes [a]

geographic location in Iceland” and that NORTH 61 connotes Minnesota Highway 61. Id. As the Board recognized, 

North’s “intended interpretation of the mark is not necessarily the same as the consumer’s perception of it.” Id.

(quoting In re Yale Sportswear Corp., No. 78653373, 2008 

WL 2675684, at *4 (T.T.A.B. July 3, 2008)). Accordingly, 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination 

that the marks 66°NORTH and NORTH 61, when viewed 

in their entireties, are similar in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression. 

II. DuPont Factor Six

We turn next to North’s argument regarding DuPont

factor six. DuPont factor six concerns the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. DuPont, 476 

F.2d at 1361. “[T]hird party registrations are relevant to 

prove that some segment of the composite marks which 

both contesting parties use has a normally understood and 

well-recognized descriptive or suggestive meaning, leading 

to the conclusion that that segment is relatively weak.” 

Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 

1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 2 MCCARTHY ON 

TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 11.90 (4th ed. 

2015)). North contends that the Board improperly disregarded evidence of third-party registrations of marks that 

are similar to Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark 660NORTH. According to North, this evidence demonstrate that Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark is “weak because it is one of so many similar 

marks” registered for apparel. Appellant Br. at 40.

We disagree. The DuPont factor six analysis concerns 

an examination of the number of similar third-party 

marks. Here, the Board considered North’s evidence but

determined that it was of limited value because “[n]one of 

the third-party registrations include 66° or 66 DEGREES 

Case: 20-1709 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2021
NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF. 7

and the word NORTH as elements” and “many of the 

marks listed contain substantial additional matter” which 

“reduce[s] their probative value.” Decision, 2020 WL 

1166478, at *9–10. It was logical for the Board to afford 

less weight to North’s evidence given its findings that the 

marks were dissimilar to Sjoklaedagerdin’s mark. Accordingly, the Board’s determination with respect to DuPont

factor six is supported by substantial evidence.

Because the Board did not err in its conclusion that registration of North’s mark would create a likelihood of confusion and because its evaluation of the relevant DuPont

factors is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered North’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1709 Document: 33 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2021