Source: https://ttabcenter.com/ttabcase/i-l-l-a-s-p-a/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:37:50+00:00

Document:
Registration No. 1306160 with a priority filing date of December 16, 2015.
021. Examiners Brief, 11 TTABVUE 3. The refusal does not pertain to the goods in Class 2.
Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir.
23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), affd mem. unpublished, No. 92-1086 (Fed. Cir.
retains a general rather than specific impression of the marks. LOreal S.A. v.
and may not even be noticed.
1409 (TTAB 2010). These terms may be pronounced in an identical manner.
Co. v. Green Planet Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1519 (TTAB 2009) (citing Krim-Ko Corp.
the similarity in either form, spelling or sound alone is likely to cause confusion.)).
having a similar arbitrary meaning and commercial impression.
to OLIA, the first term of the cited mark.
pp. 8-8 (9 TTABVUE 14-15).
o the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area.
o a capability given by the practical application of knowledge.
o the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art.
o the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs.
2014), affd, 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Threshold.TV Inc. v.
between TECH and DESIGN such that technology arises out of design.
CAFE); In re Natl Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 751.
favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
LLC, 101 USPQ2d at 1722 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys.
5 May 8, 2017 Final Office Action, TSDR 9-16.
6 Id. at TSDR 17-31.
8 Id. at TSDR 51-70.
9 Id. at TSDR 71-74.
10 Id. at TSDR 77-79.
11 Id. at TSDR 84-85.
12 Id. at TSDR 86-87.
14 September 27, 2016 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR 11.
15 Id. at TSDR 17.
16 Id. at TSDR 25.
17 Id. at TSDR 28-29.
i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1409 (TTAB 2015); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v.
Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014).
18 Id. at TSDR 31.
19 Id. at TSDR 34.
20 Id. at TSDR 36.
21 May 8, 2017 Final Office Action, TSDR 91.
22 Id. at TSDR 94.
S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).
not foreclose further inquiry into likelihood of confusion. Federated Foods, Inc. v.
23 Id. at TSDR 51.
24 Id. at TSDR 86-87.
Registrants specific goods are related.
Pont factors weigh in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.
« Pruvit Ventures, Inc. » Asustek Computer Incorporation v. Chengdu Westhouse Interactive Entertainment Co., Ltd.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.