Opinion ID: 212076
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Test for Similarity

Text: 7 The Board phrased the legal test for similarity as whether the marks when compared in their entireties in terms of appearance, sound and connotation, are similar or dissimilar in their overall commercial impressions. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, slip op. at 26-27. After conducting a thorough analysis of the appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression of the marks, the Board concluded that they were more similar than dissimilar in their overall commercial impression for purposes of the first DuPont factor. Id. at 29. In both instances, the Board treated commercial impression as the ultimate conclusion under this prong rather than as a separate factor along with appearance, sound, and meaning. Palm Bay contends that the Board's inaccurate paraphrase of the legal standard infected its analysis and constitutes reversible error. 8 This court declines to find reversible error merely because the Board, in two instances, made a minor misstatement of the similarity test in an otherwise proper analysis. Moreover, this court's precedent counsels that the phrase commercial impression is occasionally used as a proxy for the ultimate conclusion of similarity or dissimilarity of marks resulting from a comparison of their appearance, sound, and meaning. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (Fed.Cir.2002) (holding that PACKARD TECHNOLOGIES and HEWLETT PACKARD differ in appearance and sound, but the marks convey a similar commercial impression because consumers would be aware of Hewlett-Packard's heavy involvement in technology-based goods, and therefore the marks are similar in their entireties); Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 355 (Fed.Cir.1992) (holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the same commercial impression from the marks); Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 531 F.2d 561, 562 (C.C.P.A.1976) (holding that RAINFRESH is confusingly similar to RAIN BARREL given the close relationship of the goods and similarity of commercial impressions).