Opinion ID: 2994687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Similarity in Appearance and Suggestion

Text: The trial court focused most heavily on the first factor, finding that the BONE DADDY and SMOKE DADDY marks were confusingly similar in appearance and suggestion. The district court based its finding on the tonal similarities of the words bone and smoke. Both words have a long o and are only one syllable long. Further, the district court found that both marks evoke images of slow cooked, smoked barbecue, usually ribs on the bone. We agree that the words sound alike and evoke similar imagery. However, the district court did not discuss the impact of the written form of the marks. SMOKE DADDY’s rectangular mark depicts the words SMOKE DADDY on top of a pair of wings and smoke. In contrast, BONE DADDY’s mark prominently displays a pig clad like a gangster and the words BONE DADDY. The marks are visually distinct. Because the public will encounter the marks in written as well as spoken form, we believe it is essential to consider the marks’ visual characteristics. The visual appearance significantly undercuts the strength of Barbecue Marx’s argument that the marks are similar in appearance and suggestion. However, because of the aural similarity between the marks, we find no clear error with regard to this factor.