Court Opinion

ID: 9407230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 13:01:10.453107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.044393
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1578   Document: 50      Page: 1   Filed: 06/26/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                       SPIREON, INC.,
                          Appellant

                             v.

                      FLEX LTD.,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-1578
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
 91252138.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: June 26, 2023
                 ______________________

    MICHAEL J. BRADFORD, Luedeka Neely Group, PC,
 Knoxville, TN, argued for appellant. Also represented by
 MARK P. CROCKETT.

    MATTHEW CHRISTIAN HOLOHAN, Sheridan Ross PC,
 Denver, CO, argued for appellee. Also represented by
 PAMELA NICOLE HIRSCHMAN, JULIA SHURSKY.
                ______________________

      Before DYK, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
 DYK, Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1578     Document: 50     Page: 2    Filed: 06/26/2023

 2                                   SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.

     Spireon, Inc. appeals a Trademark Trial and Appeal
 Board (“Board”) decision sustaining Flex Ltd.’s opposition
 to the registration of Spireon’s FL FLEX mark on the
 ground of likelihood of confusion with Flex’s three regis-
 tered marks FLEX, FLEX (stylized), and FLEX PULSE.
 We vacate and remand.
                         BACKGROUND
      Spireon filed a trademark application seeking to regis-
 ter the mark FL FLEX on October 25, 2018, for “[e]lectronic
 devices for tracking the locations of mobile assets in the
 nature of trailers, cargo containers, and transportation
 equipment using global positioning systems and cellular
 communication networks.” J.A. 89. On September 1, 2019,
 an Examining Attorney approved the application for publi-
 cation to the Principal Register, and thereafter it was pub-
 lished for opposition. On November 7, 2019, Flex opposed
 registration on the grounds of priority and likelihood of
 confusion with Flex’s previously registered marks FLEX,
 FLEX (stylized), and FLEX PULSE.
                 I.   Flex’s Registered Marks
     Flex’s FLEX mark was registered July 12, 2016, in In-
 ternational Classes 1 (“classes”) 35, 39, 40, and 42, for ser-
 vices including, in relevant part, “supply chain
 management services; transportation logistics services,
 namely, arranging the transportation of goods for others;
 logistics management in the field of electronics; . . . [and]
 inventory management services for others.” J.A. 95.

     1   The classes are categories of various goods and ser-
 vices as established by the international classification sys-
 tem under the Nice Agreement Concerning the
 International Classification of Goods and Services for the
 Purposes of the Registration of Marks. See 37 C.F.R.
 §§ 2.85, 6.1.
Case: 22-1578       Document: 50    Page: 3    Filed: 06/26/2023

 SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.                                 3

     Flex’s FLEX (stylized) mark was registered on April 5,
 2016, in classes 35, 40, and 42 for services including, in rel-
 evant part, “supply chain management services; transpor-
 tation logistics services, namely, arranging the
 transportation of goods for others; logistics management in
 the field of electronics; . . . [and] inventory management
 services for others.” J.A. 98.
     Flex’s FLEX PULSE mark was registered on December
 12, 2017, in classes 9, 35, and 42, for both goods and ser-
 vices. FLEX PULSE was registered for the goods:
     [c]omputers; computer software for use in supply
     chain management, logistics and operations man-
     agement, quality control, inventory management,
     and scheduling of transportation and delivery;
     [c]omputer software in the nature of downloadable
     mobile applications for use in supply chain man-
     agement, logistics and operation management,
     quality control, inventory management, and sched-
     uling of transportation and delivery[.]
 J.A. 101. The FLEX PULSE mark was also registered for
 services including, in relevant part, “[s]upply chain man-
 agement services; logistics management in the field of elec-
 tronics; . . . inventory control and inventory management
 services” as well as “providing temporary use of non-down-
 loadable computer software for supply chain management,
 logistics and operation, inventory control, inventory man-
 agement and tracking of documents and products over com-
 puter networks, intranets and the internet in the field of
 supply chain management.” J.A. 101.
Case: 22-1578     Document: 50      Page: 4    Filed: 06/26/2023

 4                                    SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.

                   II. The Board’s Decision
      On January 25, 2022, the Board sustained Flex’s oppo-
 sition. 2 The Board considered whether there was a likeli-
 hood of confusion based on relevant factors enumerated in
 In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361
 (CCPA 1973) [hereinafter DuPont factors].
      In its consideration of the first DuPont factor, the sim-
 ilarity of the marks, the Board addressed the strength of
 Flex’s marks, including the marks’ conceptual and com-
 mercial strength. The Board first addressed thirty third-
 party trademark registrations and applications, which
 “may bear on conceptual weakness if a term is commonly
 registered for similar goods or services.” J.A. 58 (quoting
 Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125
 U.S.P.Q.2d 1043, 1057 (T.T.A.B. 2017)). The Board ex-
 cluded from consideration ten registrations on grounds not
 challenged on appeal. Of the remaining twenty registra-
 tions, the Board assigned “low probative value,” J.A. 60, to
 fifteen marks that contained “compound terms including
 another word or letters in addition to ‘FLEX’ that change
 the overall meaning and/or commercial impression of the
 marks as a whole.” J.A. 59. The Board then considered the
 five remaining marks: FLEX, including for “[c]omputer
 software used for logistics management”; FLEX, including
 for “[c]omputer software platform for use [i]n . . . managing
 supply chains”; LOAD FLEX for “[c]omputer software de-
 velopment in the field of freight transportation”; VALUE
 FLEX for “[p]acking, loading and unloading of portable
 cargo containers; transport and delivery of portable cargo
 containers”; and FLEX, including for “[a]dvanced transpor-
 tation controller for managing . . . traffic signal control and

     2   On February 10, 2022, the Board issued a corrected
 decision. All citations in this opinion are to the corrected
 version.
Case: 22-1578       Document: 50   Page: 5    Filed: 06/26/2023

 SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.                                 5

 integration with connected or automated vehicles.”
 J.A. 60. The Board concluded that:
     [w]hile the Federal Circuit has held that “exten-
     sive evidence of third-party use and registrations
     is ‘powerful on its face,’” . . . the record of third-
     party registrations in this case is far less than the
     amount of evidence found convincing in Jack
     Wolfskin and Juice Generation wherein “consider-
     able evidence of third-party registration[s]” of sim-
     ilar marks was shown.
 J.A. 61 (alteration in original) (quoting Jack Wolfskin
 Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Mil-
 lennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir.
 2015)) (citing Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794
 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Board found that the evi-
 dence of third-party registrations did not show that Flex’s
 marks were conceptually weak and concluded that Flex’s
 marks were inherently distinctive.
      The Board then analyzed the commercial strength of
 FLEX, FLEX (stylized), and FLEX PULSE. The Board con-
 sidered evidence of commercial strength, such as evidence
 that Flex has used its marks in commerce since 2015, but
 ultimately found insufficient evidence to show “any degree
 of commercial recognition by the relevant purchasing pub-
 lic.” J.A. 66. The Board also considered whether evidence
 of fifteen third-party websites proved Flex’s marks to be
 commercially weak. Of the fifteen uses, the Board found
 four of the uses to be “associated with irrelevant goods and
 services,” J.A. 64, and three of the marks to contain “addi-
 tional elements that cause[d]” the third-party marks “to be
 less similar to [Flex’s] marks than is [Spireon’s] mark.”
 J.A. 65. The Board assigned these marks “low probative
 value,” J.A. 64, and then considered the eight remaining
 uses. The Board again found that eight third-party uses
 was “far less than the amount of evidence found convincing
 in Jack Wolfskin and Juice Generation” and appeared to
Case: 22-1578    Document: 50      Page: 6    Filed: 06/26/2023

 6                                  SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.

 give the evidence no weight in the analysis. J.A. 65–66.
 The Board did not address the third-party registrations,
 without proof of use, in its analysis of commercial strength.
     Ultimately, the Board found the marks to be inherently
 distinctive and afforded the marks “the normal scope of
 protection to which inherently distinctive marks are enti-
 tled.” J.A. 66 (quoting Bell’s Brewery, Inc. v. Innovation
 Brewing, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1340, 1347 (T.T.A.B. 2017)).
      The Board then considered the similarity of the marks,
 analyzing Spireon’s FL FLEX against FLEX, FLEX (styl-
 ized), and, mistakenly, “FLEX PLUS” rather than “FLEX
 PULSE.” The Board found the marks highly similar and
 concluded that the first DuPont factor supported a finding
 of likelihood of confusion.
     Under the second DuPont factor, the similarity or dis-
 similarity of the parties’ goods and services, the Board
 found that the goods and services were related and comple-
 mentary. For the third DuPont factor, the similarity or dis-
 similarity of trade channels and classes of consumers, the
 Board found that the trade channels and classes of consum-
 ers overlapped. Finally, in its consideration of other argu-
 ably probative facts under DuPont factor thirteen, the
 Board declined to find that Spireon’s adoption of FL FLEX
 was made in bad faith after Spireon had notice of Flex’s
 marks. The Board did not consider the other DuPont fac-
 tors, recognizing that the Board must only consider “each
 DuPont factor for which there is evidence and argument.”
 J.A. 56 (citing In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1380
 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
     Ultimately, the Board found that there was a likelihood
 of confusion between Spireon’s and Flex’s marks and, ac-
 cordingly, sustained Flex’s opposition. Spireon appealed.
 We have jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a)(1) and
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).
Case: 22-1578       Document: 50    Page: 7    Filed: 06/26/2023

 SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.                                 7

                            DISCUSSION
     Likelihood of confusion is a question of law based on
 underlying factual findings regarding the DuPont factors.
 In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
 2017). We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and
 factual findings for substantial evidence. Id.
                                I
      Our court in trademark opposition proceedings, like
 every other circuit in the infringement context, considers
 the strength of the prior user’s mark as a central factor in
 the likelihood of confusion analysis. 2 J. Thomas McCar-
 thy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition
 § 24:43 (5th ed. 2023). Two of the DuPont factors (the fifth
 and sixth) consider strength. The fifth DuPont factor,
 “[t]he fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of
 use),” 476 F.2d at 1361, is a measure of the mark’s strength
 in the marketplace. See Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v.
 Fairmont Holdings, LLC, 857 F.3d 1323, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
 2017). That factor is not at issue here.
     What is at issue is the sixth DuPont factor, “[t]he num-
 ber and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods,”
 476 F.2d at 1361, which is a measure of the extent to which
 other marks weaken the assessed mark. See Palm Bay Im-
 ports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en
 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
      There are two prongs of analysis for a mark’s strength
 under the sixth factor: conceptual strength and commercial
 strength. 2 McCarthy, supra, § 11:80; In re Chippendales
 USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Con-
 ceptual strength is a measure of a mark’s distinctiveness,
 Chippendales, 622 F.3d at 1353, and distinctiveness is “of-
 ten classified in categories of generally increasing distinc-
 tiveness[:] . . . (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive;
 (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful.” Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Ca-
 bana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992). Distinctiveness is
Case: 22-1578     Document: 50      Page: 8   Filed: 06/26/2023

 8                                   SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.

 relevant to a mark’s overall strength in the likelihood of
 confusion analysis. 2 McCarthy, supra, § 11:73.
     Relevant here, descriptive marks “directly and imme-
 diately convey[] some knowledge of the characteristics of a
 product or service,” id. § 11:16, while suggestive marks
 “suggest[], but do[] not directly and immediately describe,
 some aspect of the goods or services,” 2 McCarthy, supra,
 § 11:62. Under our precedent, “[m]arks that are descrip-
 tive or highly suggestive are entitled to a narrower scope of
 protection, i.e., are less likely to generate confusion over
 source identification, than their more fanciful counter-
 parts.” Juice Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339 (citations omit-
 ted); see also id. (explaining that third-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 rel-
 atively weak” (citations and internal quotation marks
 omitted)); Jack Wolfskin, 797 F.3d at 1373–74.
      Commercial strength, on the other hand, is “the mar-
 ketplace recognition value of the mark.” McCarthy, supra,
 § 11:80. Commercial strength is a question of “whether
 consumers in fact associate the . . . mark with a unique
 source,” id. (citation omitted), and can be shown by, for in-
 stance, exclusive use of a mark in the marketplace, adver-
 tising and marketing, and sales. See Bridgestone Ams. Tire
 Operations, LLC v. Fed. Corp., 673 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed.
 Cir. 2012).
                               II
      The Board here erred in analyzing conceptual strength
 under the first DuPont factor, the similarity of the marks,
 rather than the sixth DuPont factor. This error, however,
 is not claimed to have affected the overall correctness of the
 Board’s analysis. But the Board made other errors of sig-
 nificance.
Case: 22-1578       Document: 50   Page: 9   Filed: 06/26/2023

 SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.                              9

      First, the Board erred in its analysis of conceptual
 strength. The existence of third-party registrations on sim-
 ilar goods can bear on a mark’s conceptual strength. Juice
 Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339. Specifically, third-party reg-
 istrations containing an element that is common to both
 the opposer’s and the applicant’s marks can show that that
 element has “a normally understood and well-recognized
 descriptive or suggestive meaning.” Jack Wolfskin, 797
 F.3d at 1374 (quoting Juice Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339).
 Accordingly, we have considered the existence of third-
 party registrations under the sixth DuPont factor. See id.
      The Board here erred in its analysis of conceptual
 strength by discounting composite third-party registra-
 tions, even though Spireon’s mark is itself a composite
 mark. The Board attributed low probative value to fifteen
 registered marks with “compound terms including another
 word or letters in addition to ‘FLEX.’” 3 J.A. 59. After ex-
 cluding these marks (along with other categories of marks
 for different reasons), the Board concluded that the record
 of third-party uses and registrations in this case was “far
 less than the amount of evidence found convincing in Jack
 Wolfskin and Juice Generation wherein ‘extensive evidence
 of third-party uses’ of similar marks was shown.” J.A. 65
 (citation omitted) (quoting Jack Wolfskin, 797 F.3d 1374);
 see also J.A. 61 (similar).
     The Board appeared to justify this by finding that the
 “FL” prefix could be ignored. See J.A. 70; see also J.A. 59
 (“15 of these marks are compound terms including another
 word or letters in addition to ‘FLEX’ that change the over-
 all meaning and/or commercial impression of the marks as
 a whole, making them less similar to [Flex’s] marks than is
 [Spireon’s] mark.” (citation omitted)). This was error.

     3   The Board did consider two compound marks,
 LOAD FLEX and VALUE FLEX, as having greater proba-
 tive value in its analysis. J.A. 60.
Case: 22-1578      Document: 50     Page: 10   Filed: 06/26/2023

 10                                   SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.

 While it is permissible to find that the FL prefix did not
 eliminate possible confusion with FLEX without the prefix,
 the Board cannot effectively eliminate consideration of
 other composite marks in these circumstances.
     Where marks share a common segment, “[t]hird party
 registrations are relevant to prove that [the shared] seg-
 ment of the composite marks . . . has a normally under-
 stood and well-recognized descriptive or suggestive
 meaning, leading to the conclusion that that segment is rel-
 atively weak.” 2 McCarthy, supra, § 11:90. Evidence of
 composite third-party registrations is also relevant be-
 cause:
       Such registrations could . . . show that the PTO, by
       registering several marks with such a common seg-
       ment, recognizes that portions of such composite
       marks other than the common segment are suffi-
       cient to distinguish the marks as a whole and to
       make confusion unlikely. That is, the presence of
       such a descriptive or suggestive weak segment in
       conflicting composite marks is not per se sufficient
       to make confusion likely.
 Id.
     At least where the registrations and application are for
 non-identical marks, as they are here, it is error for the
 Board to effectively disregard third-party composite
 marks. The composite third-party registrations are rele-
 vant to the question of whether the shared segment—in
 this case, “flex”—has a commonly understood descriptive
 or suggestive meaning in the field and whether there is a
 crowded field of marks in use. The composite marks have
 probative value and should have been included in the
 Board’s analysis.
     The Board compounded this error by apparently giving
 no weight to Spireon’s argument that “flex” is highly sug-
 gestive because it is a shortened form of “flexible.” J.A. 57–
Case: 22-1578      Document: 50       Page: 11   Filed: 06/26/2023

 SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.                                11

 58; see J.A. 1181. The Board disregarded this argument
 because “[Spireon] does not direct us to any evidence that
 [Flex’s] marks are highly suggestive or weak in connection
 with the goods or services recited in [Flex’s] registrations.”
 J.A. 58. But, as described above, Spireon did produce evi-
 dence, in the form of third-party registrations, regarding
 the mark’s conceptual weakness as applied to the relevant
 industry. It seems apparent that the term “flex” “hint[s] at
 some attribute of the goods or services,” 2 McCarthy, su-
 pra, § 11:64 (capitalization altered), in this industry and is
 thus suggestive. On remand, the Board must consider all
 relevant evidence to determine whether Flex’s marks are
 conceptually weak.
                                III
      With respect to commercial strength, Spireon argues
 that the Board again erred in declining to consider compo-
 site marks as to which there was evidence of use. We agree.
 Spireon also apparently argues that the existence of three
 identical marks should be considered in connection with
 commercial strength even though the record does not in-
 clude evidence of use. Third-party mark FLEX was regis-
 tered in 1998 for goods including “computer software used
 for logistics management.” J.A. 1086. Third-party mark
 FLEX was registered in 2013 for, among other things,
 “[c]omputer software platform for use in . . . managing sup-
 ply chains.” J.A. 1092. It was against this backdrop that
 Flex registered its own FLEX and FLEX (stylized) marks
 in 2016 and FLEX PULSE in 2017. Subsequent to Flex’s
 registrations, another third-party registered the mark
 FLeX for “[a]dvanced transportation controller for manag-
 ing a variety of intelligent transportation systems, includ-
 ing traffic signal control and integration with connected or
 automated vehicles.” J.A. 1172.
     It is well established that, in opposition proceedings,
 the burden of proof rests on the opposer. See Real Foods
 Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 973 (Fed.
Case: 22-1578    Document: 50     Page: 12    Filed: 06/26/2023

 12                                 SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.

 Cir. 2018). In the likelihood of confusion analysis, “[t]he
 burden of establishing the strength of a mark falls on the
 trademark proprietor.” 5 Louis Altman & Malla Pollack,
 Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monop-
 olies § 21:79 (4th ed. 2022); see also Coach Servs., Inc. v.
 Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
 2012) (holding that it is the opposer’s burden to prove fame
 of its mark). While the applicant has a burden of producing
 evidence of relevant registrations, it may be that where the
 applicant has introduced evidence of third-party registra-
 tions, the burden should rest on the opposer to establish
 non-use rather than on applicants to establish use of those
 third-party registrations. In other words, absent proof of
 non-use, use could be assumed. Nonetheless, in prior
 cases, we and our predecessor court appear to have as-
 sumed, without explicitly stating, that in connection with
 the analysis of commercial strength, the burden rested on
 the applicant to establish that prior marks were actually in
 use. See, e.g., AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474
 F.2d 1403, 1406 (CCPA 1973) (holding that “little weight is
 to be given [to third-party] registrations in evaluating
 whether there is likelihood of confusion” because “[t]he ex-
 istence of these registrations is not evidence of what hap-
 pens in the market place or that customers are familiar
 with them”).
     Whether this is consistent with the overall burden of
 proof is an issue that we have not directly addressed,
 though the parties here 4 and this court in Jack Wolfskin,

      4  See Appellant’s Br. 24 (arguing that third-party
 registrations and uses represent a “[c]rowded [f]ield”); Oral
 Arg. at 20:20–58 (“The Court: What about the fact that
 there are three uses and registrations here that are virtu-
 ally identical, they use the flex term standing alone? Ap-
 pellee’s Counsel: That is part of the, under the Juice
Case: 22-1578      Document: 50     Page: 13    Filed: 06/26/2023

 SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.                                 13

 see 797 F.3d at 1373–74, appear to agree that registered
 marks may be considered in connection with commercial
 strength even where the opposer has produced no evidence
 of non-use. We need not decide the broader question of
 which party bears the burden of establishing non-use as a
 general matter. This case presents the far narrower ques-
 tion of whether the burden of showing non-use of identical
 marks for identical goods rests with the opposer. We think
 it necessarily does. Otherwise, the opposer would be able
 to dismiss the commercial significance of previously regis-
 tered identical marks for identical goods where the op-
 poser’s own mark should perhaps have not been granted
 registration in the first place. See i.am.symbolic, 866 F.3d
 at 1315 (affirming the examining attorney’s refusal to reg-
 ister an identical mark for the same or similar goods); see
 also 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) (providing that a certificate of reg-
 istration is prima facie evidence of an owner’s right to use
 the mark).
     To be sure, even with respect to identical marks for
 identical goods, the marks will retain some measure of pro-
 tection against a new registration for an identical mark for

 Generation and Jack Wolfskin cases, those can be consid-
 ered as evidence of third-party use that would weaken a
 mark. But the Juice Generation and Jack Wolfskin cases
 are clear that, in order for third-party use to weaken a reg-
 istered mark, there must be extensive, ubiquitous, volumi-
 nous, widespread use by third parties.”). Regardless of the
 parties’ positions, “[w]hen an issue or claim is properly be-
 fore the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal
 theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the in-
 dependent power to identify and apply the proper construc-
 tion of governing law.” Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc.,
 500 U.S. 90, 99 (1991); see also Sanford’s Est. v. Comm’r,
 308 U.S. 39, 51 (1939); Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335,
 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).
Case: 22-1578     Document: 50      Page: 14   Filed: 06/26/2023

 14                                   SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.

 identical goods. See i.am.symbolic, 866 F.3d at 1329. But
 that is not the situation here. Spireon’s mark is not an
 identical mark for identical goods. Spireon seeks to regis-
 ter “FL FLEX” for different, albeit related, goods.
     Here, Flex as opposer has failed to show that the iden-
 tical marks for identical goods were not used in the mar-
 ketplace, but on remand Flex should be given the
 opportunity to make such a showing, given our clarification
 of the applicable law. 5 If Flex fails to establish non-use,
 the commercial strength of the Flex marks must be consid-
 ered weak as to Spireon’s non-identical mark.
                               IV
     With regard to the FLEX PULSE mark, the Board
 erred in its analysis of the first DuPont factor by comparing
 FL FLEX to FLEX PLUS rather than the relevant mark,
 FLEX PULSE. This was more than a mere typographical
 error. The Board stated:
      We . . . find that the term “PLUS” in Opposer’s
      FLEX PLUS mark is merely laudatory with respect
      to Opposer’s identified products and services. As
      an adjective, “PLUS” is defined as “having, receiv-
      ing, or being in addition to what is anticipated,”
      “greater than that specified,” or “possessing a spec-
      ified quality to a high degree.”

      5   The “last listed owner” of one of the third-party
 FLEX marks on the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic
 Search System is United Parcel Service of America
 (“UPS”). J.A. 1086. While there is no record evidence of
 use of this mark in the present case, in the companion case,
 Bad Elf, LLC v. Flex Ltd., there is evidence of UPS’s use of
 the mark. See Joint Appendix at 1007–09, Bad Elf, LLC v.
 Flex Ltd., No. 22-1839 (Fed. Cir. argued Apr. 4, 2023).
Case: 22-1578      Document: 50     Page: 15   Filed: 06/26/2023

 SPIREON, INC.   v. FLEX LTD.                              15

 J.A. 68–69 (quoting Plus, Merriam-Webster.com,
 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plus         (last
 visited January 20, 2022)). Flex admits this was error, but
 asserts that the error is nonetheless harmless because the
 Board’s overall similarity analysis is supported by substan-
 tial evidence. We disagree. We note that FLEX PULSE is
 quite different from FL FLEX in appearance and sound.
 “Flex” appears as the first word in the FLEX PULSE mark,
 while it is the last word in the FL FLEX mark. On remand,
 the Board should analyze the correct mark, taking into ac-
 count all the differences between FL FLEX and FLEX
 PULSE. 6
                           CONCLUSION
     The case is remanded to the Board to reconsider the
 likelihood of confusion and its ultimate decision sustaining
 the opposition in light of this opinion.
                 VACATED AND REMANDED
                                COSTS
 Costs to Appellant.

     6   Spireon also argues that the Board erred in deter-
 mining that the parties’ goods and services are similar. We
 see no error in the Board’s determination in this respect.