The USPTO refused to register the mark PFANNER STRETCHFLEX for various items of protective clothing (e.g., accident, radiation and fire protection garments) and protective sporting gear (e.g., athletic protective shin, knee, back and elbow pads for playing sportse), finding confusion likely with the registered mark STRETCHFLEX for underwear and loungewear. The Board found the marks to be similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. But what about the goods? Is relatedness too much of a stretch? In re
The Marks: The Board found the term "stretchflex" to be suggestive of a desirable characteristic of registrant's goods, but "it is not necessarily a weak term entitled to only a limited scope of protection." Comparing the marks, the Board noted that there is no per se rule that when an applicant incorporates the whole of the cited mark, the marks must be found to be similar. However, it does increase the perception that the marks are similar.
Applicant claimed that
As mentioned above, the Board found the marks to be similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.
The Goods: To show the relatedness of the goods, the Examining Attorney relied on several websites (including Carhartt,
The Board concluded that the Examining Attorney failed to prove the relatedness of the goods, and so, it reversed the refusal.
TTABlogger comment: The Examining Attorney must have thought that those big name websites were enough proof of relatedness. I probably would have thought the same.
PS: I suppose if you sleep on a bed of nails, you might wear protective loungewear.
The TTABlog
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
MA 02210
Tel: 617646 8000
Fax: 617646 8646
E-mail: www.wolfgreenfield.com
URL: www.wolfgreenfield.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source