TTAB Dismisses 2(d) "INSPIRATION" Opposition: Marks Dissimilar, Goods/Services Unrelated

It took a mere six pages for the Board to render its decision in Inspiration Software, Inc. v. Correales, Opposition No. 91164064 (December 12, 1007) [not precedential]. It found Applicant's mark PARENTS INSPIRATION INSTITUTE for educational services in the field of parenting [PARENTS and INSTITUTE disclaimed] not likely to cause confusion with Opposer's registered mark INSPIRATION for "computer programs in the field of idea development through visual diagramming, outlining and text creation" and "computer education training."


The Board first found the services of the parties to be "far removed" from each other, noting that "[t]he only thing these respective services have in common is that they both involve educational services. That general point of similarity is not enough to support a finding that the parties' specific services are related."

Applicant's services are "even farther afield" from Opposer's computer programs, which "obviously have a highly specific focus and subject matter which are wholly unrelated to applicant's classes and seminars in the field of parenting skills."

Therefore, the second du Pont factor weighed in favor of Applicant.

As to the marks, the Board found them dissimilar in connotation and overall commercial impression. In Applicant's mark, the word INSPIRATION is sandwiched between PARENTS and INSTITUTE, creating a "quite specific connotation and commercial impression which are wholly missing from opposer's mark." Moreover, INSPIRATION is "highly suggestive as applied to opposer's 'idea development' computer programs," thus narrowing the protection to which Opposer is entitled. Viewing the marks in their entireties, the Board found them dissimilar rather than similar, and so the first du Pont factor favored Applicant.

Considering all of the record evidence (consisting solely of Opposer's registrations), the Board found confusion unlikely.

TTABlog note: Earlier this year, this same Opposer lost another opposition on summary judgment, the Board ruling on summary judgment that the differences in the marks precluded a likelihood of confusion. (TTABlogged here).

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2007.