Test Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Are Pet Treats and Pet Boarding Services Related for Section 2(d) Purposes?
The USPTO refused registration of the mark LUCKY PAWS for "pet treats, namely, organic material to be mixed with other organic material and microwaved," finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark LUCKY PAWZ for "pet boarding services; pet day care services." Of course the marks are real close, but what about the goods/services? How would you rule? In re Lucky Paws, LLC, Serial No. 77929696 (February 3, 2012) [not precedential].
There was no evidence that any company that manufactures pet treats also renders pet day care services. The record included only one third-party registration that included both "pet treats" and "boarding and daycare for private pets." [As opposed to public pets? -ed.]. The record evidence failed to show "that pet boarding and day care services and pet treats are intrinsically related." End of story, right? Wrong.
There was evidence that companies rendering pet boarding and day care services "provide food and treats to the pets albeit not under the same marks." The Board therefore concluded that "organic pet treats are a type of product that is offered in conjunction with pet boarding and day care services, they move in the same channels of trade, and are sold to the same classes of consumers."
The Board found confusion likely and it affirmed the refusal to register.
TTABlog comment: Well, how did you do, Judge Wanna-be? Were you surprised by the outcome?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2012.