TTABlog Test: Are Mugs and Drinking Straw Cleaning Brushes Related Under Section 2(d)?

The USPTO refused to register the mark VENTURI for, inter alia, "cleaning brushes, pull-through cleaning members and push-through cleaning members for cleaning internal surfaces of drinking straws," finding confusion likely with the registered mark shown below, for "housewares namely, mugs." Applicant GI Scientific argued that the involved goods are “fundamentally different” and “there is no commercial or technological relationship” between them, and it further contended that the marks have "distinct meanings." How do you think this appeal came out? In re GI Scientific, LLC, Serial No. 97790646 (July 17, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache).

The Goods: Examining Attorney Jaime Batt submitted third-party website evidence showing that retailers who offer mugs "commonly also offer brushes for cleaning drinking straws." Thus, "consumers are thus accustomed to encountering both types of goods offered by a single source together in the same place and that they may therefore view the goods as related." The Board noted that this evidence also indicates that mugs and brushes for cleaning straws are complementary goods, since one may be used in connection with the other.

GI Scientific pointed out that its goods "are specifically designed to clean and disinfect the internal surfaces of drinking straws, including the removal of harmful bacteria," and so these goods are “fundamentally different” from Registrant’s and “there is no commercial or technological relationship” between them." The Board was unmoved.

The Board agreed that the involved goods here are not the same, but the question is whether they are related in the minds of relevant consumers. Moreover, the antimicrobial and disinfecting functions of GI Scientific's goods are not reflected in its identification of its goods. The Board, of course looks only at the goods as identified in the subject application, without reading in any limitations.

The Board found that goods are "closely related," and so the second DuPont factor weighed in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.

The Marks: The Examining Attorney maintained that the marks are “highly similar in sound, appearance and overall commercial connotation” because “[t]he marks contain the identical dominant term ‘VENTURI.’” The Board did not go quite that far. 

The Board observed that, in a word-and-design mark, the literal portion of the mark - VENTURI SCOTT BROWN - is likely to make a greater impression on consumers. Moreover, consumers are generally inclined to focus on, and remember, the first word in the literal portion of a mark.

Indeed, because Applicant’s mark, in its entirety, is identical to the first word that appears by itself in the first line of the cited mark, we find that the marks are more similar than dissimilar in terms of sound and appearance.

GI Scientific insisted that the marks have "distinct meanings” because its mark “pays tribute to Italian physicist, Giovanni Battista Venturi," whereas the cited mark "appears to be the combination of Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown’s surnames, the married couple who started the brand.” However, the Board noted, there was no evidence establishing that consumers encountering the marks would perceive the marks that way. Therefore, the Board presumed that "whatever connotation VENTURI has, whether as a surname or something else, it would be the same or at least highly similar for both marks, especially when applied to closely related goods."

The Board concluded that GI Scientific's mark and the cited mark "create similar commercial impressions in that VENTURI could be perceived as a shortened form of the cited mark, which displays VENTURI separately on its own line above the other wording in the mark."

To summarize, considering the marks in their entireties, we find that they are more similar than dissimilar in appearance, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression, because the entirety of Applicant’s mark, VENTURI, is incorporated into the cited mark.

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal to register.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Well, what do you think about this one? Seems to me like a dubious mechanical and formulaic application of TTAB doctrine.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.