Two Recent Section 2(d) Oppositions Sustained by the TTAB

For some reason we are in the doldrums as far as TTAB decsions go. Here are two recent Section 2(d) oppositions that I will briefly summarize, for lack of anything more interesting to discuss. In the first, the goods and services of the parties overlapped and the marks were nearly identical. In the second the goods were complementary and the marks identical. (I may have to take tomorrow off.)

Suyen Corporation v. Deichmann SE, Opposition Nos. 91251931 and 91256682 (October 21, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen). The Board sustained these two oppositions to registration of the marks BENCH. (Stylized) for footwear and BENCH. URBANWEAR (Stylized) for footwear and for retail store services and on-line retail store services featuring footwear [(URBANWEAR disclaimed], finding confusion likely with the registered mark BENCH for overlapping goods and services. The Board perceptively noted that "[t]he inclusion or absence of a period has a minimal effect on the appearance and no effect on the overall sound or commercial impression of the marks." Furthermore, "Opposer’s standard character BENCH mark can be depicted in any font, size, or color and could be displayed in a font similar to Applicant’s depiction of its marks, further increasing the similarity of the marks’ appearances." As to the BENCH. URBANWEAR mark, "consumers familiar with Opposer’s BENCH mark may believe that BENCH URBANWEAR is a line extension offered by Opposer."

LabWorks, LLC v. Gerstel, Inc., Opposition No. 91285631 (October 17, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis). The Board concluded that the mark LABWORKS for "Scientific apparatus, namely, hand-operated and automated laboratory tools for laboratory use for manipulating laboratory samples for sample preparation and introduction for use with gas chromatography equipment, liquid chromatography equipment, and mass spectrometers" is likely to cause confusion with the identical mark registered for "Computer software for laboratory information management, namely, software for maintaining and managing a database of information pertaining to laboratory procedures, for planning, scheduling, tracking and evaluating laboratory events and procedures, for maintaining records of laboratory procedure data, for reporting information about the status and results of laboratory procedures, and for the transfer of data to and from laboratory instruments, in the fields of the environment, water and waste water, utilities, process control, forensics, foods and beverages, and agriculture." The evidence demonstrated that Opposer’s software and Applicant’s apparatus are goods that "have been used in tandem in a laboratory setting." The Board found that the goods are complementary and therefore related.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Keep moving. Not much to see here. The Board rejected the "something more" requirement in the LABWORKS case becuase only goods were involved. "Something more" is required when considering goods versus services.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.