TTAB Affirms Three Section 2(d) Refusals of IDEAL-formative Marks for Real Estate Investment Services

The outcome wasn't ideal for this applicant, as the Board affirmed refusals to register three of its marks: IDEAL CAPITAL GROUP, in standard character and design form, and IDEAL PRIVATE CLIENT in standard character form, for "Real estate investment consultancy; Real estate investment services; Financial investment in the field of Real Estate" [GROUP and CLIENT disclaimed]. The Board found confusion likely with the registered mark IDEAL SALE for "Real estate investment services" [SALE disclaimed]. The "key" first and second DuPont factors, and the third factor, supported the refusal, and the other applicable DuPont factors were neutral. In re Ideal Capital Group Holdings, LLC, Serial Nos. 98352828 (February 24, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin).

The Board began by observing that the services identified in each of the applications and in the cited Registration are identical, and therefore the channels of trade and classes of consumers are also presumed to be identical. "[T]he fact that the services are identical reduces the degree of similarity between the marks necessary for confusion to be likely."

As for the marks, the Board unsurprisingly found the word IDEAL to be the dominant element in all of the marks. Moreover, "the word IDEAL has the same mildly laudatory meaning" in applicant's two standard character marks and in the cited mark, and "the marks as a whole, when considered in connection with the involved services, both conjure up the idea of 'exactly right' real estate investment services." As to applicant's logo mark, the stylization "does not make confusion less likely."

The cited IDEAL SALE mark is registered in standard characters and “could be used in any typeface, color, or size, including the same stylization actually used or intended to be used by [Applicant], or one that minimizes the differences or emphasizes the similarities between the marks.” Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., No. 91194148, 2015 WL 5316485, at *8 (TTAB 2015) (citing Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

The display of the words in Applicant’s logo mark emphasizes IDEAL over CAPITAL GROUP and "encourages consumers to verbalize Applicant’s mark simply as 'Ideal' by engaging in the ‘penchant of consumers to shorten marks.'" Again, the logo mark and the cited mark "both conjure up the idea of 'exactly right' real estate investment services."

Applicant argued that its customers - high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors - would exercise considerable caution, conduct due diligence, and have industry knowledge. However, the services recited in the applications are not so limited and encompass ordinary investors. "Ordinary consumers 'will exercise care when making financial decisions,' but 'are not immune from source confusion where similar marks are used in connection with [identical] services.'"

Applicant argued that the word "ideal" is a weak formative due to “the widespread coexistence of similar ‘IDEAL’ marks within the financial and real estate sectors," but it failed to provide supporting evidence. Its reliance on the lack of evidence of actual confusion was belied by its own assertion that its services and those of the registrant are geographically separated, leading the Board to observe that "there has not been 'a significant opportunity for actual confusion to have occurred.'"

We conclude that consumers with a general recollection of the cited IDEAL SALE mark for real estate investment services who separately encounter Applicant’s standard-character and stylized IDEAL CAPITAL GROUP marks and Applicant’s IDEAL PRIVATE CLIENT mark for the identical real estate investment services are likely to conclude mistakenly that the services have a common source.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: WYHA?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.