TTAB Dismisses THOR Opposition, Finding Boats Unrelated to Recreational Vehicles: 34 Pairs of Third-Party Registrations Proved Decisive

In an exhaustive 69-page opinion, the Board dismissed this opposition to registration of the mark shown below, for "recreational watercraft, namely, boats," finding confusion unlikely with the registered mark THOR for "recreational vehicles, namely, travel trailers, motor homes, van campers and fifth-wheel trailers." Opposer's proof of relatedness fell short, particularly in light of Applicant's 34 pairs of registrations for boats and recreational vehicles, each for the same mark and owned by different owners.  This blog post will attempt to hit the high points. Thor Tech, Inc. v. Thor Boats, LLC, Opposition No. 91283957 (April 24, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jessica B. Bradley).

The Board found opposer's THOR mark to be arbitrary and conceptually strong, but the mark enjoyed only "average" commercial strength despite opposer's claim of fame. The Board found the marks to be similar in appearance, sound, connotation and overall commercial impression.

Turning to the relatedness of the involved goods, opposer submitted two relevant registrations covering both boats and recreational vehicles, but the Board found that this meager showing "provides little insight into whether the involved goods are related." More significantly, applicant offered 34 pairs of registrations in each of which the same mark, or a substantially similar mark. was registered by one owner for boats and a different owner (many Thor itself) for recreational vehicles.

[I]n at least 32 of the 34 instances . . . Opposer or a related company owns a registration covering travel trailers, motor homes, van campers and/or fifth-wheel trailers and there is a co-existing registration for the same, or substantially similar trademark, for boats. Opposer has not argued, let alone submitted evidence to show that, it contests the others’ registrations.

Applicant also submitted 15 examples of the same or similar names for boats and for recreational vehicles used by two unrelated entities. "This evidence may be viewed as 'akin to the opinion manifested by knowledgeable businessmen' that confusion is unlikely from such concurrent use.'"

The Board noted that opposer had previously argued to the USPTO that boats and recreational vehicles are not related. "Although not conclusive, we find these statements are relevant evidence supporting that Opposer’s recreational vehicles are dissimilar from and not related to Applicant’s boats."

The Board concluded that the second DuPont factor favored the applicant.

With respect to channels of trade and classes of consumers, the Board found an overlap in customers, but "[n]early all of the evidence demonstrates that the dealers that sell travel trailers, motor homes, van campers and fifth-wheel trailers do not sell boats, and vice versa." In fact, at least 2,400 independent recreational vehicle dealers that distribute opposer’s goods (as well as those of other manufacturers), do not distribute boats.

The purchaser care factor favored the applicant because the involved goods are "relatively expensive" and "are certainly not commonplace everyday purchases."

The Board concluded that opposer had failed to prove that confusion is likely, and so the opposition was dismissed.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Opposer Thor Tech itself used the "paired registration" argument to overcome a refusal to register its mark TERRAIN for towable trailers in view of the identical mark registered for trucks. TTABlogged here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.