TTABlog Test: Is "LEFT RIGHT MIDDLE" Confusable with "LEFT CENTER RIGHT & Design" for Dice Games?

George & Co. petitioned for cancellation of a registration for the mark LEFT RIGHT MIDDLE for "dice games," in view its registered marks LEFT, CENTER, OR RIGHT - DON'T LOSE YOUR CHIPS! in standard character form, and the mark shown below, for, inter alia, dice games. With the goods identical, the Board presumes that they travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. But what about the marks? How do you think this came out? George & Company LLC v. P & P Imports LLC, Cancellation No. 92082259 (August 4, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn).

"Petitioner’s mark LEFT, CENTER, OR RIGHT - DON’T LOSE YOUR CHIPS! describes how the dice game is played (LEFT, CENTER, OR RIGHT) and is highly suggestive of its object (DON’T LOSE YOUR CHIPS!)." "Similarly, Petitioner’s composite mark . . . describes how the dice game is played (LEFT, CENTER, RIGHT), includes depictions of the dice marked L, R, and C, and suggestive visual instructions, namely arrows showing the left, center, or right direction of the chips."

The record included evidence of dice games with dice marked L, R, and C or M, and the instructions: "Game play is easy to follow and can be played with 3-8 players of all ages, players will roll the dice and follow the commands to pass coins to the left, right, or center pile. The last player to have any coins remaining wins!" and "Players roll the dice to determine where they pass their chips. The last player with chips is the winner and wins the center pot."

Petitioner’s registered marks are not strong because they largely comprise descriptive matter combined with highly suggestive matter. In addition, the record has a dearth of evidence of commercial strength. We find Petitioner entitled to no more than the protection accorded a registered mark, and DuPont factor five is neutral. In contrast, Respondent’s evidence of significant third-party use under DuPont factor six weighs against a likelihood of confusion.

Turning to the marks, the Board found that, "[d]espite the presence of two shared terms in both parties’ marks, the commercial impressions are not the same." "Here, the differences between the words and position of CENTER and MIDDLE, and the presence in Petitioner’s marks of the additional words in one mark, and the additional letters and design elements in the other are sufficient to differentiate the marks."

The Board found that the different connotations or commercial impressions of the marks and the dissimilarities outweighed the similarities, and so the first DuPont factor weighed against a finding of likelihood of confusion.

Balancing the relevant DuPont factors, the Board concluded that confusion is unlikely, and so it denied the petition for cancellation.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: If you were George, would you have rolled the dice?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.