TTABlog Test: Is KINETIK for Pipeline Laying Services Confusable with QINETIQ for Construction Management Services?

The USPTO refused to register the mark KINETIK, in standard character and stylized form, for, inter alia, “oil, gas and water pipeline laying," deeming confusion likely with the registered mark QINETIQ for, inter alia, "construction management services," "advisory services relating to the construction, repair and maintenance of building structures,” and “advisory services in the field of the construction, repair and maintenance of civil engineering structures." The Board found that the services do not overlap, that they inherently require some deliberation in the purchasing process, and that the word "kinetic" is somewhat conceptually weak. But what about the marks? Are they too close anyway? In re Kinetik Holdings Inc., Serial Nos. 97457836 and 97457861 (November 6, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.).

The Services: The broadly recited services in the cited registration encompass applicant's management and advisory services in the field of pipeline construction. "The question, then, is whether managing or advising on pipeline construction is related to performing a step in that construction — namely, Applicant’s oil, gas and water pipeline laying." The Board answered in the affirmative.

The relationship is not one of encompassment; we do not suggest that Registrant’s management and advisory services include performing Applicant’s pipeline-laying work. Rather, the services are intrinsically complementary: one covers the management of, and advice concerning, the pipeline-construction process, and the other covers a step that must be performed within that very process.

The website evidence submitted by Examining Attorney Maureen Dall Lott confirmed the relatedness of the services, demonstrating that "numerous entities offer both oil, gas and/or water pipeline construction/pipeline laying services and construction management or advisory services under the same mark." Furthermore, a bunch of use-based third-party registrations showed that the same entity has registered a single mark identifying both pipeline construction/pipeline laying services and construction management, project management, or construction advisory services.

The Board therefore found that the second DuPont factor supported the refusal. The website evidence also established that the services are offered in overlapping trade channels, and so the third DuPont factor supported the refusal as well.

The Marks: "Although the first and last letters in Applicant’s marks and the Cited Mark are not the same, each of the marks presents a degree of visual symmetry by virtue of using the same letter at the beginning and end of the word." [rather weak tea - ed.]. As to the stylized mark, the cited mark is in standard character form and cold be used in a style like that of applicant.

The Board found most significant the fact that the marks could be pronounced the same way. "There is no correct pronunciation of a mark that is not a recognized word, and consumers may pronounce a coined term in various ways."

The record establishes that the letter “Q,” when not followed by a “U,” is often pronounced with a hard “k” sound, as in “qwerty,” “Qatari,” “qadi,” “sheqel,” and “Iraqi.” Because the only differences between the words of the respective marks are the substitution of the letter “K” for the letter “Q” at the beginning and end, and because the letter “Q” in the Cited Mark may readily be voiced as a hard “k,” the marks are likely to be pronounced identically. “Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion.”

The Board also found that the marks "share significantly similar connotations and commercial impressions. Each mark would likely be perceived by consumers as a misspelling of the English word 'kinetic.'" [doubtful - ed.].

Applicant argued, of course, that its mark QINETIQ differs in appearance and pronunciation from the cited mark, but the Board was unmoved.

The possibility that some consumers might voice the Cited Mark differently does not diminish the likelihood that many consumers would pronounce the two marks identically. Finally, even accepting that some consumers would notice the spelling difference, the marks nonetheless share the identical dominant sound and a similar underlying meaning as misspellings of “kinetic.” The visual difference of substituting “K” for “Q” at the beginning and end of the marks does not overcome the marks’ identical pronunciation and significantly similar connotation.

And so, the first DuPont factor supported the refusal.

Purchasing conditions: Per Stone Lion, the Board must look to the least sophisticated potential purchasers under the fourth DuPont factor. However, "even less sophisticated individual consumers of Registrant’s services are likely to exercise care in purchasing given the nature of the services."

Weighing these considerations, and because the relevant services inherently involve some deliberation while the cited registration’s breadth precludes assuming uniformly sophisticated purchasers, the fourth DuPont factor weighs somewhat — but not heavily — against a finding of likelihood of confusion.

Strength of the Cited Mark: The Board agreed with applicant that the word "kinetic" — which denotes energy or motion — "is somewhat conceptually weak as applied to services in the energy and pipeline fields." [I think "kinetic" is too vague to suggestive anything about the services - ed.]. "The evidence establishes only modest weakness, however."

Whatever modest conceptual weakness the term “kinetic” carries does not extend so far as to permit registration of a phonetically identical mark for related services. 

And so, the sixth DuPont factor weighed "only slightly" against a conclusion of likelihood of confusion.

On balance, the factors favoring a likelihood of confusion — the marks’ similarity (especially their phonetic identity), the relatedness of the services, and overlapping trade channels — outweigh the factors weighing against it — purchaser sophistication and the conceptual weakness of the Cited Mark. Neither counterweight alters the result.

Conclusion: "To the extent that any doubts might exist as to the correctness of this conclusion, we resolve such doubts in favor of the prior registrant."

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: I have quite a bit of doubt. I would have reversed the refusal.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.