Examples of Likelihood of Confusion

Likelihood of Confusion is covered in the TMEP (Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure) manual at Chapter 1207.

Conflicting Marks

Case reference

SUPER CHIRO TEA for "herbal teas for medicinal purposes" so resembled opposer's previously used mark CHIROKLENZ for a detoxifying herbal tea, as to be likely to cause confusion among purchasers.

The Board found that applicant took "affirmative steps to cause confusion and to associate SUPER CHIRO TEA with CHIRO-KLENZ tea." These affirmative steps included using the URL www.chiroklenzforless.com and using confusingly similar trade dress.

Edom Laboratories, Inc. V. Lichter (TTAB 2012)

L'OREAL PARIS for "aloe vera drinks" so resembles opposer's previously used and/or registered L'OREAL and L'OREAL PARIS marks for a full range of cosmetics, skin care, and hair care products, some that include aloe vera as an ingredient, as well as for a variety of services, as to be likely to cause confusion.


 GULPY, when used in connection with "portable animal water dishes and animal water containers sold empty" does not so resemble BIG GULP, GULP, or any of opposer's other "Gulp" marks as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.

7-Eleven v. Wechsler, (TTAB 2007)

OIL ZONE and WASH ZONE (junior marks) for oil change and car wash services are sufficiently similar to (senior user) AUTOZONE mark for retail auto parts sales:

  • All marks have two words, with “Zone” as second word;
  • Words in marks are in same font and are slanted in same direction;
  • First letter of both words is larger than other letters in all marks;
  • All marks feature bar designs that suggest movement or speed.

Marks must be viewed in their entireties, and despite certain dissimilarities, prominent similarities between marks may lead consumers to believe that OIL ZONE and WASH ZONE were extensions of AUTO ZONE.

AutoZone Inc. v. Strick, 88 USPQ2d 1225 (7th Cir. 2008)

“Girl Design” senior mark for U.S. parboiled rice sold in Saudi Arabia was infringed by “Girl with a Hat Design” used on bags of U.S. parboiled rice sold in Saudi Arabia, even though senior user’s design depicts visibly Asian girl, whereas junior user’s design incorporates scarf or hat on girl's head, since marks both depict young women with similar hair, dress, and features, posed behind rectangular shape, holding bowl of rice, and utilize same red, yellow, and black color scheme.

Findings: the Lanham Act requirements were met such that ARI's Girl Design was protectable because the image of a girl icon being used to sell rice is not intrinsic to rice as a product

American Rice Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1162 (5th Cir. 2008).

In assessing likelihood of confusion marks at issue, marks must be compared in their entireties. CHI PLUS mark for electric massage apparatus is likely to cause consumer confusion with CHI design mark for legally identical goods, since word “Chi” is integral component of parties' marks, and addition of word “plus” to mark already established and in use for electric therapeutic massagers is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. In this case, other differences between parties' marks are unlikely to prevent confusion.

China Healthways Institute Inc. v. Xiaoming Wang, 83 USPQ2d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Goods or Services Need Not Be Identical: ON-LINE TODAY for Internet connection services held likely to be confused with ONLINE TODAY for Internet content

On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

Goods or Services Need Not Be Identical: MARTIN’S for wheat bran and honey bread held likely to be confused with MARTIN’S for cheese

In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

Goods or Services Need Not Be Identical: ENYCE for custom automotive accessories held likely to be confused with ENYCE for various clothing items and accessories directed to the urban lifestyle market

L.C. Licensing, Inc. v. Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883 (TTAB 2008)

Goods or Services Need Not Be Identical: CONFIRM for a buffered solution equilibrated to yield predetermined dissolved gas values in a blood gas analyzer held likely to be confused with CONFIRMCELLS for diagnostic blood reagents for laboratory use

In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985)

Goods or Services Need Not Be Identical: LAREDO for land vehicles and structural parts therefor held likely to be confused with LAREDO for pneumatic tires

In re Jeep Corp., 222 USPQ 333 (TTAB 1984)

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance despite the addition, deletion, or substitution of letters or words: TMM held confusingly similar to TMS, both for systems software

Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

 Similarity in Sound – Phonetic Equivalents: Acknowledging that “there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark” and finding ISHINE (stylized) likely to be confused with ICE SHINE, both for floor-finishing preparations

Centraz Industries Inc. v. Spartan Chemical Co. Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (TTAB 2006)

Similarity in Sound – Phonetic Equivalents: SEYCOS and design for watches held likely to be confused with SEIKO for watches and clocks

Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten v. Scuotto, 228 USPQ 461 (TTAB 1985)

 Similarity in Sound – Phonetic Equivalents: CAYNA (stylized) for soft drinks held likely to be confused with CANA for, inter alia, canned and frozen fruit and vegetable juices

In re Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 227 USPQ 483 (TTAB 1985)

Similarity in Sound – Phonetic Equivalents: ENTELEC and design for association services in the telecommunication and energy industries held likely to be confused with INTELECT for conducting expositions for the electrical industry

In re Energy Telecommunications & Electrical Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350 (TTAB 1983)

Similarity in Sound – Phonetic Equivalents: CRESCO and design for leather jackets held likely to be confused with KRESSCO for hosiery

In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963)

Similarity in Meaning: CITY WOMAN held likely to be confused with CITY GIRL, both for clothing

In re M. Serman & Co., Inc., 223 USPQ 52 (TTAB 1984)

Similarity in Meaning:  GAS CITY (“GAS” disclaimed) held likely to be confused with GASTOWN, both for gasoline

Gastown Inc., of Delaware v. Gas City, Ltd., 187 USPQ 760 (TTAB 1975)

Similarity in Meaning: AQUA-CARE (stylized) held likely to be confused with WATERCARE (stylized), both for water-conditioning products

Watercare Corp. v. Midwesco-Enterprise, Inc., 171 USPQ 696 (TTAB 1971)

LAPP and LAPP CABLE identical for all practical purposes (Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F. 2d 460 (3rd Cir. 1983))

 Similarity between the marks SIDE DISH and BANQUET SIDE DISH FOR ONE is obvious (Tree Tavern Products, Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 640 F.Supp. 1263, 1270 (D.Del.1986))

Where dominant portions of two marks, COUNTRY FLOORS and COUNTRY TILES are the same, confusion is likely(Country Floors, Inc. v. Gepner, 930 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.1991) )

As cited in Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Industries, Inc., 30 F. 3d 466 - (3rd Cir. 1994)

Have you received a refusal for Likelihood of Confusion?

Call us at 1-651-500-7590  . We May Be Able to Help. If you have other Marks that you are thinking of registering–CALL US FIRST. Many potential trademark owners may have marks that may be registerable under some conditions and not under others. Guessing wrong can be costly.     

Not Just Patents®

Aim Higher® Facts Matter

Not Just Patents® LLC

PO Box 18716

Minneapolis, MN 55418




Call 1-651-500-7590 or email WP@NJP.legal for Responses to Office Actions; File or Defend an Opposition or Cancellation; Trademark Searches and Applications; Send or Respond to Cease and Desist Letters.

For more information from Not Just Patents, see our other sites:      

Evolved Means, Method or Format-Is your trademark registration obsolete?

Trademark e Search    Strong Trademark     Enforcing Trade Names

Common Law Trademarks  Trademark Goodwill   Abandoned Trademarks

Chart of Patent vs. Trade Secret

Patent or Trademark Assignments

Trademark Disclaimers   Trademark Dilution     TSDR Status Descriptors

Oppose or Cancel? Examples of Disclaimers  Business Cease and Desist

Patent, Trademark & Copyright Inventory Forms

USPTO Search Method for Likelihood of Confusion

Verify a Trademark  Be First To File    How to Trademark Search

Are You a Content Provider-How to Pick an ID  Specimens: webpages

How to Keep A Trade Secret

Decrease Your Vulnerability to Cancellation

Using Slogans (Taglines), Model Numbers as Trademarks

Which format? When Should I  Use Standard Characters?

Opposition Pleadings    UDRP Elements    

Oppositions-The Underdog    Misc Changes to TTAB Rules 2017

How To Answer A Trademark Cease and Desist Letter

Trademark Integrity: Are your IP Assets Vulnerable?

Trademark Refusals    Does not Function as a Mark Refusals

Insurance Extension  Advantages of ®  ApplyTM.com

How to Respond to Office Actions  Final Refusal

What is a Compact Patent Prosecution?

Acceptable Specimen       Supplemental Register   $224 Statement of Use

How To Show Acquired Distinctiveness Under 2(f)

Trademark-Request for Reconsideration

Why Not Just Patents? Functional Trademarks   How to Trademark     

What Does ‘Use in Commerce’ Mean?    

Grounds for Opposition & Cancellation     Cease and Desist Letter

Trademark Incontestability  TTAB Manual (TBMP)

Valid/Invalid Use of Trademarks     Trademark Searching

TTAB/TBMP Discovery Conferences & Stipulations

TBMP 113 TTAB Document Service  TBMP 309 Standing

Examples and General Rules for Likelihood of Confusion

Examples of Refusals for Likelihood of Confusion   DuPont Factors

What are Dead or Abandoned Trademarks?

 Can I Use An Abandoned Trademark?

Color as Trade Dress  3D Marks as Trade Dress  

Can I Abandon a Trademark During An Opposition?

Differences between TEAS, TEAS RF and TEAS plus  

Extension of Time to Oppose?

Ornamental Refusal  Standard TTAB Protective Order

SCAM Letters Surname Refusal

What Does Published for Opposition Mean?

What to Discuss in the Discovery Conference

Descriptive Trademarks Trademark2e.com  

Likelihood of Confusion 2d  TMOG Trademark Tuesday

Acquired Distinctiveness  2(f) or 2(f) in part

Merely Descriptive Trademarks  

Merely Descriptive Refusals

ID of Goods and Services see also Headings (list) of International Trademark Classes

Register a Trademark-Step by Step  

Protect Business Goodwill Extension of Time to Oppose

Geographically Descriptive or Deceptive

Change of Address with the TTAB using ESTTA

Likelihood of confusion-Circuit Court tests

Pseudo Marks    How to Reply to Cease and Desist Letter

Not Just Patents Often Represents the Underdog

 Overcome Merely Descriptive Refusal   Overcome Likelihood Confusion

Protecting Trademark Rights (Common Law)

Steps in a Trademark Opposition Process   

Section 2(d) Refusals   FilingforTrademark.com

Zombie Trademark  

What is the Difference between Principal & Supplemental Register?

Typical Brand Name Refusals  What is a Family of Marks? What If Someone Files An Opposition Against My Trademark?

How to Respond Office Actions  

DIY Overcoming Descriptive Refusals

Trademark Steps Trademark Registration Answers TESS  

Trademark Searching Using TESS  Trademark Search Tips

Trademark Clearance Search   DIY Trademark Strategies

Published for Opposition     What is Discoverable in a TTAB Proceeding?

Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses

©2008-2018 All Rights Reserved. Not Just Patents LLC, PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418.

Call: 1-651-500-7590 or email: WP@NJP.legal. This site is for informational purposes only and is provided without warranties, express or implied, regarding the information's accuracy, timeliness, or completeness and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney/client relationship exists without a written contract between Not Just Patents LLC and its client. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Privacy Policy Contact Us