What is likelihood of confusion?

What is the purpose of a trademark?

A trademark serves to indicate the source of goods or services (in this post, I’ll refer to both goods and services collectively as “products” for simplicity). A trademark may comprise words and/or logos used in connection with the sale of goods or services. In rare cases, a trademark may comprise a sound or three-dimensional product configuration. In order to be registered, a mark must avoid likelihood of confusion with any previously registered trademarks. 

Keep in mind that the offering of a product or service is key in making a word or graphic symbol a trademark. You cannot claim trademark rights by merely arguing that you coined a term if no products or services were ever provided.

To request a free initial consultation or a flat fee estimate for responding to your trademark refusal based on confusion, send me your trademark application details.

What does “confusion” mean in the trademark world?

Since the purpose of a trademark is to indicate the source of goods or services, confusion refers to the notion that consumers seeing one particular trademark on a product (or service) may think that the product originates from the owner of a similar trademark. In other words, there is a likelihood of confusion if consumers seeing Trademark B on a Product B from Company B are likely to think that Product B originates from Company A who owns Trademark A.

Therefore, confusion in the trademark world has a special meaning that refers to two marks being so similar that consumers are likely to be confused into thinking that the respective products originate from the same source [see TMEP § 1207.01].

Who would be confused?

Likelihood of confusion is determined from the perspective of the consumer. The level of sophistication of purchasers and the care in exercising a purchasing decision are factors to be considered [see TMEP § 1207.01(d)(vii)]. The tendency of applicants who receive a likelihood of confusion rejection is to reason why they (the business owner) would not be confused, but business owners are not the standard. Consumers are.

What’s the difference between likelihood of confusion and actual confusion?

Actual confusion refers to instances where consumers actually thought that the source of a product from Company B belonged to Company A. Examples may include a purchaser of a product from Company B calling Company A to ask a question or return the product.

When examining a trademark application, the USPTO examining attorney is making a determination on the likelihood of confusion, and not whether actual confusion exists.

What is a Section 2(d) refusal to register?

If you filed a federal trademark application with the USPTO, the examining attorney might issue a letter called an Office Action setting forth reasons why registration is refused. If likelihood of confusion is the reason, then the Office Action will contain a refusal under Section 2(d) which states: “No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(d) Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive . . . .”

[15 USC § 1052(d)]

What are key factors in determining likelihood of confusion?

DuPont Factors

The DuPont factors are relevant considerations for making a determination on likelihood of confusion. The two most important factors are:

  • The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
  • The relatedness of the goods or services as described in the application and registration(s).

[TMEP § 1207.01]

The greater the similarity between marks, the less related the goods or services have to be in order to support a finding of likelihood of confusion [see TMEP § 1207.01(a)]. Therefore, if two marks are identical or virtually identical, the respective goods or services need not be as close to find a likelihood of confusion.

The following remaining factors should be considered if applicable and relevant:

  • The similarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.
  • The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing [see TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii)].
  • The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods [see TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii)].
  • The existence of a valid consent agreement between the applicant and the owner of the previously registered mark [see TMEP §1207.01(d)(viii)].
  • Fame of the prior mark
  • Nature and extent of any actual confusion
  • Concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion: length of time and conditions

Composite Marks

When a mark consists of both wording and a design (e.g., graphic image or logo), the verbal portion of the mark is typically the greater indicator of source. Therefore, the wording in a composite mark usually plays a more significant role in determining likelihood of confusion.

Third Party Use Relevant to Strength/Weakness of Mark

“The weaker an opposer’s mark, the closer an applicant’s mark can come without causing a likelihood of confusion and thereby invading what amounts to its comparatively narrow range of protection.  Juice Generation, 2015 WL 4400033, at *3. Therefore, usage or registrations of similar marks by several third parties can show the weakness of a particular mark. Evidence of extensive use or registrations of similar marks by third parties can show that customers have been educated to distinguish between similar marks on the basis of minute distinctions. Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGaA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363 (2015).

Does likelihood of confusion require marks to be identical?

No, the standard is confusingly similar. Therefore, it’s possible for a new mark to be confusingly similar to a registered mark even if the new mark is not identical. Removing or changing certain portions of a registered mark will not guarantee that the new mark will be sufficiently distinguishable.

What if the same mark is used on different products?

The relatedness of the goods and/or services plays a key factor in determining likelihood of confusion. In general, the more similar your mark is to a registered mark, the less similar the products have to be to support a finding of likelihood of confusion [see TMEP § 1207.01(a)]. Keep in mind that goods can be related to services (e.g., food products and restaurant services), and that the relatedness of the products is not limited to a single trademark class.

What are examples of confusingly similar marks?

The USPTO has provided examples of confusable trademarks based on sound, appearance, commercial impression and relatedness of goods and/or services here.

How can you minimize the risk of a rejection based on likelihood of confusion?

To reduce the risk of a likelihood of confusion rejection, have a knockout search performed of USPTO trademark filings for similar marks. This will give you a helpful indication of whether it makes sense to proceed with applying for your desired mark. If possible, you may want to pivot to a new mark if the knockout search uncovers one or more registrations or prior-pending applications for highly similar marks.

Need to overcome a likelihood of confusion refusal?

Reach out to patent and trademark attorney Vic Lin by email or call (949) 223-9623 to see how we can help overcome a likelihood of confusion rejection.

How useful was this post? (Did you find the information you needed?)

Click on a star to rate it!

Thank you for rating my post!

We want to do better.

Could you tell us what was missing in our post?

Frenda Williams
Frenda Williams
I have had the pleasure of working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group on Trademark creation and contracts. As a solo and non-tech founder, the assistance, guidance and recommendations from Vic and his team have been INVALUABLE. And, with the knowledge that I have a Solid, well versed and caring legal team I can turn to, I have the confidence I need to navigate the intricacies of the tech industry as a solo founder. With that being said, If you’re a startup and you’re looking for a legal team that speaks your language, knows the industry and makes you feel like family…. Innovation Capital Law Group is a Perfect fit for you, your company and your team. Five out of Five Stars… don’t let their brilliance blind you 😁
Shiwei Liu
Shiwei Liu
Excellent service and quick response. Lots of informative documents on its website.
Chang Chien Michael
Chang Chien Michael
I have worked with iCap for more than 7 years. I am very glad with his professional knowledge that 7 utility patents were granted by USPTO. Vic and his team are very efficient and knowledgeable. Every time he can transcribe my design idea perfectly in two weeks and file it with no rejection from USPTO. The other service including the granted patent following up is always in time to remind me to take actions. That is why I still stick on iCap as my first priority when I want to file a US patent.
Mats Johansson
Mats Johansson
We have been happy client for 10+ years. Awesome Patent Law Firm!
Hanson Chang
Hanson Chang
Glad to write a review for Innovation Capital Law Group. We previously worked with a big law firm (2200 employees) on our patents, and decided to shift over to Innovation Capital. It was a great decision, this team got our patents done faster, more effectively, at a lower cost, and with broader claims. Win all around
Genevieve Springer
Genevieve Springer
Clear, discernible tools and strategies couched within a business conceived from a genuine interest in doing right by founders.
InPlay Inc
InPlay Inc
Vic and his team have been providing us with the best patent application experiences we could ever have in our entire career life! Their professionalism and technical knowledge have really saved us a lot of communication effort and time on the applications. Definitely highly recommend if anyone is looking for help with IP protection for their business.
Meg Crowley
Meg Crowley
After working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group, our organization is confident our trademarks were solid and protected. Thank you team.
Andy Dong
Andy Dong
I have been using Innovation Capital Law Group for a few years and continue to use them. They have provided an excellent services on our legal issues including intellectual properties and patents . They are very responsive, easy to work with and very competent . I highly recommend them.

Follow us

Copyright © Vic Lin 2023