Upstream Life Holdings, Inc.

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: September 14, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Upstream Life Holdings, Inc.
_____
Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
_____
Benjamin W. Janke and Julie Dahlgard of Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC,
for Upstream Life Holdings, Inc.
Mallory Velten, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 123,
Susan Hayash, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Lykos, Heasley, and Elgin, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Elgin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant Upstream Life Holdings, Inc. seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the marks UPSTREAM LIFE in standard characters (LIFE disclaimed)1
and the composite mark (LIFE and EST 1912 disclaimed),2
1 Serial No. 98778253 was filed on September 30, 2024 under Trademark Act Section 1(a),
15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claimed first use of the mark and first use of the
mark in commerce at least as early as January 24, 2019.
2 Serial No. 98778258 was filed on September 30, 2024 under Trademark Act Section 1(a)
based on Applicant’s claimed first use of the mark and first use of the mark in commerce at
least as early as January 24, 2019. The mark is described as “the wording ‘UPSTREAM LIFE

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 2 -
both for “Insurance brokerage services; insurance administration; insurance
information; insurance consultation; insurance agencies” in International Class 36.
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of both marks on the
ground that, when used in connection with the identified services, they so resemble
the registered composite mark (INVESTMENT
PARTNERS disclaimed) for “Financial and investment services, namely,
management and brokerage in the fields of stocks, bonds, options, commodities,
futures and other securities, and the investment of funds of others; Financial
management; Insurance agencies,” in International Class 363 that they are likely to
cause confusion, cause mistake, or deceive. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d).
Applicant appealed in both cases. The appeals are fully briefed. For the reasons
set forth below, we affirm the refusals to register.
I. Consolidation
We sua sponte consolidate these appeals and issue a single decision because the
records are essentially the same and there are common issues of law and fact. See In
re Locus Link USA, No. 2022-100137E, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 225, at *1 (issuing single
| EST 1912’ in stylized font, with the large wording ‘UPSTREAM’ above the small wording
‘LIFE | EST 1912’. The letter ‘A’ in ‘UPSTREAM’ is formed by a chevron pointing upward.”
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
3 Registration No. 4066371 registered on December 6, 2011; renewed. The mark is described
as “a triangle with a design of a stream running from bottom to top. The wording
‘UPSTREAM INVESTMENT PARTNERS’ appears next to the design, with a dot between
‘INVESTMENT’ and ‘PARTNERS’.” Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 3 -
opinion in related cases) (citing In re Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co., No. 85007428, 2013
TTAB LEXIS 7, at *3 and In re Binion, No. 76590702, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 701, at *3
(appeals involving common questions of law and fact consolidated and decided in a
single opinion); see also TRADEMARK BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 1214
(June 2026).4
II. Likelihood of Confusion Standard
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that so
resembles a registered mark as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the
goods or services of the applicant, to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d); see also In re Charger Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all probative evidence
of record bearing on a likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co.,
315 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, different DuPont factors may play a
dominant role, and some factors may not be relevant. Naterra Int’l, Inc. v. Bensalem,
92 F.4th 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citing Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd. v. Barclays Cap.
4 Citations to the prosecution records refer to the USPTO Trademark Status and Document
Retrieval system (TSDR) in the downloadable .pdf format by page number. References to the
briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. In re Integra Biosciences Corp.,
No. 87484450, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 17, at *6. All page numbers refer to the record in Serial No.
98778253, except the citations in Section II(C)(2), which refer to the record in Serial No.
98778258. We note that Applicant’s citations refer to page numbers generated within the
TSDR database, whereas the Board cites to the sequential page numbers of the downloaded
TSDR .pdf files.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 4 -
Inc., 35 F.4th 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2022)). In addition, varying weight may be
assigned to each factor depending on the evidence presented, and “any one of the
factors may control a particular case.” Id.; see also Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1381.
Although we consider each DuPont factor for which there is evidence and
argument, In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019), two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between
the services. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing
Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). In
cases where we find some factor or factors relatively more important, we weigh or
balance them more heavily in the final step of assessing the factors to determine
whether confusion is likely. Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1381.
III. Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
We address each of the factors argued by Applicant and the Examining Attorney.
Under the circumstances here, we address the DuPont factors bearing on the
similarity of the services and the channels of trade and the possible weakness of the
cited mark before addressing the degree of similarity between the marks under the
first DuPont factor.5
5 We note that Applicant relies on Fisher Stoves, Inc. v. All Nighter Stove Works, Inc., 626
F.2d 193, 194 (1st Cir. 1980) for the proposition that “[a] mere possibility [of confusion] ... is
not enough; there must be a substantial likelihood that the public will be confused as to the
source of the goods.” 6 TTABVUE 6. This authority has no weight here; although the
“substantial likelihood of confusion” standard may be applicable to infringement claims in
some Federal Circuits, we apply the “likelihood of confusion” standard in Board cases.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 5 -
A. The Services and Channels of Trade
The second DuPont factor “considers the similarity or dissimilarity and nature of
the [services] as described in the involved application and cited registration … and
contemplates whether the consuming public may perceive the respective [services] as
related enough to cause confusion about their source or origin.” In re Samsung
Display Co., No. 90502617, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 258, at *6 (cleaned up; citations
omitted). The third DuPont factor concerns the “similarity or dissimilarity of
established, likely-to-continue trade channels.” Id. at *17 (quoting DuPont, 476 F.2d
at 1361).
We “begin with the identifications of … services in the registration and
application[s] under consideration.” In re OSF Healthcare Sys., No. 88706809, 2023
TTAB LEXIS 353, at *10 (cleaned up; citation omitted). Applicant directs the bulk of
its argument and evidence to the contention that Registrant’s “[f]inancial and
investment services, namely, management and brokerage in the fields of stocks,
bonds, options, commodities, futures and other securities, and the investment of
funds of others; Financial management” (“Registrant’s Financial Services”) are not
related to, and travel in different channels of trade from, Applicant’s various
insurance services.6 Applicant characterizes Registrant’s Financial Services as “the
majority of services listed in the Cited Registration [which] are financial in nature.”7
The supporting evidence Applicant made of record also concerns the relatedness of
6 See 6 TTABVUE 14-23.
7 Id. at 14; see also id. (“[T]he Cited Registration is primarily in “financial services,” and …
the Applicant’s Mark is specifically in “insurance services.”).

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 6 -
Applicant’s various insurance services and Registrant’s Financial Services –
including 120 third-party registrations for various financial services that do not
include insurance-related services.8
But we need not address this evidence or these arguments in this case because, as
the Examining Attorney argues, the services are identical in-part as to “insurance
agencies.” Applicant acknowledges this fact.9 It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood
of confusion if relatedness is established for any item encompassed by the
identification of services within a particular class in the application or registration.
See SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (a single good from
among several may sustain a finding of likelihood of confusion); Tuxedo Monopoly,
Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336 (CCPA 1981) (likelihood of confusion
must be found if there is likely to be confusion with respect to any item that comes
within the identification of goods or services in the application).
To the extent the services of Applicant and Registrant are identical in part, we
may presume that these services travel in the same channels of trade to the same
classes of consumers. See In re Viterra, Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (Board was entitled to rely on presumption that, absent restrictions, identical
goods travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers); In re
Yawata Iron & Steel Co., 403 F.2d 752, 754 (CCPA 1968) (class of purchasers is
considered the same for identical goods).
8 November 3, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 178-484.
9 6 TTABVUE 14.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 7 -
Due to the in-part identity of the services and overlapping channels of trade, the
second and third DuPont factors heavily support the conclusion that confusion is
likely.
B. Weakness of the Cited Mark
We next turn to an analysis of the sixth DuPont factor, which “allows Applicant
to contract th[e] scope of protection by adducing evidence of ‘[t]he number and nature
of similar marks in use on similar goods [or services].’” Made in Nature, LLC v.
Pharmavite LLC, No. 91223352, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 251, at *24 (quoting DuPont, 476
F.2d at 1361). A determination of the strength or weakness of the cited mark helps
inform us as to its scope of protection. See In re Morinaga Nyugyo K.K., No. 86338392,
2016 TTAB LEXIS 448, at *17-18 (“[T]he strength of the cited mark is—as always—
relevant to assessing the likelihood of confusion under the du Pont framework.”).
When evaluating the strength or weakness of a mark, we look at the mark’s
inherent conceptual strength based on the nature of the term itself and its
commercial strength in the marketplace. See Spireon, Inc. v. Flex LTD, 71 F.4th 1355,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“There are two prongs of analysis for a mark’s strength under
the sixth factor: conceptual strength and commercial strength.”); In re Chippendales
USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (measuring both conceptual and
marketplace strength); Made in Nature, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 251, at *24 (discussing
strength). There is no evidence or argument relating to commercial weakness in this
case.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 8 -
Conceptual strength is a measure of the cited mark’s distinctiveness. A mark may
be placed “in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness: … (1) generic;
(2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful.” Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco
Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992). The last three categories are considered
inherently distinctive.
“Where, as here, [a] mark is registered [on the Principal Register] without a
Section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness, the mark is presumed to be inherently
distinctive.” Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, 17 F.4th 129,
146 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also Heil Co. v. Tripleye GmbH, No. 91277359, 2024 TTAB
LEXIS 494, at *48-49 (where a mark “is registered on the Principal Register, with no
claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f), we presume it is inherently
distinctive, i.e., that it is at worst suggestive of the [services]”) (citing Trademark Act
Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b)). This means that the cited mark is presumptively
entitled to at least “the normal scope of protection to which inherently distinctive
marks are entitled.” Sage Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sageforth Psych. Servs., LLC, No.
91270181, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 139, at *27 (quoting Bell’s Brewery, Inc. v. Innovation
Brewing, No. 91215896, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 452, at *20).
Nonetheless, we may consider Applicant’s argument that a component of the cited
mark – the literal term UPSTREAM – is “highly suggestive and weak.” See, e.g.,
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 947 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (a “descriptive
component of a mark may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood
of confusion.”) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 9 -
Applicant argues that “[t]hird-Party Internet evidence … show[s] that ‘UPSTREAM’
has a highly suggestive meaning in connection with” Registrant’s Financial
Services.10 In Applicant’s view, these webpages demonstrate that the term
UPSTREAM, as used in textual phrases such as “upstream gifting,” “upstream basis
planning” and “upstream planning,” refers to financial strategies to avoid tax
consequences.11
The Examining Attorney counters that, even if the term UPSTREAM is
conceptually weak as to Registrant’s Financial Services, this has no bearing on the
strength of UPSTREAM as to the shared insurance agency services.12 Each of the
referenced websites discusses UPSTREAM in connection with the tax avoidance
strategy of “upstream” gifting, such as the following:
• Commerce Trust – “Upstream Gifting: A Tax-Efficient Approach to
Wealth Transfer,” discussing a “wealth transfer strategy for high net-
worth individuals that involves gifting assets to an older generation,
such as a parent, to help lower capital gains taxes for you or your
beneficiaries.”13
• Charles Schwab – “‘Upstream gifting’ is a wealth transfer strategy
whereby assets pass first to your parents or grandparents before
ultimately going to your children (or other beneficiary), with the goal of
lowering your estate’s overall tax liability.”14
10 6 TTABVUE 6-7.
11 Id.
12 8 TTABVUE 6.
13 November 3, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 67.
14 Id. at TSDR 68.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 10 -
• Fidelity – “‘Upstream” gifting, that is, making a gift to an older family
member rather than directly to a younger family member, may be
advantageous.”15
• Motley Fool Wealth Management – “Upstream gifting refers to the
wealth transfer strategy of gifting assets to older generations, such as
your parents, grandparents, or other older relatives. Upstream gifting
can be used to minimize your tax liability, namely capital gains tax on
highly appreciated assets or estate tax....”16
• Wealthspire Advisors – “One such strategy is upstream planning, a tax-
savvy counterintuitive approach that leverages an older family
member’s unused estate tax exemption to eliminate capital gains on
appreciated assets.”17
• Lowthorp Richards – “The Upstream Planning Method is a time-tested
strategy that is not just for the rich. Anyone who has appreciated assets
and wants to reduce their taxes can benefit from this approach.”18
• Copenbarger & Copenbarger LLP – “Upstream planning is an estate
planning technique that anticipates a future inheritance for yourself
with less tax liability. Once only utilized by the super-wealthy, anyone
who has appreciated assets may benefit from upstream planning as an
effective estate planning strategy.”19
• Kiplinger – “Upstream basis planning is a trust strategy that can save
wealthy people on their capital gains taxes and income taxes associated
with highly appreciated assets.”20
• Greenleaf Trust – “Upstream ‘Basis’ Planning … When the principal
goal of an estate plan is to gain an income tax basis adjustment, more
so than to avoid federal transfer taxes, springing the Delaware Tax Trap
is often the tool of choice to gain a basis adjustment to an asset’s fair
15 Id. at TSDR 69.
16 Id. at TSDR 73.
17 Id. at TSDR 77.
18 Id. at TSDR 79.
19 Id. at TSDR 81.
20 Id. at TSDR 82.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 11 -
market value, thus eliminating the heirs’ exposure to future capital
gains taxes.”21
None of these excerpts concern insurance agency services. In fact, there is no
evidence of record to show that UPSTREAM has any conceptual significance as
applied to the shared insurance agency services or insurance services generally. The
evidence does not convince us that the term is, in Applicant’s characterization, “weak”
for these services. The sixth DuPont factor is neutral.
C. The Marks
We next turn to the first DuPont factor, the “similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression.” In re Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla, No. 90522364, 2025 TTAB LEXIS
412, at *9 (quoting DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361). “Similarity in any one of these
elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” Sage Therapeutics,
2024 TTAB LEXIS 139, at *13 (quoting In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, No. 87075988,
2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13, aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App'x 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019));
accord Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d 728, 732 (CCPA 1968) (“It
is sufficient if the similarity in either form, spelling or sound alone is likely to cause
confusion.”) (citation omitted).
“The proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead
whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression
such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection
21 Id. at TSDR 84.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 12 -
between the parties.” Sage Therapeutics, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 139, at *13 (quoting
Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning, LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
“The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally ‘retains a
general rather than a specific impression of marks.’” Id. (quoting In re i.am.symbolic,
llc, No. 85916778, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *11 (citations omitted)).
In comparing the marks, we are mindful that the identity in part of the services
and their overlapping channels of trade and classes of consumers reduce the degree
of similarity between the marks necessary to find a likelihood of confusion. Viterra,
671 F.3d at 1363; In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
We address each of Applicant’s marks in turn.
1. Serial No. 98778253 – UPSTREAM LIFE (standard character
mark)
Applicant’s mark is UPSTREAM LIFE in standard characters (LIFE disclaimed)
and the cited mark is (INVESTMENT
PARTNERS disclaimed).
Applicant argues first that the marks are different in appearance, pointing to the
differences in the additional disclaimed in each mark (LIFE; INVESTMENT
PARTNERS) and the design in the cited mark:
The Cited Registration contains a design element
comprised of an “S” shaped stream design inside a
triangular shape which mimics foreshortening to indicate
that “upstream” is further away and at the top of the design
element and the downstream is closer at the bottom of the
design element. In addition, the Cited Registration
includes the terms “INVESTMENT” and “PARTNERS”

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 13 -
with a dot in between, all beneath the word “UPSTREAM”
and the wording is depicted in all capital letters and in a
serif font that generates a formal, traditional feel. In
comparison, Applicant’s Mark contains the unique word
“LIFE.” Accordingly, the overall appearance of the
respective marks are sufficiently distinct such that
consumer confusion between the marks is highly
unlikely.22
As to connotation, Applicant asserts that the wording “INVESTMENT
PARTNERS” in Registrant’s mark “send the message of individuals (“partners”) who
will work closely with the customer in investing in the same way or provide
investment funds to the customer, such as investing funds in the customer’s
business.”23 Applicant contends that, in its own mark, UPSTREAM does not connote
upstream planning/gifting or an “upstream flow of money” because Applicant’s
identification is limited to insurance services, which do not have this connotation.24
Applicant offered 26 third-party use-based registrations for INVESTMENT
PARTNERS-formative marks for services akin to Registrant’s Financial Services to
show that consumers would not associate this phrase with insurance services.
Applicant offers a dictionary definition of the term “life,” and points to the Examining
Attorney’s evidence (MetLife, New York Life, Guardian/guardianlife.com) to show
that entities offering insurance under LIFE-formative marks or top-level domains
22 6 TTABVUE 9.
23 Id. at 10.
24 Id. at 11 (citing November 3, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 66-85).

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 14 -
don’t provide Registrant’s Financial Services, don’t provide them under the same
mark, or don’t provide them to the same customers.25
Finally, Applicant argues that the design element in the cited mark is an “S”-
shaped stream design inside a triangular shape “which mimics foreshortening to
indicate that ‘upstream’ is further away,” and it would be “unreasonable to assume
that Applicant’s UPSTREAM LIFE Mark would be presented with the same
triangular stream design element.”26 Overall, Applicant asserts the marks have
different commercial impressions:
[T]he Cited Registration has a connotation that Registrant can plan and
manage the flow of money and assets. Therefore, the Cited Registration
has the commercial impression that Registrant can tame a river of cash
flow. Applicant’s Mark, by contrast, conveys no such impression. Rather,
the inclusion of the additional word “LIFE” in Applicant’s “UPSTREAM
LIFE” Mark causes the Mark to connote growth and prosperity by
generating ideas regarding a life that is moving upwards ^ or
“upstream.” Accordingly, the connotations and commercial impressions
generated by the respective marks are completely different, which
obviates against a likelihood of confusion.27
25 Id. at 10-11 (citing August 4, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 27-40, 49-57; January 14,
2026 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 8-25). Of course, use of a mark in a
domain name does not give rise to trademark rights when it indicates only an address on the
internet and not the source of the goods. See In re Supply Guys, Inc., No. 77027094, 2008
TTAB LEXIS 12, at *16 (“Obviously, a website can be used for multiple purposes and the
simple fact that a term is used as part of the internet address does not mean that it is a
trademark for the goods sold on the website”).
As to the dictionary definition, Applicant did not attach evidence in support of the purported
definition. See 6 TTABVUE 11. Nonetheless, the Board may sua sponte take judicial notice
of dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries that exist in printed format, and we
have done so in this case. See August Storck KG v. Florend Indústria e Comércio de Chocolates
LTDA, No. 91277224, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 502, *18-20 n.34. One apt definition of “life” is “the
period of time when a person is alive.” MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY (www.merriam-
webster.com/simple/life, accessed September 14, 2026).
26 6 TTABVUE 8, 9.
27 Id. at 13.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 15 -
The Examining Attorney responds, inter alia, that the first word of both
Applicant’s mark and the cited mark is UPSTREAM, which is the first, only
distinctive and thus dominant term in both.28 The Examining Attorney notes that it
is common to shorten marks.29 She contends that “[i]n each mark, UPSTREAM
creates the idea of moving against the current toward a river or stream’s source,
evoking the idea of proactively planning ahead.”30 Further, the design element in the
mark does not prevent UPSTREAM from being the dominant element of Registrant’s
mark, because the literal elements are entitled to greater weight.31 As to Applicant’s
evidence, the Examining Attorney critiques the 26 registrations as “merely show[ing]
that there exist registrations of marks including the wording INVESTMENT
PARTNERS for financial services. The fact that none of the third-party registrations
provided by Applicant are for insurance agency services (or any insurance services)
does not prove, or even suggest, that consumers would not believe that any business
with INVESTMENT PARTNERS in its name would be capable of offering such
services.”32
In reply, Applicant counters the Examining Attorney’s argument that the marks
may be shortened by noting that, as opposed to the record in Giant Food, Inc. v.
Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983), “there is nothing in the
28 8 TTABVUE 4-5.
29 Id. at 7.
30 Id. at 6.
31 Id. at 5.
32 Id. at 7-8.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 16 -
record to show the cited registration is famous or to indicate that third parties have
called Registrant or Applicant by a shortened name.”33 Applicant also contests the
Examining Attorney’s argument that UPSTREAM in both marks connotes
“proactively planning ahead and preparing for the future,” reaffirming that the
proper connotation of the cited mark refers to a tax avoidance scheme.34
As noted above, Applicant does not dispute the Examining Attorney’s conclusion
that UPSTREAM is the dominant portion of both marks. Instead, Applicant asserts
that we should not discount the additional elements of each mark. Marks must be
considered in their entireties, but “in articulating reasons for reaching a conclusion
on the issue of confusion, there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational
reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided
the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.” In re
Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Nat’l Data
Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
We find that the word UPSTREAM is the dominant portion of both marks. It is
the first and only distinctive element in both marks – the words LIFE (referring to a
type of insurance) and INVESTMENT PARTNERS that follow the word UPSTREAM
in each mark are descriptive and have been disclaimed. See, e.g., Palm Bay Imports,
Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (finding that the word VEUVE was the dominant element of the involved
33 9 TTABVUE 5.
34 Id. at 8.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 17 -
marks VEUVE CLIQUOT and VEUVE ROYAL); In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d
1405, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming the Board’s conclusion that the word DELTA
was the dominant portion of the applicant’s mark THE DELTA CAFE and design
where CAFE was disclaimed). The “non-source identifying nature of the words [LIFE
and INVESTMENT PARTNERS] and the disclaimers thereof constitute rational
reasons for giving those terms less weight in the analysis.” Detroit Athletic Co., 903
F.3d at 1305.
Further, when evaluating a mark that consists of words and a design, “the word
portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater
impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer
to or request the goods.” Made in Nature, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 251, at *49-50 (quoting
Sabhnani v. Mirage Brands, LLC, No. 92068086, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *39-40).
In the cited mark, the term UPSTREAM also is visually dominant, the terms
INVESTMENT PARTNERS being in much smaller font with the “river” triangle
design element reflecting and reinforcing the connotation of the literal term
UPSTREAM set off to the side:
Thus, we next compare the two marks in their entireties, giving greater weight to
the dominant words UPSTREAM in both marks than to the disclaimed words that
follow them and the design portion in the cited mark. With respect to appearance,
Applicant’s mark is in standard characters, and thus it “may be presented in any font
style, size or color, including the same font, size and color,” including “one that

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 18 -
minimizes the differences or emphasizes the similarities between the marks.”
Sabhnani, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *43-44 (cleaned up; citations omitted); see also
Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (the
“registrant is entitled to depictions of the standard character mark regardless of font
style, size, or color, not merely ‘reasonable manners’ of depicting its standard
character mark.”)). Accordingly, we must consider how Applicant’s standard-
character mark might appear, and “illustrations of the mark as actually used may
assist the T.T.A.B. in visualizing other forms in which the mark might appear.”
Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1364 (quoting Citigroup, 637 F.3d at 1353).
The record contains an example of how the mark may be used – Applicant’s
specimen of use in this application:
35
The UPSTREAM term in the mark is far more visually dominant than the LIFE
term – the font is much larger, in a stylized font and eye-catching colors. This actual
display of Applicant’s standard-character mark shows that the mark could be used in
35 September 30, 2024 Specimen of Use at TSDR 1. To be clear, we are not comparing this
presentation, with the chevron in place of the “A,” with the cited mark. In an ex parte appeal,
the Board may only compare the marks as they appear on the drawing pages, not as they are
actually used in the marketplace. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, No. 86928469, 2018 TTAB
LEXIS 108, at *11 (“We must compare the marks as they appear in the drawings, and not on
any labels that may have additional wording or information.”). We point out only that the
standard character mark may be presented in styles, fonts, and colors such that the term
UPSTREAM is far more prominent than the term LIFE.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 19 -
a manner that draws attention to the dominant word UPSTREAM. As we stated
above, UPSTREAM also is visually dominant in the cited mark
.
With respect to sound, we agree with the Examining Attorney’s argument that the
Board has acknowledged the “penchant of consumers to shorten marks.” Iron Balls
Int’l Ltd. v. Bull Creek Brewing, LLC, No. 92079099, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 205, at *65
(citation omitted); see also In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 815 (CCPA
1978) (Rich, J., concurring) (“the users of language have a universal habit of
shortening full names from haste or laziness or just economy of words.”)). Applicant’s
critique of the Examining Attorney’s reliance on Giant Food, 710 F.2d at 1565 is not
well-taken, as recent Board cases have relied on the same principle without proof that
the marks are well-known or shortened in practice. See, e.g., Gasparilla, 2025 TTAB
LEXIS 412, at *11 (“Here, consumers may shorten Registrant’s mark to
GASPARILLA alone given the propensity of consumers to shorten marks when
speaking”); Sabhnani, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *45 (the “similarity in sound will be
greater if consumers engage in ‘the penchant of consumers to shorten marks’”). But
even if consumers do not shorten the marks, when spoken the emphasis is on the first
term UPSTREAM, not LIFE (in Applicant’s mark) or INVESTMENT PARTNERS (in
the cited mark). And of course, the design portion of the cited mark is silent.
As to connotation, Applicant’s argument about the meaning of the term
UPSTREAM as a tax-avoidance strategy is limited to consumers of Registrant’s

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 20 -
Financial Services, not the shared insurance agency services. In fact, Applicant
argues that consumers would not impart this meaning to consumers of insurance-
related services. Thus, “[t]o the extent [UPSTREAM] has a meaning in connection
with [insurance agency services], it would have the same connotation in Applicant’s
mark as in Registrant’s mark.” Aquitaine Wine, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 108, at *5. This
conclusion is not altered by the addition of the non-dominant elements in the marks.
There is little doubt that INVESTMENT PARTNERS and LIFE do not have the
same meaning, but we think that these descriptive phrases do not detract from the
identity of the dominant distinctive term UPSTREAM.36 Applicant’s registration
evidence for INVESTMENT PARTNERS-formative marks shows only that certain
entities own registrations for INVESTMENT PARTNERS-formative marks that do
not include insurance services (even though such entities may offer the same or
related services).37
“Similarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree.” In re St. Helena Hosp.,
774 F.3d 747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The marks are similar in
appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression. The first DuPont factor
supports the conclusion that confusion is likely. Naterra, 92 F.4th at 1119.
36 Because neither Applicant and the Examining Attorney ascribes any difference in meaning
between the phrase INVESTMENT PARTNERS and the terms as they appear in the cited
mark INVESTMENT•PARTNERS (i.e. with a dot separating the terms), neither do we. The
evidence confirms this connotation. See November 3, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at
TSDR 97 (“Upstream Investment Partners is independently owned….”).
37 Again, Applicant’s argument that entities offering insurance under LIFE-formative marks
or top-level domains do not commonly offer financial services is not relevant to our analysis
of the shared insurance agency services. See supra text accompanying note 25.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 21 -
2. Serial No. 98778258 – 38
We turn next to a comparison of the cited mark with Applicant’s composite mark.39
For the reasons explained above, the dominant portion of the cited mark is
UPSTREAM, with the other terms and design in the mark subordinate to that term.
Like Applicant’s standard character mark UPSTREAM LIFE, its composite mark
is dominated by the word UPSTREAM, which is “[d]isplayed in a large, bold typeface,
[and] comprises the largest literal portion of the mark in terms of size, position, and
emphasis. It is also the first term in the mark, further establishing its prominence.”
Aquitaine Wine, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 108, at *6-7. Neither the word LIFE nor the
phrase EST 1912 (both of which are small and placed below the large term
UPSTREAM) has any source-identifying significance, and both have been disclaimed,
leaving UPSTREAM as the dominant literal portion of the mark. Detroit Athletic Co.,
903 F.3d at 1305 (that terms have been disclaimed constitutes a rational reason for
giving them less weight in the analysis). The “design” portion of the mark is minimal
– it consists only of a chevron symbol in place of the letter “A” in the term
UPSTREAM, and a vertical line in between the term LIFE and the phrase EST 1912.
38 The citations in this Section II(C)(2) refer to the TTABVUE and TSDR records in Serial
No. 98778258. See supra note 4.
39 This is the same mark (but in grayscale) as shown in Applicant’s specimen for the standard
character mark reproduced above, accompanying note 35, supra.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 22 -
We next compare the marks as a whole, giving greater weight to the term
UPSTREAM in both marks:
Applicant presents the same arguments we addressed above in the context of its
standard character mark, and we need not repeat them here. In addition, Applicant
argues, specifically regarding the visual appearances and connotations of the two
composite marks:
The Cited Registration contains a design element comprised of an “S”
shaped stream design inside a triangular shape which mimics
foreshortening to indicate that “upstream” is further away and at the
top of the design element and the downstream is closer at the bottom of
the design element. In addition, the Cited Registration includes the
terms “INVESTMENT” and “PARTNERS” with a dot in between, all
beneath the word “UPSTREAM” and the wording is depicted in all
capital letters and in a serif font that generates a formal, traditional
feel. In comparison, Applicant’s Mark contains the unique elements
“LIFE | EST 1912,” and “UPSTREAM” appears in all lowercase letters
and in a rounded, stylized font that conveys a more playful feel, with the
letter “A” in “UPSTREAM” being formed by a chevron shape that is
pointed upward or a caret shape commonly seen in a text chat or social
media post and reads as “look up” or “I agree with the above,” and the
element “LIFE” appearing directly underneath followed by the element
“| EST 1912”. Because “LIFE” appears directly below the upward
chevron or caret, “LIFE” is imbued with a happy “up” meaning.
Accordingly, the overall appearance of the respective marks are
sufficiently distinct such that consumer confusion between the marks is
highly unlikely.40
40 6 TTABVUE 9.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 23 -
Applicant also argues that “EST 1912” “conveys the meaning that Applicant’s
longevity sends the positive message that they will be around for the customer’s
future claim.”41
Notwithstanding Applicant’s intention to impart the above-described connotation
for its composite mark, the record is devoid of evidence showing that the relevant
public perceives the mark in that way. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., No.
91176791, 2011 TTAB LEXIS 286, at *55 (“However, we must look to the likely
consumer perception of the mark in connection with the identified [services], rather
than applicant’s intended connotation.”). In the context of Applicant’s composite
mark, the chevron design just as easily merely reinforces the meaning of, and directs
attention to, the term UPSTREAM – as does the triangle river design in the cited
mark. The disclaimed phrase EST 1912, to the extent consumers notice it due to its
diminutive size and placement, merely describes when Applicant or its predecessor
began operating.42 Likewise, the disclaimed term LIFE is almost imperceptible.
These marks are similar in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial
impression. The first DuPont factor supports the conclusion that confusion is
likely. Naterra, 92 F.4th at 1119.
41 Id. at 11.
42 See September 30, 2024 Specimen of Use at TSDR 2 (“Continuing the legacy established in
1912, Upstream Life acquired the financial company from Americo in 2015.”).

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 24 -
D. Purchaser Sophistication and Care
“The fourth DuPont factor considers ‘[t]he conditions under which and buyers to
whom sales are made, i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.’” Stone Lion
Cap. Partners, LP v. Lion Cap. LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361).
Applicant argues “[c]onsumer confusion is further negated by the fact that the
relevant consumers of both parties are sophisticated purchasers who can be expected
to exercise a considerable degree of care in making purchasing decisions.”43 Applicant
points to evidence in the record from Geico, Northwestern Mutual, USAA, and
MassMutual to show that life insurance decisions are “special decisions not made
every day”: “Insurance consumers will care who is underwriting their policy because
it may be many years before a claim is filed. These types of services are not the kind
that reasonably prudent purchasers buy without researching the underwriters to
some degree.”44
The Examining Attorney responds that the fact that consumers are “sophisticated
or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are
43 6 TTABVUE 24.
44 Id. at 24-25; see also 9 TTABVUE 9 (“a potential consumer who is ‘proactively planning
ahead’ or a consumer who knows they need help from a service provider to proactively plan
for or prepare for the future is exhibiting ‘sophisticated’ thinking, not impulsive thinking”).
Applicant relies on purported dictionary definitions for “proactive,” “planning,” and
“sophisticated,” but again fails to attach the evidence in support of these definitions. We have
taken judicial notice of similar definitions from MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY (merriam-
webster.com/dictionary, accessed September 14, 2026): Proactive: “acting in anticipation of
future problems, needs, or changes”; Planning: “the act or process of making or carrying out
plans”; Sophisticated: “having a refined knowledge of the ways of the world cultivated
especially through wide experience.” See August Storck, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 502, *18-20 n.34.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 25 -
sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks,” and “even sophisticated
purchasers are “not immune from source confusion.”45
The identifications of services are unlimited by types of consumers. Consumers of
insurance agency services are not restricted to high-dollar investments or
sophisticated consumers, but rather could be offered to, and consumed by, anyone
with an insurable interest, including ordinary consumers seeking insurance services.
See Stone Lion, 746 F.3d at 1323 (investment services not limited to sophisticated
consumers). Indeed, many states mandate the purchase of insurance in certain
circumstances (e.g. home and auto insurance).
Nonetheless, we can infer and agree with Applicant that consumers seeking and
providing insurance (life, health, auto, home, etc.) likely exercise somewhat greater
than ordinary care about the company or carrier who is underwriting such policies
(e.g. a carrier such as Geico, Northwestern Mutual, USAA, or MassMutual). But we
cannot say the same about insurance agency services – the providers who sell the
policies. We caution that the shared services that we focus on in this case are
“insurance agencies,” not insurance policies or insurance underwriting services,
which are not recited in Applicant’s or Registrant’s services at all. The record
confirms that, although some insurance carriers sell policies directly to consumers,
other policies are brokered by insurance agencies that are “independent,” which (as
45 8 TTABVUE 13.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 26 -
is well known) sell insurance policies from several different insurance companies
rather than just a single company:46
• Travelers
o “Reach out to a Travelers representative or local independent
agent.”47
o “Availability of Travelers products may vary by state and channel.
Certain products in certain states may not be available on a
standalone basis, and in certain states, including but not limited to
California, products must be obtained through a local independent
agent.”48
• John Hancock
o “John Hancock can refer you to an insurance professional who can
provide a complementary consultation at your convenience …. We
will connect you with a professional from John Hancock, our
affiliates, or an independent agent.”49
• Lincoln Financial
o “All guarantees and benefits of the insurance policy are subject to the
claims-paying ability of the issuing insurance company. They are not
backed by the broker-dealer and/or insurance agency selling the
policy, or any affiliates of those entities other than the issuing
company affiliates, and none makes any representation or
guarantees regarding the claims-paying ability of the issuer.”50
• Progressive
o “Learn more about comparing car insurance rates, which are
available through Progressive Direct in most states and situations.
Rate comparisons provided here are based on our Progressive Direct
46 See March 27, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 37 (Investopedia article: “Life Insurance: What
It Is, How It Works, and How to Buy a Policy”).
47 January 14, 2026 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 49.
48 Id. at TSDR 51.
49 Id. at TSDR 68.
50 Id. at TSDR 86.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 27 -
auto insurance price and product, and do not include prices and
products available from Progressive agents.”51
o “We offer insurance by phone, online, and through independent
agents. Prices vary based on how you buy.”52
There is no evidence in the record to show that ordinary consumers exercise any
greater than normal care in selecting an insurance agency, as opposed to an
insurance underwriter or policy. “Board precedent requires the decision to be based
on the least sophisticated potential purchasers.” Stone Lion, 746 F.3d at
1325 (internal quotation marks omitted). The fourth DuPont factor is neutral.
E. Conclusion
The last step in analyzing a claim under Section 2(d) is to “weigh the DuPont
factors used in [our] analysis and explain the results of that weighing.” Charger
Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1384 (emphasis in original).
The second and third DuPont factors weigh heavily in favor of likelihood of
confusion, given the in-part identity of the services and overlap in channels of trade
and consumers as to these services. The first DuPont factor also weighs in favor of
likelihood of confusion for both of Applicant’s marks, especially because the in-part
identity of the services and their overlapping channels of trade and classes of
consumers reduces the degree of similarity between the marks necessary to find a
likelihood of confusion. Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1363; Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d at 1348.
51 Id. at TSDR 90.
52 Id. at TSDR 93.

Serial Nos. 98778253 and 98778258
- 28 -
The fourth and sixth DuPont factors are neutral. No factors weigh against a finding
of likelihood of confusion.
Accordingly, we find Applicant’s standard-character mark UPSTREAM LIFE and
its composite mark , both in connection with “insurance
agencies,” so resemble the cited mark for the
same services as to be likely to cause confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark
Act.
Decision
The refusals to register are affirmed.