Big Mamma SAS

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: June 18, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Big Mamma SAS
_____
Serial No. 98400652
_____
John Alumit of ALUMIT IP,
for Big Mamma SAS
Caroline Wood, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,
Loksye Lee Riso, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, English and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Big Mamma SAS (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark for “providing of food and drink featuring modern
Italian cuisine” in International Class 43.1
1 Application Serial No. 98400652 was filed on February 10, 2024 based upon Applicant’s
assertion of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the

Serial No. 98400652
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that
Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the following marks, all owned by
the same entity: “GLORIA’S” (typed drawing) for “restaurant and bar services” in
International Class 422; GLORIA’S LATIN CUISINE (in standard characters, LATIN
CUISINE disclaimed, and 2(f) in part as to LATIN CUISINE) for “Restaurant, bar
and cocktail lounge services, including restaurant carryout services and restaurant
take-out services; night club services; bar services, in the nature of bottle service;
bottle service” 3; and (LATIN CUISINE disclaimed, and 2(f) in part as
to LATIN CUISINE) for “Restaurant, bar and cocktail lounge services, including
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). The description of the mark states: “The mark consists
of the stylized wording GLORIA underlined by the letter ‘A’ all in the color purple, and the
color pink in the background.” The colors purple and pink are claimed as a feature of the
mark. The mark includes a translation statement: “The English translation of GLORIA in
the mark is GLORY.” The application also states that “The name(s), portrait(s), and/or
signature(s) shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.”
Page references to the application record are to the .pdf version of the USPTO’s Trademark
Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) electronic database. References to the briefs on appeal
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Applicant’s appeal brief is at 10 TTABVUE;
the Examining Attorney’s brief is at 12 TTABVUE.
2 Registration No. 2504178 issued November 6, 2001, second renewal. The cited registration’s
restaurant services are classified in Class 42, rather than Class 43, because the registration
issued prior to the reclassification by the Nice Agreement (implemented in 2002) of
restaurant services in Class 43. The registered mark is in typed form, which is the
predecessor to, and legal equivalent of, a standard character mark. See In re Viterra Inc., 671
F.3d 1358, 1363 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“until 2003, ‘standard character’ marks formerly were
known as ‘typed’ marks.”); see also Trademark Rule 2.52(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.52(a) (referring to
“Standard character (typed) drawing”).
3 Registration No. 7039487 issued May 2, 2023. The registration states: “The name(s),
portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies Gloria Fuentes, whose consent(s)
to register is made of record.” The registration also identifies International Class 9 goods,
which are not a basis for the Section 2(d) refusal.

Serial No. 98400652
- 3 -
restaurant carryout services and restaurant take-out services; bar services, in the
nature of bottle service” in International Class 43.4
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed. After Applicant filed an
appeal brief, the Examining Attorney sought a remand, which the Board granted.5
The Examining Attorney then issued a new non-final Office Action and subsequently
a final Office Action.6 The Board resumed the appeal7 and Applicant resubmitted the
earlier filed appeal brief followed by the Examining Attorney’s brief. We affirm the
refusal to register.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
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, or to cause mistake, or to
4 Registration No. 7039486, issued May 2, 2023. The description of the mark states: “The
mark consists of the stylized word GLORIA’S in red centered above the stylized words LATIN
CUISINE in gold.” The colors red and gold are claimed as a feature of the mark. The
registration states “The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies
Gloria Fuentes, whose consent(s) to register is made of record.” The registration also
identifies International Class 9 goods, which are not a basis for the Section 2(d) refusal.
5 6 and 7 TTABVUE.
6 The Examining Attorney initially refused registration based on three registrations, not
listed above. September 11, 2024 Office Action. In a subsequent office action, she withdrew
one of the citations and cited an additional registration (Registration No. 7039486).
November 5, 2024 Office Action. The Examining Attorney went final on the then three cited
registrations in the January 31, 2025 Office Action. Applicant appealed. 1 TTABVUE. The
Examining Attorney then sought remand. 6 TTABVUE. On remand, the Examining Attorney
issued a non-final action withdrawing two of the three citations it previously went final on
and citing two additional registrations (Registration Nos. 2504178 and 7039487) as a basis
for the Section 2(d) refusal. August 15, 2025 Office Action. The Examining Attorney went
final on these three citations (Reg. Nos. 2504178, 7039486 and 7039487) on November 24,
2025.
7 9 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 98400652
- 4 -
deceive. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Our determination of
likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all probative facts
in the record that are relevant to the likelihood of confusion factors set forth in In re
E.I. du Pont 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). We consider
each DuPont factor for which there is evidence and argument. See, e.g., In re Guild
Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re Country Oven, Inc., No.
87354443, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *2.
In every Section 2(d) case, two key factors are the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks and the goods or services. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165
(Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098,
1103 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the
cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or
services] and differences in the marks.”). These factors, and others, are discussed
below.
We focus our analysis on the cited typeset mark GLORIA’S (Registration No.
2504178) as it has the most points in common to the registered mark. See Sock It to
Me v. Fan, No. 91230554, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 201, at *20-21 (confining likelihood of
confusion analysis to most similar pleaded mark); In re Max Cap. Grp. Ltd., No.
77186166, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *5 (same). If we find there is a likelihood of
confusion between the mark in this registration and Applicant’s mark, there is no

Serial No. 98400652
- 5 -
need for us to consider likelihood of confusion with the other cited marks. On the
other hand, if no confusion is likely with this mark and Applicant’s mark, we would
not find confusion likely with the other cited marks. Sock it to Me, 2020 TTAB LEXIS
201 at *21. We therefore refer to Registration No. 2504178 as the cited registration
and GLORIA’S as the cited mark in this decision.
A. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Services
The second DuPont factor considers “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity and nature
of the goods or services as described in an application or registration.” DuPont, 476
F.2d at 1361; Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Comp. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). 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 Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen.
Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336 (CCPA 1981).
To reiterate, Applicant’s services are “providing of food and drink featuring
modern Italian cuisine” while Registrant’s services are “restaurant and bar services.”
By definition, Applicant’s services are encompassed within “restaurant and bar
services.”8 The Examining Attorney also provided third-party registrations showing
that “restaurant services” encompass “providing of food and drink ” for consumption
8 We take judicial notice of the definitions for “restaurant” (“A business establishment where
meals are served to the public”) and “bar” (“A counter at which drinks, especially alcoholic
drinks, and sometimes food, are served.”). THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY. (last
visited June 16, 2026) at https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=restaurant and
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=bar. In re Red Bull GmbH, No. 75788830,
2006 TTAB LEXIS 136, at *8-9 (the Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions
in print and online format).

Serial No. 98400652
- 6 -
on and off the premises and the provision of food and drink (or beverage) can include
sit down and take out restaurants and mobile food trucks.9
Inasmuch as “restaurant and bar services” include the provision of food and drink,
Registrant’s “restaurant services and bar services” are broad enough to encompass
“providing food and drink featuring modern Italian cuisine.” See In re Hughes
Furniture Indus., No. 85627379, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10 (applicant’s broadly
worded identification of “furniture” necessarily encompasses Registrant’s narrowly
identified “‘residential and commercial furniture.’”); Jansen Enters. Inc. v. Rind, No.
92042871, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 47, at *10 (petitioner’s restaurant services have no
limitations and encompass all type of restaurant services including respondent’s
restaurant services featuring bagels as a main entrée). Therefore, the services are
legally identical.
B. Trade Channels, Classes of Consumers, and Conditions of Sale
We consider the DuPont factors relating to “similarity or dissimilarity of
established, likely-to-continue trade channels” and “[t]he conditions under which and
buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.”
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361.
The classes of consumers for Applicant’s and Registrant’s restaurant and bar
services are the general public. Because the services are legally identical, we presume
that the services are rendered through the same trade channels to the same classes
9 August 15, 2025 Office Action, pp. 9-27.

Serial No. 98400652
- 7 -
of consumers.10 In re Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1362 (even though there was no evidence
regarding channels of trade and classes of consumers, the Board was entitled to rely
on this legal presumption in determining likelihood of confusion).
The Examining Attorney argues that the least sophisticated consumers of
Applicant’s and Registrant’s services would not exercise a heightened degree of care
when making their purchasing decisions but does not point to any particular evidence
of record.11
Neither Applicant’s identification nor the cited registration are limited to any
particular price point, which means that the services could be offered to both
sophisticated and unsophisticated consumers. We find this DuPont factor neutral.
C. Third-Party Registrations and Third-Party Use
Applicant argues that GLORIA is a weak and commonly used term in connection
with restaurants and that the additional elements (stylization and color scheme)
differentiates them as does the offering of different cuisines.12
10 Applicant argues that the customers are different (Latin versus modern Italian), 10
TTABVUE 11, and points to the cuisine referenced in the GLORIA’S LATIN CUISINE mark
(Reg. No. 7039486). The re-submitted brief (dated April 17, 2025) does not directly address
the two later cited registrations: GLORIA’s (Reg. No. 2504178, typed drawing) or GLORIA’S
LATIN CUISINE (Reg. No. 7039487, no color claim, standard characters). The cited mark
GLORIA’S does not reference any particular type of cuisine.
11 12 TTABVUE 13. There is some limited evidence of the pricing of Mexican food items from
Applicant’s submission of third-party use evidence in connection with the sixth DuPont
factor.
12 10 TTABVUE 11. In the brief, Applicant points to the additional wording and colors in the
GLORIA’S LATIN CUISINE mark (Reg. No. 7039486).

Serial No. 98400652
- 8 -
We may evaluate the potential weakness of a registered mark in the course of the
DuPont analysis. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 TTAB LEXIS
150, at *23. The sixth DuPont factor, “[t]he number and nature of similar marks in
use on similar goods [or services],” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361, “is a measure of the
extent to which other marks weaken the assessed mark.” Spireon Inc. v. Flex Ltd., 71
F.4th 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). There are
two types of strength: conceptual and commercial.13 Id. (citing In re Chippendales
USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). The strength of the cited mark
affects the scope of protection to which a mark is entitled. Monster Energy Co. v. Lo,
No. 91225050, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 14, at *25-26.
Conceptual Strength
The cited mark is registered on the Principal Register without a claim of acquired
distinctiveness and is treated as inherently distinctive. See New Era Cap Co., Inc. v.
Pro Era, LLC, No. 91216455, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 199, at *29 (“Opposer’s mark is
inherently distinctive as evidenced by its registration on the Principal Register
without a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.”);
see also Brooks v. Creative Arts By Calloway, LLC, No. 91160266, 2009 TTAB LEXIS
653, at *19-20 (“A personal name mark, unless it is primarily merely a surname, is
13 As is normally the case in ex parte proceedings, the fifth DuPont factor is neutral. See In
re Thomas, No. 78334625, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 135, at *18 n.11.

Serial No. 98400652
- 9 -
registrable on the Principal Register without a showing of secondary meaning, and
thus is deemed to be inherently distinctive under the Lanham Act ….”).
“Conceptual strength is a measure of a mark’s distinctiveness, … and
distinctiveness is ‘often classified in categories of generally increasing
distinctiveness[:] ... (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or
(5) fanciful.’” Spireon, 71 F.4th at 1362 (citations omitted). In connection with
conceptual strength, we may consider third-party registration and third-party use
evidence. Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (Board erred in never inquiring “whether and to what degree the extensive
evidence of third-party use and registrations indicates that the phrase PEACE &
LOVE carries a suggestive or descriptive connotation in the food service industry,
and is weak for that reason”).
To support its argument, Applicant provided seven GLORIA composite third-
party registrations (some include a design) for restaurant services or for the services
of providing food and drink.14 Applicant also provided pages from the websites of
these third-party registrants to show the marks are in use.15
Of these registrations, two LA GLORIA marks are owned by the same entity: LA
GLORIA for restaurant services featuring authentic regional Mexican cuisine, Reg.
No. 4519882, and LA GLORIA STREET FOODS OF MEXICO (and design) for, inter
alia, restaurant services, Reg. No. 4561444. Three GLORIA JEAN’S formative marks
14 October 22, 2025 Response to Office Action, pp. 1, 14-24.
15 Id. pp. 2, 181-218; October 2, 2024 Response to Office Action, pp. 188-194.

Serial No. 98400652
- 10 -
are owned by the same entity: GLORIA JEAN’S COFFEES (and design), Reg. No.
6584054, for inter alia, providing food and drink; GJS GLORIA JEANS CHILLER &
COFFEE HOUSE EST. 1979 (and design), Reg. No. 7006773, for inter alia, providing
food and drink and restaurant services; and GLORIA JEAN’S COFFEES (and
design), Reg. No. 4385874,16 for inter alia, providing food and drink and restaurant
services. The two remaining registrations are owned by different entities: GLORIA
FERRER (and design), Reg. No. 7055217, identifying, inter alia, restaurant services;
and TORTAS Y JUGOS LAS GLORIAS, Reg. No. 7662252, identifying restaurant
services.17
Because two of the entities own more than one registration, we consider that four
entities own composite marks, some with a design, which include the term GLORIA.
Applicant also submitted evidence of 25 uses of GLORIA by third parties in
connection with restaurant services, most (22) combined with descriptive or generic
wording as follows:18
16 Although this registration is under Section 66(a), it is over 13 years old and has been
renewed; Applicant also provided evidence of use of this mark.
17 October 22, 2025 Response to Office Action, pp. 14-24; October 2, 2024 Response to Office
Action, pp. 33-40, 64-69, 80-85, 105-110.
In the October 2, 2024 Response to Office Action, pp. 14-114, related to the original Section
2(d) citations and refusal, Applicant submitted 20 third-party registrations. Fourteen third-
party composite registrations incorporated the term GLORY which was the basis for the
original refusal (i.e., GLORIA translated as GLORY). The other six third-party registrations
are composite marks that incorporate the term GLORIA. These submissions consist of the
three Gloria Jean’s registrations, the Gloria Ferrer registration, all listed above, and the two
Gloria’s Latin Cuisine registrations which were later cited by the Examining Attorney as
blocking registrations.
18 October 22, 2025 Response to Office Action, pp. 25-168; October 2, 2024 Response to Office
Action, pp. 115-134.

Serial No. 98400652
- 11 -
Taqueria Gloria (Jersey City, NJ)
Gloria’s Bar and Grill (Bloomfield, NJ)
Gloria’s West Indian Restaurant (Brooklyn, NY)
Gloria Pizza (Forest Hills, NY)
La Gloria Bakery and Restaurant (Trenton, NJ)
Juana & Gloria (Union City, NJ)
Gloria Sports & Spirits (Warrington, PA)
Gloria’s Restaurant (Fort Worth, TX)
Gloria’s Cuisine LA (Los Angeles, CA)
Gloria’s Café (Los Angeles, CA)
Gloria’s Corner Café (Moab, UT)
Gloria’s Cocina Mexicana (Downey and Ontario, CA)
Tacos La Gloria LLC (Dallas, TX)
Vamos con Gloria (Albuquerque, NM)
Tacos Gloria (Queens, NY)
Gloria’s Kitchen (Ventura, CA)
Pizzeria da Gloria (St. Louis, MO)
Las Glorias Grill (Phoenix, AZ)
Little Gloria’s (Chandler, AZ)
Gloria’s Restaurant & Bar (Huntington Park, CA)
Doña Gloria’s Restaurant (Tulsa, OK)
Gloria’s Kitchen (Hydro, OK)

Serial No. 98400652
- 12 -
Gloria’s Mexican Restaurant (Madison, WI)
Gloria’s Cantina and Mexican Grill (Brillion WI)
Gloria’s Pupuseria (Washington DC metropolitan area)
This third-party registration and use-based evidence is probative of the conceptual
weakness of GLORIA/GLORIA’S in connection with restaurant services.
Commercial Weakness
The purpose of introducing evidence of third-party use is to show that consumers
“have become so conditioned by a plethora of such similar marks” that they have been
“educated to distinguish between different [such] marks on the bases of minute
distinctions.” Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1374. Evidence that a considerable number
of third parties use similar marks for similar goods or services is “powerful on its face”
even without specifics regarding the extent of such uses. Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung
Fur Draussen GmbH v. New Millenium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 1373-74 (Fed.
Cir. 2015)); Juice Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339. If the evidence establishes that the
consuming public is exposed to widespread third-party use of similar marks for
similar goods or services, this evidence “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively
weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection.” Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at
1373.
The above listed registrations and third-party uses of GLORIA/GLORIA’S in
connection with restaurant services are probative of some commercial weakness of
the term GLORIA. However, it is not clear whether multiple GLORIA/GLORIA’S
restaurants exist in the same trading area such that consumers have been

Serial No. 98400652
- 13 -
conditioned to distinguish among them. See Anthonys Pizza & Pasta International,
Inc. v. Anthonys Pizza Holding Company, Inc., No. 91171509, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 718
at *24-25; see, e.g., Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, No.
91223982, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 269, at *55 (six local Brooklyn-formative named
establishments’ use of the term “Brooklyn” in connection with beer sales have
significant probative value as to commercial weakness), aff’d in relevant part; rev’d
in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 17 F.4th 129 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
In sum, the term GLORIA/GLORIA’S, when used in connection with restaurant
services, is conceptually weak and has some commercial weakness. We consider the
weakness of the term GLORIA/GLORIA’S in our analysis involving the similarity of
the marks below and ultimately weigh such weakness in our conclusion of whether
there is a likelihood of confusion.
D. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
Under the first DuPont factor, we consider the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression. Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1371 (citing DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361).
Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks
confusingly similar. In re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, at *4.
When a mark comprises both word(s) and a design, the literal portion is normally
accorded greater weight because it will be used by purchasers to request the services.
CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 1581-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Dakin’s
Miniatures, No. 74706577, 1999 TTAB LEXIS 636, at *8. This “principle is especially

Serial No. 98400652
- 14 -
important in cases involving restaurant services in view of the propensity of persons
to try restaurants based on word-of-mouth recommendations.” In re Appetito
Provisions Co. Inc., No. 73423405, 1987 TTAB LEXIS 47, at *3. Here, the dominant
element in Applicant’s mark is the literal portion, GLORIA.
The test, under the first DuPont factor, is not whether the marks can be
distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the
marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that
confusion as to the source of the services offered under the respective marks is likely
to result. 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 specific, impression of trademarks. See Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v.
Akea, LLC, No. 91196527, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 166, at *17; Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott
Paper Co., No. 91055167, 1975 TTAB LEXIS 236, at *6. Additionally, “[w]hen marks
would appear on virtually identical goods or services, the degree of similarity
necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion declines.” Century 21 Real Estate
Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The cited mark is GLORIA’S (typed drawing). Applicant’s mark is
with a color claim.
Because the cited mark GLORIA’S is registered in typed form, it may be displayed
in any manner, including in the same size, font, and color as GLORIA in Applicant’s

Serial No. 98400652
- 15 -
mark, which includes the swash or terminal flourish on the end of the letter “a”. See
Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“‘Standard character’ or ‘typed’ registrations are federal mark registrations that
make no claim to any particular font style, color, or size of display and, thus, are not
limited to any particular presentation.”). The addition of the apostrophe and letter
“s” to the cited mark GLORIA, creating the possessive form GLORIA’S, has little
significance as a distinguishing element in the marks. See Southwestern Mgmt. v.
Ocinomled, Ltd., No. 94002242, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 176, at *58; In re Binion, No.
76590702, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 701, at *8 (noting that “[t]he absence of the possessive
form in applicant’s mark ... has little, if any, significance for consumers in
distinguishing it from the cited mark”).
The rectangular design feature of Applicant’s mark that surrounds GLORIA and
frames it forms a background or “carrier” and is not considered a distinctive element.
In re Hughes Furniture, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *17-18 (“[C]ommon design elements
(consisting of a rectangle enclosing the literal elements and two horizontal lines) . . .
merely serve as carriers for the wording and do not include a distinctive element with
strong source-identifying characteristics.”); Guess? Inc. v. Nationwide Time Inc., No.
91078773, 1990 TTAB LEXIS 55, at *5 (“ordinary geometric shapes such as circles,
ovals, squares, etc., even when not used as a background for other marks, are
regarded as non-distinctive”) (citation omitted).
The dominant literal portion of Applicant’s mark, GLORIA, is nearly identical in
appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression to the entirety of

Serial No. 98400652
- 16 -
Registrant’s mark GLORIA’S, differing only by the concluding apostrophe “s.” As for
Registrant’s use of the possessive form, this has little, if any, trademark significance
and is not sufficient to distinguish the two marks.
In sum, considering the marks in their entireties, the design and color elements
in Applicant’s mark fail to sufficiently distinguish the marks and is outweighed by
the identical presence of GLORIA/GLORIA’S in both marks. We find the marks
similar in overall appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
II. Conclusion
The final step is to weigh the DuPont factors for which there is evidence and
argument. In re Charger Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The services are in-part legally identical, and for the legally identical services, the
trade channels and classes of consumers overlap. The second and third DuPont
factors weigh heavily in favor of likelihood of confusion. The first DuPont factor also
weighs in favor of likelihood of confusion. The conditions of sale is neutral.
The sixth Dupont factor weighs against confusion. But in weighing the impact of
the sixth factor, we keep in mind that “even weak marks are entitled to protection
against registration of similar marks” for identical services. In re Colonial Stores,
Inc., No. 73209079, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 116, at *7-8; see also Conde Nast Publ’ns, Inc.
v. Miss Quality, Inc., 507 F.2d 1404, 1406 (CCPA 1975) (“[T]he decisive question is
whether there is a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception for purposes of 15
U.S.C. § 1052(d). Therefore, if there is such likelihood, that ends the matter whether
appellant’s mark be termed ‘weak’ or ‘strong.’”). In view of the in-part identical

Serial No. 98400652
- 17 -
services, overlapping trade channels and classes of customers, and the similar marks,
we find, on balance, that confusion is likely.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal to register Applicant’s mark
is affirmed.