Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: March 6, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.
_____
Serial Nos. 98304368 and 98448046
_____
D. Whitlow Bivens of Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP,
for Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.
Karen Bush, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108,
Kathryn E. Coward, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Heasley, Larkin, and English,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the marks WINDMARK INSURANCE AGENCY (in standard characters,
with “INSURANCE AGENCY” disclaimed)1 and WINDMARK INSURANCE
1 Application Serial No. 98304368 was filed on December 7, 2023, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere and
use in commerce since at least as early as April 1, 2023.
Citations to the prosecution file refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system and identify the documents by title, date, and page in the
downloadable .pdf version. Citations to the briefs and other materials in the appeal record
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE online docket system.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 2 -
SERVICES (in standard characters, with “INSURANCE SERVICES” disclaimed),2
both for:
• “providing insurance agent referrals; wholesale services by direct solicitation
by sales agents in the field of insurance; marketing services in the nature of
promotion of third-party goods and services all of the foregoing services in the
field of crop and agricultural insurance” in International Class 35; and
• “insurance brokerage services, insurance underwriting services, managing
general agency services, namely insurance brokerage and underwriting
services, all of the foregoing services in the field of crop and agricultural
insurance” in International Class 36.
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s marks, as used
in connection with these services, so resemble the registered mark WINDMARK (in
standard characters) for the following pertinent services as to be likely to cause
confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive:3
• “Investment risk assessment services; Financial services, namely, investment
advice, investment management, investment consultation and investment of
2 Application Serial No. 98448046, filed on March 13, 2024 based on a declared intention to
use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
3 Registration No. 6085699, issued on the Principal Register on June 23, 2020; Combined
Section 8 & 15 declaration filed.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 3 -
funds for others, including private and public equity and debt investment
services” in International Class 36.4
When the refusals were made final, Applicant appealed. On appeal, the Board
granted the Examining Attorney’s motion to consolidate the two appeals.5 We affirm
the refusals to register.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
“The primary function of a trademark is to identify and distinguish the goods or
services of one source from those sold by all others....” BellSouth Corp. v.
DataNational Corp., 60 F.3d 1565, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “In that vein, a basic
function of trademark law has always been to ‘prohibi[t] confusion as to the source of
good or services.’ Pattishall, [The Constitutional Foundations of American
Trademark Law, 78 Trademark Rep. 456, 458 (1988)]; see also Jack Daniel’s
Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140, 147… (2023) (‘Confusion as to
source is the bête noire of trademark law’).” Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286, 300 (2024).
Consistent with this basic function, Section 2(d) of “[t]he 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]
mistake, or to deceive.” In re Charger Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
4 The Registration also recites “outsource service provider in the field of business
management of investment portfolios” in International Class 35. The Examining Attorney,
however, focuses her refusal on the Registration’s Class 36 services. Examining Attorney’s
brief, 8 TTABVUE 2, 6. We shall do the same.
5 9, 10 TTABVUE. TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP)
§ 1214 (2025). This opinion refers to the briefs and record in Application Serial No. 98304368,
unless otherwise stated.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 4 -
2023) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)).
To determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), we
analyze the evidence and arguments under the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont factors”) cited in
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138, 144 (2015).
“The likelihood of confusion analysis considers all DuPont factors for which there is
evidence of record but ‘may focus . . . on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the
marks and relatedness of the goods [or services].’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard
Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (alteration in original) (quoting Han
Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).” Sunkist
Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Dist., Inc., 144 F.4th 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Here, the
briefs address the first through fourth DuPont factors.
A. Similarity of the Marks
Under the first DuPont factor, we determine the similarity or dissimilarity of
Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks in their entireties, taking into account their
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. DuPont, 476 F.2d at
1361. “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks
confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, No. 87075988, 2018 WL 2734893,
*5 (TTAB 2018) aff’d 777 Fed. Appx. 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing In re Davia, No.
85497617, 2014 WL 2531200, *2 (TTAB 2014)); Cecile Gagnon Co. v. Bourjois, Inc.,
223 F.2d 731, 733 (CCPA 1955) (“And with respect to sound, meaning, and

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 5 -
appearance, substantial identity between the marks in any one or more of such
attributes is, in of itself, fatal to the registration of his mark by an applicant.”).
Again, the cited registered mark is WINDMARK, and Applicant’s marks are
WINDMARK INSURANCE AGENCY (with “INSURANCE AGENCY” disclaimed)
and WINDMARK INSURANCE SERVICES (WITH “INSURANCE SERVICES”
disclaimed).
Applicant takes the position that each of its marks “consists of three words
whereas the Cited Mark consists of one word. Thus the … marks are different in
sound and appearance.”6 Furthermore, Applicant posits, the Examining Attorney
focused entirely on the marks’ commonality, WINDMARK, and accorded no weight to
the additional elements in the cited marks: INSURANCE AGENCY on the one hand
and INSURANCE SERVICES on the other.7 Applicant concludes that in each case,
“Applicant’s mark specifically calls out the insurance services offered while the Cited
Mark does not (as the Registration lists no insurance services). Thus, the marks give
different commercial impressions – one clearly stating it offers insurance related
services while the other could offer any type of service.”8
“[S]imilarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree.” In re St. Helena
Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d
1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “Each case must be decided on its own facts and the
6 Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 5.
7 Id.
8 Id. Applicant’s argument that it offers “insurance related services while the other could offer
any type of service,” returns to haunt it under the next DuPont factor.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 6 -
differences are often subtle ones.” Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197,
1199 (CCPA 1973), quoted in Heil Co. v. Tripleye GmbH, No. 91277359, 2024 WL
4925901, *16 (TTAB 2024). In this case, we agree with the Examining Attorney that
the marks, taken as a whole, are very similar.
The cited registered mark consists of the single word WINDMARK, which is
fanciful or arbitrary for its recited financial investment services. Nautilus Grp., Inc.
v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 372 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A fanciful mark
is a non-dictionary word concocted by the trademark holder for its product, whereas
an arbitrary mark is a known word used in an unexpected or uncommon way.”).
Applicant’s marks incorporate the entirety of the registrant’s WINDMARK mark
as their lead words, followed by the disclaimed terms INSURANCE AGENCY and
INSURANCE SERVICES. “When one mark incorporates the entirety of another
mark, it has been found to be similar.” Bureau Nat’l. Interprofessionnel du Cognac v.
Cologne & Cognac Entm’t., 110 F.4th 1356, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2024); In re Ye Mystic
Krewe of Gasparilla, No. 90522364, 2025 WL 2953731, *5 (TTAB 2025) (“Marks have
frequently been found to be similar where one mark incorporates the entirety of
another mark, as is the case here.”) (internal citation omitted). What’s worse,
Applicant enhances the similarity by placing WINDMARK at the forefront of each of
its marks, where it is most likely to be noticed and remembered by consumers. See,
e.g., Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (“[U]pon encountering each mark, consumers must first notice this identical
lead word.”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods. Inc., [1988 WL 252340, *3] (TTAB

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 7 -
1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon
the mind of a purchaser and remembered”), quoted in In re Dare Foods Inc., No.
88758625, 2022 WL 970319, *6 (TTAB 2022).
Moreover, as the Board has noted, consumers have a “penchant” for shortening
marks. See, e.g., In re Bay State Brewing Co., No. 85826258, 2016 WL 1045677, *3
(TTAB 2016) (citing In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 815 (CCPA 1978) (Rich, J.,
concurring) (“users of language have a universal habit of shortening full names—from
haste or laziness or just economy of words”)); accord Sabhnani v. Mirage Brands,
LLC, No. 92068086, 2021 WL 6072822, *18 (TTAB 2021). As if to confirm this point,
and to encourage the shortening of its marks, Applicant’s specimens display
WINDMARK separately (with a design logo, not relevant here):
9
Applicant’s trailing disclaimed wording, INSURANCE AGENCY and
INSURANCE SERVICES, does little to distinguish its marks. As the Board has noted
before, with approval from our primary reviewing Court, the identical wording at the
beginning of the marks “lessens the possible influence of differing wording at the
9 Dec. 7, 2023 specimen at 1; April 7, 2025 specimen at 1.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 8 -
end.” In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1304 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And
disclaimed descriptive or generic matter typically is less significant or less dominant
when comparing marks. Dollar Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Brittex Fin., Inc., 132 F.4th 1363,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2025). “So, while the Board must consider the disclaimed term[s], [the]
additional word[s] or component may technically differentiate a mark but do little to
alleviate confusion. Detroit Athl., 903 F.3d at 1304-05. We have previously found no
error with the Board’s decision to focus on dominant portions of a mark. Id. at 1305.”
Charger Ventures 64 F.4th at 1382.
In summary, “if a junior user takes the entire mark of another and adds a generic,
descriptive or highly suggestive term, it is generally not sufficient to avoid confusion.”
Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Dev., No. 92063808, 2019 WL 4877349, *9 (TTAB
2019). That is what Applicant effectively has done, and its argument that its marks
contain more words is unavailing. See In re Sela Prods., LLC, No. 77629624, 2013 WL
2951800, *4 (TTAB 2013) (“We agree that the marks have a different number of words
and syllables …. However, these distinctions between the marks that applicant points
out do not serve to distinguish them.”).
For these reasons, the marks are very similar in sight, sound, meaning, and
commercial impression, and the first DuPont factor weighs heavily in favor of finding
a likelihood of confusion.
B. Relatedness of the Services
The second DuPont factor concerns the “similarity or dissimilarity and nature of
the goods or services as described in an application or registration….” DuPont, 476

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 9 -
F.2d at 1361. This factor dovetails with the first DuPont factor, as “the greater the
degree of similarity in the marks, the lesser the degree of similarity that is required
of the [services] ... on which they are being used in order to support a holding of
likelihood of confusion.” Made In Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 WL 2188890,
*23 (TTAB 2022).
“The relevant inquiry in an ex parte proceeding focuses on the goods and services
described in the application and registration.” Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1383.
Again, the Registration describes investment-related services:
“Investment risk assessment services; Financial services, namely, investment
advice, investment management, investment consultation and investment of
funds for others, including private and public equity and debt investment
services” in International Class 36.
And the Applications describe insurance-related services:
“providing insurance agent referrals; wholesale services by direct solicitation
by sales agents in the field of insurance; marketing services in the nature of
promotion of third-party goods and services all of the foregoing services in the
field of crop and agricultural insurance” in International Class 35; and
“insurance brokerage services, insurance underwriting services, managing
general agency services, namely insurance brokerage and underwriting
services, all of the foregoing services in the field of crop and agricultural
insurance” in International Class 36.
Applicant observes that “The Registration does not list any form of insurance
services.”10 As the Examining Attorney correctly rejoins, though, the issue is not
likelihood of confusion between particular services, but likelihood of confusion as to
the source or sponsorship of those services. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d
10 Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 2, 5.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 10 -
1311, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2003); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, No. 91184456, 2012 WL 1267956,
*6 (TTAB 2012) (“The issue here, of course, is not whether purchasers would confuse
the parties’ goods [or services], but rather whether there is a likelihood of confusion
as to the source of the goods [or services].”). In fact, “even if the [services] in question
are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same [services]
can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the [services].”
Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The services need only
be sufficiently related that a consumer would be likely to assume, upon encountering
the services marketed under the marks at issue, that the services originate from, are
sponsored or authorized by, or are otherwise connected to the same source. Apex Bank
v. CC Serve Corp., 156 F.4th 1230, 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
“The second DuPont factor ‘considers whether the consuming public may perceive
the respective goods and services of the parties as related enough to cause confusion
about the source or origin of the goods and services.’ In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d
747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (cleaned up) (citation omitted).” Naterra Int’l, Inc. v.
Bensalem, 92 F.4th 1113, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
One way to show that consumers perceive two types of services to be related is to
adduce evidence that other companies offer both types of services under the same
mark. See, e.g., Naterra, 92 F.4th at 1117; Detroit Athl., 903 F.3d at 1306; Hewlett-
Packard, 281 F.3d at 1267. This can be evidenced by advertisements showing that
the services are advertised together or sold by the same entity, or copies of prior use-

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 11 -
based registrations of the same mark for both sorts of services. In re Country Oven,
Inc., No. 87354443, 2019 WL 6170483, *2 (TTAB 2019).
The Examining Attorney submits webpages from six websites showing the same
entities, such as New York Life, Prudential, CEFCU, Merrill, and Raymond James,
offering financial investment and insurance services under the same marks.11 For
example:
•
12
11 July 10, 2024 Office Action at 9-23; April 26, 2025 Office Action at 31-44
12 NewYorkLife.com, July 10, 2024 Office Action at 9, 12.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 12 -
• 13
• 14
These websites demonstrate how financial investment and insurance services
serve the complementary purposes of growing one’s financial assets and protecting
them against loss. The third-party evidence that companies offer both kinds of
services under the same mark, on the same website, shows the relatedness of the
services. Charger Ventures 64 F.4th at 1382. The more consumers see companies
selling both services under one mark, the more they would tend to see those services
as emanating from the same or affiliated sources.
The Examining Attorney has also submitted twelve use-based third-party
registrations reciting financial investment and insurance services.15 For example:
13 Prudential.com, July 10, 2024 Office Action at 15.
14 CEFCU.com, July 10, 2024 Office Action at 21.
15 April 26, 2025 Office Action at 7-30.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 13 -
Registration
No.
Mark Pertinent Services
5078931 PRUDENTIAL
ADVISORS Insurance and financial services, namely,
administration, underwriting, insurance
consultation and insurance advice services
regarding life insurance, annuities,
disability income insurance, property and
casualty insurance, long term care
insurance, IRAs, and educational IRAs,
mutual funds, and managed money
accounts. IC 36.
5887426 MAYER FINANCIAL Financial advice; financial consultation;
financial information; financial planning;
Insurance consultation; Insurance
information; Insurance information and
consultancy; Insurance services, namely,
writing property and casualty insurance;
Insurance underwriting services for all types
of insurance. IC 36
3407357 INCONCERT
FINANCIAL GROUP Investment consultation; financial analysis
and consultation for businesses and
individuals; insurance consultation,
investment consultation; investment
management; investment of funds for
others, investment advice. IC 36.
“As a general proposition, third-party registrations that cover goods and services
from both the cited registration and an Applicant’s application are relevant to show
that the goods and services are of a type that may emanate from a single source under
one mark.” Country Oven, 2019 WL 6170483, at *5.
Applicant attempts to distinguish its specific types of insurance services from the
more general insurance services in the third-party evidence:
• “It is wholly unsurprising that financial planners and investment advisors
offer life insurance, annuities, disability and long-term care insurance along
with their financial advice. That type of insurance plays a crucial role in most
financial planning.”16
16 Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 3.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 14 -
• “Applicant’s business is completely unrelated to that world and there is no real-
world connection between the agricultural and crop insurance services listed
in the Application and those listed in the supporting evidence cited in the first
office action and the final refusal. Applicant’s customers are farmers and
ranchers, and Applicant offers services to insure their business operations.”17
• “Applicant’s crop and agricultural insurance services are not related to the
financial planning and investment services of the registration and cited
evidence”18
Applicant thus concedes that some forms of insurance services broadly relate to
financial investments, but contends that its own services, limited to crop and
agricultural insurance, are directed to farmers and ranchers, whose interest in
raising crops and livestock would not impel them to seek financial investment
services. The Examining Attorney responds that the third-party registrations, which
recite insurance services, must be construed to encompass the full scope of insurance
services.19 We do not attempt to broaden the scope of the third-party registrations to
17 Id.
18 Id. 3, 6-8.
Elaborating on this point, Applicant cites Brittex Fin., Inc. v. Dollar Fin. Grp., __ F.4th __,
2021 WL 5504880 (Fed. Cir. 2021) for the proposition that one party in an inter partes
proceeding cannot claim priority simply because it has prior use of one species of a broader
genus of services that encompasses the other party’s species of service; in other words, the
one species does not encompass the other. Id. at *3. See Brittex Fin., Inc. v. Dollar Fin. Grp.,
Inc., No. 92060888, 2022 WL 17357843 (TTAB 2022), aff’d sub nom Dollar Fin. Grp., Inc. v.
Brittex Fin., Inc., 132 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Applying that lesson to this case, Applicant concludes that the species of insurance services
that it concedes are connected with Registrant’s financial investment services—e.g., life
insurance, annuities, disability and long-term care insurance—do not encompass Applicant’s
species of crop and agricultural insurance services. Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 5-8. As
noted below, though, we do not attempt to broaden the scope of the third-party registrations
to encompass insurance services beyond those recited.
19 Examining Attorney’s brief, 8 TTABVUE 7-8.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 15 -
encompass insurance services beyond those recited. We note that one of the third-
party registrations, for MAYER FINANCIAL, broadly recites “insurance
underwriting services for all types of insurance.” Others identify more specific types
of insurance, such as “property and casualty insurance,” which would tend to appeal
to landowners, including farmers and ranchers. The third-party registrations thus
carry some probative value in showing the relatedness of the respective services.
On the whole, we take Applicant’s limitation to crop and agricultural insurance
into account, In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2017), but find
that its limitation does not suffice to avert consumer confusion. “[T]he general
purchasing public … may well be unaware of the identification of [services] in either
the application or registration and the restrictions are not controlling of public
perception. Cf., e.g., In re Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, [307] (CCPA 1978) (‘[T]he locus of
potential confusion is [not] in the files of the PTO.’)….” In re Aquitaine Wine USA,
LLC, No. 86928469, 2018 WL 1620989, *7 (TTAB 2018). Indeed, Applicant’s original
recitation of services recited “insurance brokerage services, insurance underwriting
services, managing general agency services and direct sales and marketing for third
party insurance carriers and agencies.” Cf. Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Comput. Servs.
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 941 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (taking original identification of goods into
account). And even if customers were aware of those limitations, “they are still likely
to assume that the [services] share a common source or affiliation, particularly where,
as here, the marks share a dominant, fanciful term.” Aquitaine Wine, 2018 WL
1620989, at *7.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 16 -
Applicant’s customers would thus have the same propensity as other consumers
to mistakenly perceive its WINDMARK-formative services—providing referrals to
insurance agents and the insurance services rendered by those agents--as related to
Registrant’s WINDMARK services. We find accordingly that the second DuPont
factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
C. Channels of Trade, Classes of Customers, and Their Care and
Sophistication
The third DuPont factor concerns the “similarity or dissimilarity of established,
likely-to-continue trade channels,” and the fourth concerns “[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.
With respect to channels of trade, the Examining Attorney points out that she
“supplied a sampling of third-party websites that evidence providers of investment
and financial services also provide insurance services. … This evidence clearly
demonstrates that the applicant’s insurance services would be sold or provided
through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers as the
registrant’s investment and financial services.”20 Applicant demurs that “[t]he
internet evidence included in the office action and the final refusal is directed to the
public at large whereas Applicant’s services are in a specialized market directed to
farmers and ranchers.”21
20 Examining Attorney’s brief, 8 TTABVUE 7 (citing July 10, 2024 Office Action at 9-23 and
April 26, 2025, Office Action at 31-44).
21 Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 10.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 17 -
Unlike the Applications, though, the Registration places no limitations on its
classes of purchasers. We must presume that Registrant’s unrestricted services move
in all channels of trade that are usual for such services and are available to all
potential classes of consumers. Heil Co., 2024 WL 4925901, at *35. The third-party
internet evidence shows how such financial investment services, offered to the public
at large, are commonly offered together with general insurance services, as well as
property insurance, which would be of interest to landowners such as farmers and
ranchers. This supports a finding that Registrant’s services and Applicant’s services
are offered in common channels of trade to overlapping purchasers. See Dare Foods,
2022 WL 970319, at *4; In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., No. 79046106, 2009 WL
1896059, *6 (TTAB 2009) (website evidence shows same or overlapping channels of
trade and classes of customers).
As for care in purchasing, the subject of the fourth DuPont factor, Applicant
maintains:
Crop and agricultural insurance is a critical part of those businesses. In
addition, the premiums for that type of insurance usually constitute a
major purchase for the farmer or rancher. Thus, the consumers of crop and
agricultural insurance (and of Applicant’s services) pay particularly close
attention to the purchasing decision. In addition, the farmers and ranchers
that purchase crop and agricultural insurance want confidence that the
insurance company backing the policy will remain in business to pay
claims. It is highly likely that the reader of this brief knows the name of
the insurance company that provides their car, homeowners and/or health
insurance. Consumers take care when it comes to insurance matters.22
22 Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 9.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 18 -
Although this point is asserted, not proven, it is well taken, as the inherent nature
of insurance services, on which the insured’s assets may rely, naturally entails some
degree of purchasing care. See, e.g., In re Info. Builders Inc., No. 87753964, 2020 WL
2094122, *6 (TTAB 2020). That degree of care, however, would not necessarily
preclude purchasers from assuming that Applicant’s services are in some way offered
or sponsored by, or otherwise affiliated or connected with, Registrant’s services, given
the pronounced similarity of the marks. WinchargerCorp. v. Rhino Inc., 297 F.2d 261,
264 (CCPA 1962) (“Being skilled in their own art does not necessarily preclude their
mistaking one trademark for another when the marks are as similar as those here in
issue….”).
The third DuPont factor thus weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion, and the
fourth is neutral.
II. Conclusion
On careful consideration of the briefs and record, in light of the applicable law, we
find that Applicant’s marks are very similar to the cited registered WINDMARK
mark, that the relevant consumers would tend to perceive the respective services as
related, that the channels of trade and classes of customers overlap, and that the
customers’ degree of purchasing care, though high, would tend to be vitiated by the
similarity of the marks. Therefore, in sum, the first through third DuPont factors
weigh in favor of a likelihood of confusion, and the fourth is neutral. We find confusion
likely.

Serial Nos. 98304368, 98448046
- 19 -
Decision: The refusals to register Applicant’s marks are affirmed under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d).