Mutual of America Life Insurance Company

This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: March 26, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Mutual of America Life Insurance Company
_____
Serial Nos. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
_____
Safa M. Dorchak, of Barclay Damon LLP, for Mutual of America Life Insurance
Company.
Gabrielle Rennie, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113, Myriah Habeeb,
Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Thurmon and Casagrande, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Thurmon, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Mutual of America Life Insurance Company (“Applicant”) seeks registration on
the Principal Register of the marks MOA CLEAR PASSAGE XXXX FUND1,
1 Application Serial No. 97835918, was filed on March 13, 2023, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
The mark is presented in standard characters and the word “FUND” is disclaimed.
Citations to the prosecution file are to entries in the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system in .pdf format. Citations to the appeal record are to TTABVUE,
the Board’s online docketing system.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 2 -
2, and MOA CATHOLIC VALUES INDEX FUND3, all for “Mutual
funds and capital investment for pension, retirement and long-term saving and
planning,” in International Class 36, and the mark MOA CORE BOND FUND4, for
“Investment advisory services for pension, retirement and long-term saving and
planning; Mutual funds and capital investment for pension, retirement and long-term
saving and planning,” in International Class 36.
The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration in all
four Applications under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d),
finding a likelihood of confusion, based on the registered mark shown below for
“investment advice, investment management, investment consultation and
2 Application Serial No. 97835919, was filed on March 13, 2023, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
The word “FUNDS” is disclaimed. The mark is described as follows: “The mark consists of
the wording ‘MOA FUNDS’ in dark blue stylized font. To the left of the wording is a stylized
design that appears to be a flag folded in the shape of a capitalized letter ‘M’ and includes
red and white parallelograms that appear as thick lines or stripes, and blue parallelograms.
With two parallelograms in the upper left, the left parallelogram in blue and the right
parallelogram in dark blue. Two parallelograms in various shades of red in the upper right
with two white parallelograms below. In the middle of the flag are four parallelograms in
various shades of red. Below that are four parallelograms in white. At the bottom are four
parallelograms in various shades of red. The mark appears on a white background, which is
not claimed as a feature of the mark.” The colors red, blue, dark blue, and white are claimed
as a feature of the mark.
3 Application Serial No. 97835924, was filed on March 13, 2023, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
The mark is presented in standard characters and the words “CATHOLIC VALUES INDEX
FUND” are disclaimed.
4 Application Serial No. 97835921, was filed on March 13, 2023, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
The mark is presented in standard characters and the words “CORE BOND FUND” are
disclaimed.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 3 -
investment of funds for others, including private and public equity and debt
investment services” and other services in International Class 36
.5
We consolidate the appeals and decide them in a single opinion because they
involve common issues of law and fact with similar records. See In re Anderson, Nos.
76511652 and 76514799, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 42, at *9 (Board sua sponte consolidated
two appeals). All record references are to Serial No. 97835918, unless otherwise
noted. The appeals are briefed and ready for final decision. We affirm the refusals to
register.
Section 2(d) – Applicable Law
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative evidence of record bearing on a likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. DuPont
5 Registration No. 6627190, issued January 25, 2022. The Registration identifies the
following services in International Class 36: “Financial planning, namely, the creation of
personalized strategies to achieve financial independence; Financial services, namely,
investment advice, investment management, investment consultation and investment of
funds for others, including private and public equity and debt investment services.” Services
in International Classes 35 and 41 are also identified in the cited Registration, but were not
relied upon for the Section 2(d) refusal.
The mark is described as follows: “The mark consists of literal elements, ‘MOA ADVISORY
& FINANCIAL SERVICES CO’. in black color. Image is made of two parts, first is green in
color, made up of three outer rings and one inner ring, the outer rings are equidistant from
the inner ring. All outer rings connect to the inner ring with lines. The second shape is dark
green, has the an [sic] humanoid head shape with the nose on the right and the shape is
looking right. The background is white in color.” The colors green, dark green, white and
black are claimed as a feature of the mark. The words “ADVISORY & FINANCIAL
SERVICES CO.” are disclaimed.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 4 -
de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”), cited in B&B
Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015); see also In re Majestic
Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We must consider each DuPont
factor for which there is evidence and argument. See, e.g., In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912
F.3d 1376, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Whether a likelihood of confusion exists between
an applicant’s mark and a previously registered mark is determined on a case-by-case
basis, aided by application of the thirteen DuPont factors.” Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc.
v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2018). When analyzing
these factors, the overriding concerns are not only to prevent buyer confusion as to
the source of the goods or services, but also to protect the registrant from adverse
commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil
Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“Each case must be decided on its own facts and the differences are often subtle
ones.” Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 1199 (CCPA 1973). Varying
weights may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending on the evidence presented.
See Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Shell Oil, 992 F.2d at 1206 (“the various evidentiary factors may play more or less
weighty roles in any particular determination”). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the
similarities between 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, 1164-65 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342 (Fed.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 5 -
Cir. 2004); 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 and differences in the
marks.”).
Likelihood of Confusion – Analysis
Applicant and the Trademark Examining Attorney presented arguments under
DuPont factors one, two, four and, to an extent, six.6 We address these factors in turn
below.
A. Similarity of the Marks
To evaluate the similarity of the marks under the first DuPont factor, we consider
the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression. See, e.g., Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison
Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 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 Inn at St. John’s LLC, No. 87075988, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13 (quoting In
re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, at *4), aff’d mem., 777 F. App’x 516
(Fed. Cir. 2019); accord Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d 728, 732
6 Applicant also argues that it intends to use its marks regardless of the Board’s decision. 17
TTABVUE 30. Applicant does not tell us, however, to which DuPont factor this pertains or
how this intention bears on the likelihood of confusion in this case. It is of course well-settled
that a Board decision on the right to register has no effect on the ability to use a mark. See,
e.g., Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Am. Cyanamid Co. v. U.S.
Rubber Co., 356 F.2d 1008, 1009 (CCPA 1966).

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 6 -
(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
between the parties.” 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.” In re
i.am.symbolic, llc, No. 85916778, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *11.
1. The Cited Mark
The cited mark is shown again below:
The words “ADVISORY & FINANCIAL SERVICES CO.” are disclaimed. The
Registration identifies “financial planning,” “investment advice” and other similar
services, confirming that the disclaimed phrase is descriptive of Registrant’s services.
Consumers are less likely to place source-identifying significance on descriptive
terms in a mark. While it is true that consumers will see the full marks, it is also true
that “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

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 7 -
consideration of the marks in their entireties.” In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056,
1060 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The term MOA is the first literal part of the mark and only literal term not
disclaimed. For both reasons, MOA is the dominant literal element in the cited mark.
See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1296, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the
identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers
typically notice those words first”); Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1372-73; Presto
Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods. Inc., 1988 TTAB LEXIS 60, at *8 (“it is often the first
part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and
remembered”). “[W]e also keep in mind the penchant of consumers to shorten marks.”
In re Bay State Brewing Co., No. 85826258, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 46, at *9. It is likely
that many consumers familiar with the cited mark refer to the mark as simply MOA.
The design element of the cited mark is significant. When viewing the mark from
left-to-right, it is the first element seen. It shows a series of green circles, connected
by green lines, all positioned on or near the outline of a human head. We find that
consumers would notice and remember such a distinctive image. For this reason, we
find the design element of the cited mark has a significant impact on consumer
perception of the mark.
The two dominant elements of the cited mark are the design element and the term
MOA. Applicant argues that the MOA term is an acronym and therefore is less
distinctive. 17 TTABVUE 12-17. But there is no evidence of record showing what

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 8 -
MOA in the cited mark means.7 Applicant notes the owner of the business that owns
the cited Registration is Michael Akinosho, who signed the application that led to the
cited Registration. Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Applicant’s challenge to the distinctiveness of the cited
mark. At most, it shows that a person involved in the business of the Registrant has
a name that matches two of the three letters in MOA. This evidence doesn’t show that
consumers know this or that the letters MOA are the actual initials of Mr. Akinosho.
See, e.g.,; It is well-established that the derivation of letter marks, acronyms, or
initialisms are of no particular significance in our analysis under Section 2(d),
especially where, as here, there is no evidence that purchasers are aware of the
derivation. Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC, 826 F.3d 1376,
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (disregarding argument trying to distinguish marks based on
origin of mark being a combination of owner’s daughters’ names where no evidence
that consumers would be aware of it); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Rodriguez, No.
91157529, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 32, at *23-24. We find the MOA element of the cited
mark is distinctive and is the dominant literal element of the mark. This fact is
important, because consumers tend to use words when using a mark to ask for the
goods or services. Consumers asking for the services identified in the cited
7 Applicant submitted evidence of certain meanings of MOA, but did not show that any of
these relate to the cited mark. For example, Applicant provided information about the extinct
Moa bird that was native to New Zealand. Response to Office Action dated March 6, 2024, at
18-39. Other definitions provided by Applicant include “minute of angle,” a measurement
used in rifle shooting, id. at 40-45, and “memorandum of agreement, id. at 46-48. None of
these meanings were connected in any way to the services identified in the cited Registration
and these meanings, therefore, are not probative to the issues before us.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 9 -
Registration are likely to use the term MOA rather than describe the design feature
of the mark.
Finally, because the cited Registration is on the Principal Register, without a
claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, it is “prima
facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark,’’ and we must assume the mark,
as a whole, is inherently distinctive. Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1057(b); see also Tea Bd. of India v. Republic of Tea, Inc., No. 91118587, 2006 TTAB
LEXIS 330, at *62; New Era Cap Co. v. Pro Era, LLC, No. 91216455, 2020 TTAB
LEXIS 199, at *29-30. We, therefore, give the cited mark “the normal scope of
protection to which inherently distinctive marks are entitled.” Bell’s Brewery, Inc. v.
Innovation Brewing, No. 91215896, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 452, at *20.
2. Applicant’s Marks
We will evaluate the similarity of each of the four applied-for marks and the cited
mark separately, but we begin with a few observations that apply to all four of
Applicant’s marks. First, we note that one or more terms are disclaimed in each of
the four applied-for marks. In three of the four applied-for marks, MOA is the only
term not disclaimed.8 In the remaining applied-for mark—MOA CLEAR PASSAGE
XXXX FUND—the word “FUND” is disclaimed. It is clear that the most distinctive,
and sometimes the only distinctive, term in each applied-for mark is MOA. Just as
we noted above for the cited mark, MOA is the first literal element and the most
8 These marks are: MOA CORE BOND FUND (“CORE BOND FUND” disclaimed), MOA
CATHOLIC VALUES INDEX FUND (“CATHOLIC VALUES INDEX FUND” disclaimed)
and (“FUNDS” disclaimed).

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 10 -
distinctive, making it far more likely to be remembered and relied upon as a source
identifier by consumers.
a. Applicant’s MOA CLEAR PASSAGE XXXX FUND mark
Applicant disclaimed only the word “FUND” in the Application to register this
mark. While that means the terms “CLEAR PASSAGE XXXX” are potentially
distinctive parts of the mark, we find these terms are less dominant than the term
MOA, which is the first element of the mark. The MOA element of this mark is
identical to the MOA element in the cited mark. The design element in the cited mark
creates a visual difference in the marks, but the common MOA element means that
consumers are likely to use MOA (either spoken as a word or with each letter
pronounced) to ask for the services of either Applicant or Registrant. There is no
meaning in the record for the MOA element in the cited mark, despite Applicant’s
arguments that it may be an acronym for the owner of the business that owns the
cited Registration. There is no established meaning of MOA in either mark, except to
the extent that consumes familiar with Applicant may realize MOA is an acronym for
Mutual of America, and we see nothing in the record which would allow us to
determine, without guessing, what percentage of consumers may realize that. For
other consumers, there is no reason to believe the MOA element will mean something
different in the cited mark and the applied-for mark. In re Embiid, No. 88202890,
2021 TTAB LEXIS 168, at *20-21 (finding no evidence to support a different meaning
of the applied-for mark with different goods). We have no other evidence of the
commercial impression created by these marks.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 11 -
The marks overall are similar in appearance due to a shared dominant MOA
element and highly similar in sound, as the design element in the cited mark is
unlikely to be used to ask for the services.
b. Applicant’s mark
The flag design in this mark creates an additional visual distinction with the cited
mark. This mark is less similar visually to the cited mark than are the other three
applied-for marks. This mark is not presented in standard characters, and therefore,
the lower-case “o” in MoA is also a feature of the applied-for mark, a point Applicant
emphasizes in its arguments. 17 TTABVUE 13-14 (“in all instances of ‘MoA’ by the
Applicant, the letter ‘O’ is in lower case”). The cited mark is not presented in standard
characters, so the case of the “o” in the two marks is a point of distinction, though not
a very important one. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find that few
consumers will recall or place much importance on the upper or lower case of the
letter “o” in the MOA term shared in these two marks.
On balance, there remains visual similarity between this mark and the cited
mark. The similarity in sound is high. Consumers will tend to use MOA to ask for the
services of either party, and that type of similarity increases the likelihood of
confusion. We find Applicant’s mark is also similar overall to the
cited mark.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 12 -
c. Applicant’s MOA CORE BOND FUND mark
This mark is more similar to the cited mark, because this mark is presented in
standard characters and every term other than MOA is disclaimed. Applicant’s
argument about using a lower case “o” in its mark is to no avail here where its mark
is presented in standard characters, meaning here that the Application covers both
upper- and lower-case letters.
The design element of the cited mark is the only significant difference in these two
marks. That element is an important part of the cited mark and likely to be
remembered, to some extent, by consumers. But consumers who are familiar with the
cited mark may view the applied-for mark as a variation of the cited mark, a version
without the design element. The shared MOA element is likely to lead to such
mistakes, despite the design element of the cited mark.
We find Applicant’s MOA CORE BOND FUND mark similar overall to the cited
mark.
d. Applicant’s MOA CATHOLIC VALUES INDEX FUND
mark
The analysis of this applied-for mark is essentially the same as the preceding
analysis of the MOA CORE BOND FUND mark, because for both marks, MOA is the
only element that is not disclaimed. The design element of the cited mark is a
distinction, but may not always reduce the risk of confusion. This applied-for mark is
also similar overall to the cited mark.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 13 -
B. Identity or Relatedness of the Services
We evaluate the second DuPont factor based on the services identified in the
Application and the Cited Registration. See Stone Lion Cap. Partners, LP v. Lion Cap.
LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous. Comput. Servs.
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of
confusion if relatedness is established between any of the services identified in the
Application and cited Registration. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648
F.2d 1335, 1336 (CCPA 1981); see also Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Dev., No.
92063808, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 347, at *18; In re Aquamar, Inc., No. 85861533, 2015
TTAB LEXIS 178, at *9 n.5. In addition, the services need only be sufficiently related
that a relevant consumer would be likely to assume, upon encountering 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. See, e.g., In re Save
Venice N.Y., Inc., 259 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Black & Decker Corp. v.
Emerson Elec. Co., Nos. 91158891 and 91158941, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 50, at *25-26.
The cited Registration identifies, among other things, “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. All four Applications identify “Mutual funds and capital
investment for pension, retirement and long-term saving and planning,” in
International Class 36. The Application for the mark MOA CORE BOND FUND also
identifies “Investment advisory services for pension, retirement and long-term saving
and planning,” in International Class 36.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 14 -
Mutual funds and capital investments are types of “private and public equity”
investments, which shows that the services identified in the Applications are a subset
of the broader services identified in the cited Registration. Final Office Action dated
November 9, 2024, at 22-24 (discussion of investment types). The Applications further
limit their services to investments “for pension, retirement and long-term saving and
planning,” but this does not differentiate the services. Even with this limitation,
Applicant’s services remain a subset of the services identified in the cited
Registration. The services identified in all four Applications are thus legally identical
in part to the services identified in the cited Registration.
The additional services identified in the Application for the MOA CORE BOND
FUND also overlap with the services identified in the cited Registration, because
“investment advisory services” (from the Application) and “investment advice (from
the cited Registration) are just two ways of identifying the same service. Thus, these
services, too, are legally identical.
Applicant provides a description of mutual funds and then argues that the owner
of the cited Registration does not provide mutual funds.9 17 TTABVUE 25-26.
According to Applicant, the cited mark is used with “with general financial advisory
services, including tax preparing and planning, and executive coaching services.” Id.
at 26. We agree with the reference to “general financial advisory services,” but the
9 Applicant identified this part of its Brief as addressing the channels of trade, but the
substance goes to the second DuPont factor, not the third. Indeed, we find no arguments
concerning the channels of trade in the Appeal Brief and do not separately address the third
DuPont factor in this decision.

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 15 -
remainer of this argument is based on a website Applicant contends is operated by
the owner of the cited Registration. Id. Such extrinsic evidence cannot be used to limit
the scope of the Registration. When we compare the services, as identified in the
Applications and cited Registration, we find they overlap. Any differences in how the
services are rendered in the market is irrelevant to our analysis in this appeal. See,
e.g., Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(“[r]egistrability must be determined ‘on the basis of the identification of goods set
forth in the application regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular
nature of an applicant’s goods [or services]”) (cleaned up); San Fernando Elec. Mfg.
Co. v. JFD Elecs. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 684-85 (CCPA 1977) (“Opposer’s
rights are not to be tied to its current business practices, which may change at any
time. Its rights are as broad as its registration for ‘capacitors.’”) (citations omitted).
C. Customer Care
The fourth DuPont factor considers the likely care exercised by relevant
consumers. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361 (“The conditions under which … sales are made,
i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing ….”). Applicant argues “the level of
care and deliberation that consumers exercise when choosing to purchase goods or
services associated with either the Applicant’s Mark or the Registrant’s Mark
significantly decreases the likelihood of confusion between them.” Id. at 28. We agree
that some consumers of investment services of the type at issue in this appeal are
likely to exercise more care than consumers making an ordinary transaction. This

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 16 -
care may reduce the likelihood of confusion as to these more careful consumers, but
that is only part of the story.
We have no evidence in the record showing that all consumers of these services
are sophisticated or careful. While some consumers of these services may exercise
more care, retirement investments through 401(k) plans and other similar plans may
include a wide range of employees of businesses offering such plans. Because it is
likely that a wide mix of consumers, with widely differing levels of sophistication and
care, use the services at issue in this appeal, we cannot assume that a uniformly high
degree of care is used. When faced with such a mix of consumers, we are required to
base our decision “on the least sophisticated potential purchasers.” Stone Lion
Capital Partners, 746 F.3d at 1325. We find that the “least sophisticated potential
purchasers” of investment services are likely to exercise ordinary care in making
purchasing decisions, which does not alter the likelihood of confusion. The fourth
DuPont factor is neutral.
D. Factor Six – The Impact of Third-Party Registrations
If properly made of record, third-party registrations alone may be relevant, in the
manner of dictionary definitions, “to prove that some segment of the [marks] has a
normally understood and well recognized descriptive or suggestive meaning, leading
to the conclusion that that segment is relatively weak.” Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS
Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Jack Wolfskin, 797 F.3d
1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 917
(CCPA 1976) (even if “there is no evidence of actual use” of “third-party registrations,”

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 17 -
such registrations “may be given some weight to show the meaning of a mark in the
same way that dictionaries are used”). “[E]vidence of third-party registrations is
relevant to ‘show the sense in which . . . a mark is used in ordinary parlance.’” In re
Guild Mortg. Co., No. 86709944, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 17, at *10 (quoting Juice
Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339).
Applicant presented lists of the results of three searches for applications and
registrations containing “MOA” as part of the mark. Response to Office Action dated
March 6, 2024, at 55-69. The lists contain over 150 results, but a list of search results
is not evidence of either the applications or registrations. In re Star Belly Stitcher,
Inc., No. 85247730, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 451, at *16 (“Mere listings of registrations are
not sufficient to make the registrations of record.”) (citation omitted). Applicant
submitted copies of two registrations containing “MOA,” but both relate to real estate
services at the Mall of America, and do not show any likely meaning of the MOA
element in either the cited mark or the applied-for marks. In addition, Applicant
made no arguments under the sixth DuPont factor in its Appeal Brief. Instead,
Applicant referred to this evidence as a reason to give less weight to the cited mark
when evaluating the similarity of the marks under the first DuPont factor. We find
the record fails to show that the cited mark is weakened due to the registration of
other marks. The sixth DuPont factor is neutral.
E. Conclusion: Weighing the Factors
The marks are similar (in all appealed Applications, which we considered
separately) and the services are identical in part, or at least closely related. There is

Serial No. 97835918, 97835919, 97835921, 97835924
- 18 -
insufficient evidence of consistent consumer care in purchasing the services to alter
the likelihood of confusion. The first two DuPont factors are dispositive in these
appeals and both factors point toward a likelihood of confusion. The fourth and sixth
DuPont factors are neutral. Confusion is likely and the Section 2(d) refusals must be
affirmed.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusals are affirmed as to all four Applications.