Arose Studios LLC

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: May 12, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Arose Studios LLC
_____
Serial No. 98836563
Serial No. 98746115
_____
Christa Petrash, Pro Se,
for Arose Studios LLC.
Abbie Chung, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Heasley and Cohen,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Arose Studios LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the following marks:
AROSE (in standard characters) for
Animation production services; Film studios; Recording studios;
Production of humorous videos for the Internet; Providing online music,
not downloadable; Providing online non-downloadable videos in the field
of music and animation” in International Class 411; and
1 Serial No. 98836563, filed November 4, 2024, filed under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), alleging April 9, 2018 as the date of first use and first use in commerce.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 2 -
AROSE STUDIOS (in standard characters, STUDIOS disclaimed) for
Animation production services; Film studios; Production of humorous
videos for the Internet; Providing online music, not downloadable;
Providing online videos, not downloadable, in the field of animation;
Recording studios in International Class 41.2
In both applications, the Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration
of Applicant’s marks under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d),
based on a likelihood of confusion with the mark AROSE BOOKS PUBLISHING (in
standard characters, BOOKS PUBLISHING disclaimed) for the following
International Class 41 services: “Publishing of books, e-books, audio books, music and
illustrations.”3
2 Serial No. 98746115, filed September 11, 2024, filed under Section 1(a) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), alleging April 9, 2018 as the date of first use and first use in
commerce. The only difference in the identified services in the two involved applications is
that this application does not identify “providing online non-downloadable online videos in
the field of music.”
These appeals present common questions of law and fact and the records are substantially
similar. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, we consolidate these cases for purposes
of appeal and decide them in this single opinion. In re S. Malhotra & Co. AG, No. 79194076,
2018 TTAB LEXIS 344, at *3; TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF
PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 1214 (2025). We have considered all arguments and evidence filed in
each case. Unless otherwise stated, references are to the record and briefs in Application
Serial No. 98836563.
Although consolidated, we determine whether the Examining Attorney has shown likelihood
of confusion with each application. Cf. N. Face Apparel Corp. v. Sanyang Indus. Co., No.
91187593, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 328, at *32 (“Because each class in Applicant’s multi-class
application is, in effect, a separate application, we consider each class separately [where
appropriate], and determine whether [the Examining Attorney] has shown a likelihood of
confusion with respect to each.”).
Page references to the application record are to the .pdf version of documents obtained from
the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, an online database.
References to the briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Applicant’s
brief is at 6 TTABVUE and the reply brief at 9 TTABVUE; the Examining Attorney’s brief is
at 8 TTABVUE (for both Serial No. 98836563 and Serial No. 98746115).
3 Registration No. 7390311 issued May 21, 2024.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 3 -
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration in each application. After the Examining Attorney denied the
requests for reconsideration, each appeal was resumed. We affirm the refusals to
register for both applications.
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
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

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 4 -
services] and differences in the marks.”). These factors, and others, are discussed
below.
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; see i.am.symbolic, 866 F.3d at 1327; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard
Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Comp.
Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We evaluate the evidence provided by
the Examining Attorney to determine if “consumers are accustomed to seeing a single
mark associated with a source that sells both [the cited registration’s goods or
services] as well as [the applicant’s goods or services].” (citation omitted). In re Detroit
Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Examining Attorney provided third-party registrations reciting the cited
registration’s services, and one or more of the services recited in the applications. For
Serial No. 98836563, the third-party registrations cover the cited registration’s
various publishing services, as well as producing humorous video (4 registrations
showing these services); providing non-downloadable video (2 registrations showing
these services); providing film studio and recording studio services (3 registrations
showing film studio services; 2 of these registrations also show recording studio

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 5 -
services); animation production services (1 registration showing these services); and
providing online non-downloadable music (2 registrations showing these services).4
For Serial No. 98746115, the third-party registrations cover various publishing
services, as well as the following services: production of humorous video (4
registrations showing these services5); providing non-downloadable video (2
registrations showing these services); film studio services and recording studio
services (3 registrations showing film studio services; one of these registrations also
shows recording studio services); animation production services (2 registrations
4 March 24, 2025 Office Action at pp. 9-27. For Serial no. 98836563, the Examining Attorney
provided ten registrations: Reg. No. 7231125 MYSTERY SPIRIT; Reg. No. 6736785 SARAH
HUTCHINGS; Reg. No. 6594787 EONITY; Reg. No. 6741265 THAT’S A GOOD ASS
QUESTION!; Reg. No. 7658283 BIG AND TALL RECORDING; Reg. No. 7638643 THE
TENNESSEE FOUR; Reg. No. 6677116 ; Reg. No. 7022602 ; Reg. No.
7045914 MAKE THE ASSIST CREATIVES; Reg. No. 6647659 .
March 24, 2025 Office Action pp. 9-27.
We must consider the “full scope of the goods and services described in a third-party
registration.” In re Country Oven, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *10-11.
5 March 24, 2025 Office Action pp. 9-27. For Serial no. 98836563, the Examining Attorney
provided ten registrations: Reg. No. 7231125 MYSTERY SPIRIT; Reg. No. 6736785 SARAH
HUTCHINGS; Reg. No. 6594787 EONITY; Reg. No. 6741265 THAT’S A GOOD ASS
QUESTION!; Reg. No. 7658283 BIG AND TALL RECORDING; Reg. No. 7638643 THE
TENNESSEE FOUR; Reg. No. 6677116 ; Reg. No. 7022602 ; Reg. No.
7045914 MAKE THE ASSIST CREATIVES; Reg. No. 6647659 .
March 24, 2025 Office Action pp. 9-27.
We must consider the “full scope of the goods and services described in a third-party
registration.” In re Country Oven, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *10-11.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 6 -
showing these services); and providing online non-downloadable music (2
registrations showing these services).6
Applicant criticizes the third-party registration evidence in both applications as
insufficient in number to support relatedness of the various services, arguing that it
does not show that the services are commonly offered together, but shows only a
“possibility.” 6 TTABVUE 14.
The Examining Attorney also submitted website pages for Disney (Disney Books,
Disney Records, Disney Worldwide Publishing, Disney Video, Disney Animation
Studios, Disney Films, Walt Disney Studios, Disney Digital Studios);7 Harper Collins
(Harper Collins Publishers (books, audiobooks) and Harper Collins Production (TV,
film production));8 Walden Media (film & television) and Walden Pond Press (books;
book venture with Harper Collins);9 Penguin Random House Audio
Publishing/Penguin Random House Canada (audiobook production and audiobook
publishing);10 Scholastic (Scholastic (books), Scholastic Kids, Scholastic Magazines,
Scholastic Audio (audiobooks) Scholastic International, Scholastic Entertainment
6 March 24, 2025 Office Action pp. 9-27. In Serial No. 98746115, the Examining Attorney
submitted most of the registrations listed in n.4, substituting Reg. No. 5915503 NELLY
JELLY and Reg. No. 7172769, J PRINCE ENTERTAINMENT for Reg. No. 6736785 SARAH
HUTCHINGS and Reg. No. 7638643 THE TENNESSEE FOUR..
7 June 13, 2025 Office Action pp. 10-85.
8 June 13, 2025 Office Action pp. 86-99.
9 June 13, 2025 Office Action pp. 100-112.
10 June 13, 2025 Office Action pp. 113-137.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 7 -
(development and production of live action and animated series))11; and DemoMySong
(recording studio services, music publishing).12
Applicant criticizes the Disney and “international book publishing conglomerate”
evidence as showing the offering of both book publishing and production services by
the same entity under the same mark, arguing that the services are more distinct
and separate than the “broad conglomerate-based assumptions imply.” 6 TTABVUE
8. Applicant submits that this large conglomerate evidence is of limited probative
value. 6 TTABVUE 13; 9 TTABVUE 4. Applicant supported its argument regarding
the conglomerates by submitting evidence to show that many of these companies are
very large media companies that offer a wide variety of entertainment products under
the marks. The evidence shows that the Big Five publishers include Penguin Random
House and Harper Collins, and Scholastic Publishers is the world’s largest publisher
of children’s books and texts.13
Similarly, the Examining Attorney provided information about Disney Publishing
which indicates that Disney Publishing Worldwide is the publishing subsidiary of
Disney Experiences, a subsidiary of Walt Disney Company and that Disney
Consumer Products and Interactive media were merged into the Walt Disney Parks
segments and renamed Disney Experiences.14 The evidence shows that Disney is a
large corporation with numerous subsidiaries offering a wide variety of services.
11 June 13, 2025 Office Action pp. 138-157.
12 June 13, 2025 Office Action pp. 158-170.
13 June 20, 2025 Request for Reconsideration pp. 10-26, pp. 125-128.
14 June 13, 2025 Office Action pp. 17-26.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 8 -
We find that the evidence of large conglomerates offering a wide variety of
services, including the services of Applicant and Registrant, under what may be
house marks (e.g., “Disney” or “Scholastic”), less probative than other evidence of
relatedness in the record.15 Cf. In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., No. 73603019 1988
TTAB LEXIS 11, *9 n.6 (discounting third-party registrations “issued to Saks &
Company and to Knott’s Berry Farm, owners of a large department store and an
amusement or theme center, respectively, where a wide variety of goods and services
are sold”).
The Examining Attorney also provided webpages from Invisible Universe
(internet animation studio, original music for streaming “in partnership with
Republic Records,” brand expansion into film & tv, publishing, and music);16 A24
films (films, motion picture, sound track podcast, screenplay books);17 Soulidify
Productions (film, stage, books, video rental);18 Alloy Entertainment (a Warner Bros.-
Discovery Company, commercial books, television & films);19 Century Music Group
(music production, music publishing, artist development);20 and Sony Music
Publishing (music publishing).21
15 June 20, 2025 Request for Reconsideration pp. 10-26.
16 September 24, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 8-29. It is unclear if the music streaming
in connection with Republic Records is under the Invisible mark. The imprint of the children’s
book publishing is unclear on these webpages.
17 September 24, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 30-56.
18 September 24, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp.57-77.
19 September 24, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 78-85.
20 September 24, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 86-94.
21 September 24, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 95-103. Although the Examining Attorney
extrapolates that this webpage shows downloadable music, the webpages indicate

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 9 -
Applicant also criticizes this webpage evidence, arguing that other than the large
conglomerates, the additional web pages “fail to establish clear relatedness of the
services.” 6 TTABVUE 14. Applicant also argues that the music publishing evidence
lacks context. 6 TTABVUE 11.
We agree that some of the webpages submitted by the Examining Attorney are
unclear as to the exact nature of the services offered because they include general
descriptors (e.g., books, tv, film) but do not include any additional detail about what
the services entail.
As to music publishing services, Applicant relies on dictionary definitions it
submitted and contends that the ‘“publishing of…music’ included in Registrant’s
service typically refers to written music, scores, music notation, etc. This is very
different from ‘music publishers’ like Sony … who deal with licensing and royalty
collections of musical recordings.” 6 TTABVUE 11. Applicant submits that “members
of the trade know these distinctions,” and that the shared word music in the
identifications is not sufficient to establish relatedness.22 6 TTABVUE 11, 12; 9
“songwriters,” “new releases,” “musical catalog,” and “film+tv.” The offerings provided under
Sony Musical Publishing are not entirely clear because these surface level pages are not
accompanied by any text explanation.
22 Applicant provided the dictionary definitions for “arose,” “book,” “publishing,” and “studio,”
in responses to Office Actions in both applications but they are the British English definitions
(CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY), so we do not rely on them. May 7, 2025 Response to Office
Action at TSDR 13-16.
Nonetheless, the Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions in print and online
format. In re Red Bull GmbH, No. 75788830, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 136, at *8-9. We take judicial
notice of the definitions for “arose” (“past tense of arise”); “arise” (“to awaken; wake up” and
“to move upward; ascend”; “book” (“A printed or written literary work”); “publishing” (“to
prepare and issue (a book, music, or other material) for public distribution, especially for
sale”) and (“the business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of
literature, information, musical scores or sometimes recordings, or art”); and “studio” (“a

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 10 -
TTABVUE 4. The Examining Attorney argues that “Applicant has not demonstrated
that the term ‘publishing,’ as used in the Registrant’s identification of services, is
ambiguous or otherwise requires clarification through extrinsic evidence.” 8
TTABVUE 13.
However, we find it appropriate to consider the dictionary definitions of
“publishing” to clarify the meaning of the word in the identification. See In re Thor
Tech, Inc., No. 78634024m 2009 TTAB LEXIS 253, *12 n.10 (using dictionary
definitions to determine the definitions for the type of trailers, recreational vehicles,
travel trailers, and fifth wheel trailers listed in the description of goods, and
determining the issue of likelihood of confusion based on the description of goods in
the application and registration, even if the definitions resulted in a broad scope of
goods).
We further note that music publishing is just one of the publishing services listed
in the Registration, as is Applicant’s non-downloadable music services. It is not
necessary that all of the services in the identifications be the same, similar, or related
or that the Examining Attorney show relatedness for all services identified. It is
sufficient if only one service identified in the application is the same or related to one
service listed in the cited registration. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun
Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336 (CCPA 1981).
place where audio recordings are made”; or “a place where movies are made”). Free
Dictionary (freedictionary.com, offering definitions by COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY;
RANDOM HOUSE KERNERMAN WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY; AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE accessed May 4, 2026); and MERRIAM-WEBSTER
DICTIONARY, (merriam-webster.com accessed May 4, 2026).

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 11 -
To rebut the Examining Attorney’s evidence, Applicant relies on 14 pairs of third-
party registrations owned by different entities or individuals for similar marks that
are separately registered for book and/or music publishing on one hand, and various
content production services on the other.23 The registrations cover one or more of the
following: film/movie film production, video production, television production,
multimedia entertainment content production, record or audio production, or
animation production.24 Applicant explains that this evidence is “meant to show that
even entities with identical primary terms and services similar to the Applicant and
the Registrant have repeatedly been approved for registration” and that “in the real
23 Applicant included two pairs for which one of the registrations has cancelled. A cancelled
or expired registration has no probative value other than to show that it once issued....” Made
in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, No. 91223352, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 228, at *31. Those
pairs are LAIKA/LAIKA BOOKS and VINE STORIES & VINESTORIES/VINE
PUBLISHING. September 24, 2025 Request for Reconsideration denied p. 3.
24 Many of the pairs include the same terms with one or more combined with generic or
descriptive matter describing the services. MELODEE (66a)/MELODEE; AMPLIFY
PICTURES/AMPLIFY PUBLISHING; BUTTERFLY STUDIOS/BUTTERFLY BOOKS(44e);
LUMINOUS/LUMINOUS PUBLISHING; MAYHEM & MAYHEM PICTURES/MAYHEM &
MAYHEM MUSIC PUBLISHING; PASSION/PASSION FILMS/PASSION PUBLISHING;
BLACKSTONE PRODUCTIONS/BLACKSTONE PUBLISHING; STONEY CREEK
RECORDS/STONEY CREEK PUBLISHING; SEAHORSE DESIGN/SEAHORSE
PUBLISHING; FLYING HORSE COMMUNICATION/FLYINGHORSE PUBLISHING;
EMERALD AUDIO/EMERALD PUBLISHING; MOOSE MEDIA/MOOSE MOOSE
PUBLISHING; TM TAYLORMADE FILMS/TAYLORMADE PUBLISHING; REACH
RECORDS/REACH MUSIC PUBLISHING.
The Examining Attorney points out that one of the MELODEE registrations is Section 66a
and the BUTTERFLY BOOKS registration is Section 44e. September 24, 2025 Request for
Reconsideration denied p.2. The Examining Attorney also argues that the full scope of
Applicant’s services are not reflected in these pairs, and that only Registrant’s book
publishing services are shown for the pairings, with some book publishing services restricted
by field. 8 TTABVUE 11. The Examining Attorney argues that many of the pairings “involve
common matter in the marks that are arguably diluted or weak in connection with the
relevant services” but has not further explained or supported this statement with evidence.
8 TTABVUE 11.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 12 -
world there is more distinction and separation of the services provided by the
Applicant and Registrant than the Examiner may realize—or than the Examiner’s
broad conglomerate-based assumptions imply.” 6 TTABVUE 8; 9 TTABVUE 4.
Pairs of third-party registrations for the same mark owned by different parties for
different services may be given probative weight in establishing that the listed
services are not considered related for the purpose of establishing a likelihood of
confusion. See In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., No. 77369073, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 647,
at *13 (“applicants may submit sets of third-party registrations to suggest . . . that
the Office has registered the same mark to different parties for the goods at issue”);
Helene Curtis Industries v. Suave Shoe Corp., No. 91065607, 1989 TTAB LEXIS 42,
at *21.
Applicant’s third-party registration pairs provide some indication that there are
service marks registered by separate registrants for various production services (film,
audio, video, and television) versus book publishing services as well as a few music
publishing services. We find this evidence probative. See Thor Tech, No. 85667188,
2015 TTAB LEXIS 18, at *10-11 (existence of almost fifty pairs of substantially
identical marks for land motor vehicles and for towable recreational trailers suggests
businesses in these two industries believe that their respective goods are distinct
enough that confusion between even identical marks is unlikely).
Considering the evidence as a whole, the Examining Attorney has established that
there is a relationship between various services in the identification but the
relationship has not been shown to be a strong one. Ricardo Media Inc., v. Inventive

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 13 -
Software, LLC No. 91235063, 2019 WL 3956987 (TTAB 2019); In re Country Oven,
Inc., 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *11 (considering whether the evidence is “sufficient
in both quality and quantity to provide a reasonable predicate supporting the
Examining Attorney’s position on relatedness”).
The most probative evidence shows a relationship between film studios/film
production and book publishing services. It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of
confusion if relatedness is established for any service 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 at 1336.
We find the third-party registration and webpage evidence sufficient to show a
reasonable predicate for relatedness of the film studio/film production and book
publishing services. Although Applicant’s third-party registration pairs have
probative value, they do not rebut the Examining Attorney’s evidence that film
studio/film production and book publishing services are related.
B. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
We next consider the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as
to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression under the first DuPont
factor. Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396
F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks is
determined based on the marks in their entireties; the analysis cannot be predicated
on dissecting the marks into their various components. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753
F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985). On the other hand, different features may be

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 14 -
analyzed to determine whether the marks are similar. Id. There is nothing improper
in giving more or less weight to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate
conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties. Id.
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. 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).
Serial No. 98836563
We first consider the similarity of Applicant’s mark in Serial No. 98836563.
Applicant’s mark is AROSE and the cited mark is AROSE BOOKS PUBLISHING.
The dominant portion of the cited mark is the lead element AROSE, as the
disclaimed wording BOOKS PUBLISHING is descriptive, if not generic, of
publishing services and is subordinate in nature. Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.,
222 F.3d 943, 947 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“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 at 1058); In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407 (Fed. Cir.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 15 -
1997) (dominant portion of THE DELTA CAFÉ and design mark is DELTA as the
generic term CAFÉ has been disclaimed).
Some of Applicant’s arguments relate to how the marks are used in the
marketplace (specimen references) rather than how they appear in the application
and registration.25 However, we do not consider how Applicant and Registrant
actually use their marks in the marketplace. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1324.
Rather, the proper approach is to consider how the marks appear in the registration
and the application. In this case, both marks are in standard characters and are not
limited to any particular font, size, style, or color. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
AROSE is the only word in Applicant’s mark and the first word in the cited mark.
As the initial word in the cited mark, AROSE is most likely to be impressed on
consumers and remembered. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“The identity of the marks’ initial two words is particularly significant
because consumers typically notice those words first.”); Presto Prods. Inc. v. Nice-Pak
Prods., Inc., No. 91074797, 1988 TTAB LEXIS 60 at *8 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the
25 Applicant’s brief shows Registrant’s mark and Applicant’s mark as actually used. 6
TTABVUE 6. The Examining Attorney objects to “new evidence” in the appeal briefs for both
applications which consists of an embedded “screenshot” of part of Registrant’s specimen and
part of Applicant’s specimen. 8 TTABVUE 2. In reply, Applicant points out that this evidence
was provided in connection with its May 7, 2025 Response to Office Action, pp. 12-13 and
that Applicant’s specimen is part of the application file. 9 TTABVUE 2-3. We overrule the
objection since the evidence is in the record either as a submission from Applicant’s
application or Registrant’s application and was submitted during prosecution.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 16 -
first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser
and remembered”).
While there is no rule that marks are automatically considered similar where one
mark encompasses the entirety of another, the fact that Applicant’s AROSE mark is
subsumed by the cited mark AROSE BOOKS PUBLISHING increases the similarity
between them. See, e.g., In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (applicant’s mark ML is similar to registrant’s mark ML MARK LEES);
DowntownDC Bus. Improvement Dist. v. Clarke, No. 91275100, 2024 TTAB LEXIS
412, at *67-68 (TTAB 2024) (DOWNTOWNDC DISTRICT OF FASHION similar to
DISTRICT OF FASHION); Hunter Indus., Inc. v. Toro Co., No. 91203612, 2014 TTAB
LEXIS 105, at *33 (TTAB 2014) (PRECISION mark confusingly similar to
PRECISION DISTRIBUTION CONTROL mark) (citations omitted).
AROSE in Applicant’s mark and the cited mark could be treated as either one
word or a compound word. Applicant argues that Registrant’s mark is a compound
mark (“a rose”), that the dominant portion is “rose,” the commercial impression is “a
rose flower,” and Registrant’s mark has a different commercial impression26 from
26 Applicant mentions that it cancelled a third-party AROSE registration which co-existed
with Registrant’s registration as evidence that the marks are not confusingly similar and
have different commercial impressions. 6 TTABVUE 7. Applicant also mentions that Rose
Publishing was cited against Registrant’s mark which reflects a distinct commercial
impression of “a rose.” The Examining Attorney objects to Applicant’s argument based on the
cited registration’s prosecution history and the cancelled AROSE registration and requests
that the Board disregard it. 8 TTABVUE 5. To the extent that this evidence is not in the
record, this argument has not been considered. We note in any event the fact that at one time
a now cancelled AROSE registration coexisted with Registrant’s mark is not determinative
of the registrability of Applicant’s mark or that Applicant’s mark and the cited mark have
different commercial impressions. Each case must be decided on its own facts.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 17 -
Applicant’s mark which is a one-word mark. 6 TTABVUE 6-7. The Examining
Attorney points out that “[e]ven if the term ‘AROSE’ in Registrant’s mark were
treated as a compound word with no space separating ‘A’ from ‘ROSE,’ it is still
phonetically equivalent to ‘AROSE’ in Applicant’s mark.” 8 TTABVUE 5. We find
whether treated as a compound mark or a single word, AROSE in both marks is
identical in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
When we consider the marks in their entireties, we consider the additional
descriptive (if not generic) wording BOOKS PUBLISHING in the cited mark, which
is of less significance in the mind of consumers. But we find that this difference is not
sufficient to overcome the overall similarities of commercial impression resulting
from the initial shared term AROSE, particularly in view of the fallible memories of
consumers, who retain general impressions of trademarks. See In re St. Helena Hosp.,
774 F.3d 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (marks “must be considered . . . in light of the
fallibility of memory” and “not on the basis of side-by-side comparison”) (quoting San
Fernando Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elecs. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 685 (CCPA
1977)).
For the reasons discussed above, we find that in their entireties, AROSE and
AROSE BOOKS PUBLISHING are highly similar in sound, appearance, connotation
and commercial impression. See Detroit Athl., 903 F.3d at 1304-05. (“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”).
Serial No. 98746115

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 18 -
We now consider the similarity of AROSE STUDIOS and AROSE BOOKS
PUBLISHING. AROSE is the first term in each mark, and as already stated,
consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or syllable in
any trademark or service mark. See Detroit Athl., 903 F.3d at 1303; Presto Prods.,
1988 TTAB LEXIS 60 at *8.
Each mark contains disclaimed matter–—STUDIOS in Applicant’s mark and
BOOKS PUBLISHING in the cited mark–—which is descriptive, if not generic, of the
identified services. As already stated, disclaimed matter, while relevant to the
assessment of similarity, is typically less significant or less dominant when
comparing marks because no exclusive rights are claimed therein. Cunningham, 222
F.3d at 947; In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d at 1407. Thus, the dominant portion of
both marks is AROSE because the disclaimed wording in each mark is subordinate
in nature.
As indicated, supra, some of Applicant’s arguments relate to how the marks are
used in the marketplace rather than how they appear in the application and
registration, but we must compare the marks as depicted in the cited registration and
application and not as actually used. Also as already discussed, AROSE in either
mark could be treated as either one word or a compound word.
Considering the marks as a whole, we acknowledge there are similarities and
dissimilarities. The distinctive lead term AROSE in each mark, whether treated as a
compound mark or a single word, is identical in appearance, sound, meaning and
commercial impression. Each mark is similar in structure in that it begins with the

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 19 -
same, arbitrary term, AROSE (whether a single or compound term) and then
describes a function or feature of the services identified, i.e., either “studios” or “book
publishing.”
Although the additional disclaimed matter in each mark does create some
differences in sight, sound and meaning, it would not significantly differentiate the
marks. Considering the marks in their entireties, even with the disclaimed matter,
they are similar in commercial impression due to the common presence of the
dominant and lead word AROSE in the marks. See In re Code Consultants Inc., No.
75645560, 2001 TTAB LEXIS 685 at *12 (Disclaimed matter is often “less significant
in creating the mark’s commercial impression”).
Moreover, consumers have a “penchant” for shortening marks. See, e.g., 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”)). Overall, we find in their entireties AROSE STUDIOS and
AROSE BOOKS PUBLISHING are similar.
C. Channels of Trade, Classes of Consumers and Conditions of Sale
We consider the “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” under the third and fourth DuPont
factors. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361.
Applicant submits that the Examining Attorney has not clearly established trade
channels with the submitted evidence. 6 TTABVUE 14. Applicant argues that the

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 20 -
“[p]ublishing industry within which the Registrant operates has unique channels of
trade.” 6 TTABVUE 12.
The Examining Attorney counters that Applicant is providing “an unduly limited
view of the service of publishing by focusing exclusively on authors seeking
publication. Book publishers do not serve only the authors whose books they issue,
but also serve the reading public ….” 8 TTABVUE 14. Applicant responds that while
a book reader may be the ultimate consumer of book publishing from an economic
standpoint, the Examining Attorney’s assertion is inaccurate “from the standpoint of
the industry and trademark.” 9 TTABVUE 3-4.
Looking to the applications and cited registration, there are no limitations as to
trade channels or classes of consumers; therefore, the identified services must be
presumed to move in all channels of trade that would be normal for such services and
to be offered to all usual prospective consumers for services of that type. DeVivo v.
Ortiz, No. 91242863, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 15, at *40. Although Applicant argues
otherwise, in view of the lack of restrictions in the identifications, the classes of
consumers for Applicant’s and Registrant’s services could be those members of the
general public who enjoy films, books, music, and illustrations as well as those
creators interested in content production, film, and recording studio services, book
publishing, and other publishing services. See n.22.
The Examining Attorney’s website evidence shows that there is some overlap
between film and book publishing services, at least directed to general consumers.
We find the trade channels overlap to that extent.

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 21 -
As to conditions of sale, purchaser sophistication or degree of care may tend to
minimize likelihood of confusion. Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1376. Conversely,
impulse purchases of inexpensive items or services may tend to have the opposite
effect. Id. We must make our determination based on the least sophisticated
consumer. Stone Lion Cap. Partners, L.P. v. Lion Cap. LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
Applicant argues that publishing “requires a certain level of sophistication and
functions as a barrier to entry for accessing publishing companies,” necessitating
research. 6 TTABVUE 12. To support its point, Applicant refers to articles it
submitted about needing an agent to get books published. See 6 TTABVUE 12.
Applicant submits that “[t]his makes it unlikely that even the least sophisticated
purchaser would not be met with some barrier(s) that necessitates research.” 6
TTABVUE 13. The Examining Attorney argues that the articles referenced by
Applicant represent a portion of Registrant’s services, book publishing, which is not
the full scope of the identified services which also include music and illustration
publishing. 8 TTABVUE 14.
The Examining Attorney points out that consumers for publishing services include
members of the public who encounter published books, e-books, audiobooks, music,
and illustrations in the marketplace, pointing out there is no restriction on classes of
consumer in Registrant’s identification. 8 TTABVUE 13-14. Applicant acknowledges
that the general public is the ultimate consumer of books, music and video, but

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 22 -
disputes that those consumers are the users of Applicant’s and Registrant’s services.
9 TTABVUE 3-4.
When the goods or services are unrestricted, it is assumed that the goods or
services are offered at all price points and to all purchasers, including those
purchasers exercising only ordinary care. As indicated, we have some information
about at least some of the publishing services (book publishing). Although we are
lacking specific information in the record about the purchasers of Applicant’s
production services, content creators likely would conduct research about service
providers, which would require more care. On the other hand, Applicant’s non-
downloadable music and videos would be offered to the general public.
We find that the consumers of Registrant’s book publishing services are not just
writers seeking to get a book published but general consumers seeking to purchase
books and the services are offered to both sophisticated and unsophisticated
consumers. There is no evidence that the least sophisticated potential purchasers of
Registrant’s publishing services exercise particular care in purchasing published
books, music or illustrations or that general consumers of non-downloadable music
or videos exercise any particular care.
Accordingly, we find this DuPont factor is neutral.
II. Conclusion
As a final step, we “weigh the DuPont factors used in [our] analysis and explain
the results of that weighing.” In re Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
2023) (emphasis omitted). The similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the

Serial Nos. 98836563 and 98746115
- 23 -
services weigh in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. The trade channels for
at least the film services and book publishing services overlap and weigh in favor of
confusion. The conditions of sale are neutral. Inasmuch as the similarity of the marks,
services and trade channels weigh in favor of confusion, we find confusion likely.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusals to register Applicant’s marks AROSE and
AROSE STUDIOS are affirmed.