Garrett Gutierrez

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

THIS OPINION IS NOTA
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed: August 27, 2026

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

In re Garrett Gutierrez

Serial No. 98666953

Manoj N. Shah and Anna Radke, of Brand Counsel, P.C.,
for Garrett Gutierrez.

Lindsey Olson Diefenbach, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 136,
Megan Askew, Managing Attorney.!

Before Thurmon, Elgin, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Elgin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
I. Background
Garrett Gutierrez (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the

standard-character mark GOSHI for goods identified as “Body lotions; Body wash”

1 The Examining Attorney and Managing Attorney failed to sign the brief. The Board has
confirmed the identities of the individuals listed here. The application was originally
examined by a different Examining Attorney but was reassigned to the above Examining
Attorney during prosecution. In this opinion, we refer to both Examining Attorneys involved
with the application as the Examining Attorney.

Serial No. 98666953
- 2 -
(based on use) and “Facial moisturizers; Facial washes; Skin toners” (based on intent
to use), all in International Class 3.2
The Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark under
Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that, as applied to
the goods identified in the application, it so resembles the standard-character mark
GOCHI3 and stylized mark ,4 both registered on the Principal Register for
“Nutritional supplements, dietary supplements, and liquid dietary supplements;
nutritionally fortified fruit-based beverages,” in International Class 5; and “Sports
drinks,” in International Class 32, as to make confusion likely:
After the refusal was made final,5 Applicant filed an appeal, which is now fully
briefed.6 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the refusals to register.
2 Serial No. 98666953 was filed on July 25, 2024 under Sections 1(a) and 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), (b), based upon Applicant’s use of the mark in commerce
since November 11, 2022 as to certain goods identified above and bona fide intent to use the
mark in commerce for the remaining goods.
3 Registration No. 3495209, registered September 2, 2008; renewed. The registration states:
“The wording ‘GOCHI’ has no meaning in a foreign language.”
4 Registration No. 3476489, registered July 29, 2008; renewed. The mark consists of a stylized
version of GoChi.
5 July 2, 2025 Final Office Action. Citations to the prosecution record refer to the USPTO
Trademark Status and Document Retrieval system (TSDR) in the downloadable .pdf format by
page number. References to the briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.
In re Integra Biosciences Corp., No. 87484450, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 17, at *6.
6 Applicant’s Brief and Reply Brief are at 4 and 7 TTABVUE. The Examining Attorney’s Brief
is at 6 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 98666953
- 3 -
II. Objection to New Evidence
The Examining Attorney objects to new evidence in the form of third-party
registrations and dictionary entries filed with Applicant’s appeal brief.7 Applicant
counters that “the contested Internet [dictionary] evidence is corroborative and
cumulative of the prosecution record, which independently supports reversal. Any
procedural defect is therefore harmless and does not warrant exclusion.”8
The record should be complete prior to the filing of the appeal and evidence should
not be filed with the Board after the filing of a notice of appeal. Trademark Rule
2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d); see also TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL
OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 1207.01 (June 2026). Accordingly, the new third-party
registration evidence submitted with Applicant’s appeal brief is untimely and we
have not considered it, or the argument based on this evidence.9 The Board may,
however, take judicial notice of dictionary evidence, including online dictionaries that
exist in printed format or regular fixed editions, on its own. In re Leathernecks
Motorcycle Club Int’l, Inc., No. 90498154, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 208, at *14 n.6. Thus,
we construe Applicant’s submission of dictionary definitions as a request to take
judicial notice of these materials, and we have done so here.
7 6 TTABVUE 2; see 4 TTABVUE 27-105 (new evidence).
8 7 TTABVUE 9.
9 4 TTABVUE 16-19.

Serial No. 98666953
- 4 -
III. Likelihood of Confusion
“The Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that ‘so resembles a
registered mark as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or
services of the applicant, to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive.’” In re Charger
Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Trademark Act Section
2(d)). Our determination of the likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act 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 Charger
Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1379. “Not all DuPont factors are relevant in each case, and the
weight afforded to each factor depends on the circumstances.” Stratus Networks, Inc.
v. UBTA-UBET Commc’ns Inc., 955 F.3d 994, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
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 any likelihood
of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks
and the similarities between the [goods].” Monster Energy Co. v. Lo, No. 91225050,
2023 TTAB LEXIS 14, at *18 (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Ft. Howard Paper Co.,
544 F.2d 1098, 1103 (CCPA 1976)). These factors, and others, are discussed below.
We focus our analysis on the cited registered standard-character mark GOCHI in
Registration No. 3495209 because this mark is closest to Applicant’s GOSHI mark.
See Sock It To Me, Inc. v. Fan, No. 91230554, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 201, at *20-
21 (confining Section 2(d) analysis to most similar pleaded mark); In re Max Cap.

Serial No. 98666953
- 5 -
Grp., No. 77186166, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *5 (same). If we find likelihood of
confusion as to the standard character mark, we need not consider it as to the stylized
mark; conversely, if we do not find a likelihood of confusion as to this mark, we will
not find it as to the stylized mark. Sock It To Me, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 201, at *21.
A. Strength of the Cited Mark
Because it may affect the scope of protection to which the cited mark GOCHI is
entitled, we turn first to the question of the strength of the mark. We may consider
two types of strength: the inherent or conceptual strength of the mark based on the
nature of the mark itself and its commercial strength based on marketplace
recognition of the mark. In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (“A mark’s strength is measured both by its conceptual strength ... and its
marketplace strength ....”).
As an initial matter, Applicant argues that the cited mark is not famous.10
Because this is an ex parte proceeding, we would not expect the Examining Attorney
to submit evidence of fame of the cited mark under the fifth DuPont factor. DuPont,
476 F.2d at 1361. This factor, as is normally the case in ex parte proceedings, is
treated as neutral. See In re Thomas, No. 78334625, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 135, at *18
n.11.
10 4 TTABVUE 25; 7 TTABVUE 8-9.

Serial No. 98666953
- 6 -
Next, Applicant argues that GOCHI is a conceptually weak mark.11 Conceptual or
inherent strength is a measure of a mark’s distinctiveness. Chippendales, 622 F.3d
at 1353-54. “Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing
distinctiveness[:] …. (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5)
fanciful.” Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992). “[T]he
strength of a mark is not a binary factor” and instead “varies along a spectrum from
very strong to very weak.” Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334,
1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted).
The cited registration issued on the Principal Register without a claim of acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). We
presume, therefore, that the cited mark GOCHI is inherently distinctive for
Registrant’s goods. Tea v. Republic of Tea, No. 91118587, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 330, at
*62 (“A mark that is registered on the Principal Register is entitled to all Section 7(b)
presumptions including the presumption that the mark is distinctive and moreover,
in the absence of a Section 2(f) claim in the registration, that the mark is inherently
distinctive for the goods.”).
Nonetheless, we may consider whether an inherently distinctive mark is “weak as
a source indicator” in the course of a DuPont analysis. In re Fat Boys Water Sports
LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *23. “Marks that are ... highly
suggestive are entitled to a narrower scope of protection, i.e., are less likely to
11 See 4 TTABVUE 12-13. Applicant presents this argument under a discussion of the first
DuPont factor, but it is more appropriately addressed under the sixth factor.

Serial No. 98666953
- 7 -
generate confusion over source identification, than their more fanciful counterparts.”
Spireon, Inc. v. Flex LTD, 71 F.4th 1355, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Juice
Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339); see also Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen
GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
Applicant argues:
Registrant’s primary brand is Youngevity, and “GoChi” is
used merely as the name of a specific Goji berry juice
product within that broader brand portfolio …. This
distinction is significant because GOCHI functions as a
product descriptor rather than as an independent source
identifier. The term “GoChi” immediately calls to mind the
Goji berry and its associated health benefits, thereby
conveying information about the product’s key ingredient
and intended benefits rather than indicating a unique
commercial origin. Because Youngevity is the dominant
house mark, consumers encountering GOCHI are likely to
perceive it as a subordinate product name tied to a
particular formulation rather than a standalone brand. As
such, GOCHI is conceptually weaker and carries a
descriptive connotation linked to the product’s ingredient
and function.12
Applicant seems to contend that, because Registrant’s house mark (Youngevity)
is “dominant,” consumers are likely to view GOCHI as something other than a mark
(in Applicant’s words, a “product descriptor”). We construe this argument as asserting
that GOCHI is conceptually weak (because it is suggestive of goji berries, a primary
ingredient in one of Registrant’s products). Applicant relies on the following evidence
of Registrant’s use:
12 4 TTABVUE 12-13.

Serial No. 98666953

GoChi™ - 1 liter (Case of 4)

GoChi™ - 1 liter (Case of 4)
wk ke kk 13 Reviews

$191.99 Retail
$153.95 W/S

Did you know that the goji berry has been used as a
medicinal and nutritional supplement in Asia for thousands
of years?’ It turns out that this little fruit is loadecd-with——
antioxidants, which help your body prevent and repair cell
damage. Thanks to Youngevity’s powerful GoCchi™ di
supplement, you can now enjoy the many benefits of this
remarkable little berry in one convenient drink! The
proprietary blend of antioxidant rich juices is perfect for ADE
supporting a healthy immune system, protecting skin, and”
boosting overall well-being.

ADE
Includes 4 bottles. AUTC
100 BV
iv]
153 QV
SKU:

Who it’s for: Anyone who needs a convenient way to get their daily dose of antioxidants.

What it does: Supports a healthy immune system and overall well-being at the cellular level.

What sets this product apart?

¢ Highly concentrated, plant-based source of antioxidants

e Proprietary extraction process ensures standardized, high-quality juice

© Advanced Spectral Signature LBP Process™ delivers 30% more bioactive molecules than our original juice
¢ No added sugar, artificial colors, and sweeteners

Main Ingredients/Benefits

INGREDIENT

Proprietary Himalayan Goji Juice

Grape Juice Concentrate

Pomegranate Juice Concentrate

BENEFIT

© Goji berries are anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anti-diabetic, and antioxidant.

e Studies have shown goji berry juice to aid in eyesight protection,2 skin
protection,s and mood regulation.s

¢ Agood source of vitamins, dietary fibers, minerals, and amino acidss

Contains over 1,600 antioxidant plant compounds, which are known to help repair
cell damage caused by free radicals.c

With its high antioxidant levels, this fruit can aid digestion, lessen insulin resistance,
and help prevent cancer.?

Ingredients: Proprietary Himalayan Goji Juice (from Lycium barbarum fruit), white grape juice concentrate,
red grape juice concentrate, pomegranate juice concentrate, natural flavor.

13 May 1, 2025 Office Action Response at TSDR 38-39.

-8-

13

Serial No. 98666953
- 9 -
Although the product contains goji juice, there is no evidence that consumers view
the cited mark GOCHI as referring to goji berries.14 Nor is there any evidence that
the mark is commercially weak. We conclude that the sixth DuPont factor is neutral
and accord the mark the normal scope of protection due to inherently distinctive
marks.
B. The Marks
Turning to the first DuPont factor, we compare Applicant’s mark and the cited
mark “in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression.” Palm Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En
1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361).
“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks
confusingly similar.” Sage Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sageforth Psych. Servs., LLC, No.
91270181, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 139, at *13 (quoting In re Inn at St. John’s LLC, No.
87075988, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13 (citation omitted), aff’d per curiam, 777 F.
App’x 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); accord Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d
728, 732 (CCPA 1968) (“It is sufficient if the similarity in either form, spelling or
sound alone is likely to cause confusion.”) (citation omitted).
14 It may be as easily said that the cited mark (as evidenced by the stylized version of the
mark that emphasizes the two components GO and CHI), refers to “chi,” the “vital energy
that is held to animate the body internally and is of central importance in some Eastern
systems of medical treatment (such as acupuncture) and of exercise or self-defense.”
MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chi, accessed Aug.
27, 2026).

Serial No. 98666953
- 10 -
We do not assess whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side
comparison, but rather whether their overall commercial impressions are similar
enough that confusion as to the source of the goods offered under the respective marks
is likely to result. Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); see also Edom Labs. Inc. v. Lichter, No. 91193427, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 81,
at *15.
Applicant’s mark is GOSHI and the cited mark is GOCHI. The Examining
Attorney contends the marks are similar and observes that they differ visually by
only one letter – S vs. C.15 The Examining Attorney also contends that the marks may
be pronounced similarly,16 and are “made-up arbitrary terms with no translation of
record ….”17
Applicant, while conceding that the marks differ by only one letter, counters that
the marks may be pronounced differently due to the consonant pairs; that is, the soft
“SH” sound in GOSHI would be pronounced differently than the hard “CH” in
GOCHI.18 Relying on the dictionary evidence attached to his appeal brief, Applicant
argues that, “[i]n ordinary American English, ‘sh’ and ‘ch’ represent distinct
15 6 TTABVUE 3.
16 Id. at 5, 7.
17 Id. at 3.
18 4 TTABVUE 8, 9; 7 TTABVUE 4. See 4 TTABVUE 27-35 (dictionary definitions).

Serial No. 98666953
- 11 -
consonant sounds, as reflected in common word pairs such as ‘ashes’ and ‘aches’ or
‘lashes’ and ‘laches.’”19
We find Applicant’s mark, GOSHI, and the cited mark, GOCHI, highly similar in
appearance and sound. The marks are almost identical in appearance. There is no
evidence of record of how consumers are likely to pronounce either mark. Cf. StonCor
Grp. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 759 F.3d 1327, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Where a
trademark is not a recognized word and the weight of the evidence suggests that
potential consumers would pronounce the mark in a particular way, it is error for the
Board to ignore this evidence entirely and supply its own pronunciation.”). We agree
with Applicant that “sh” and “ch” may be pronounced differently as indicated in its
dictionary evidence, but they also may be pronounced the same: such as in the words
“machine,” “parachute,” “champagne,” “brochure,” “Chicago,” and “crochet,” in which
“ch” is pronounced as “sh.” The “i” at the end of each mark may be pronounced as an
“ee” or an “aye” sound. In other words, at least some consumers would pronounce the
cited mark GOCHI the same as, or at least highly similar to, Applicant’s mark
GOSHI.
As to connotation, Applicant argues that GOSHI and GOCHI do not convey the
same meaning because Applicant’s mark is fanciful and the cited mark refers to goji
19 4 TTABVUE 9 (citing Exhibit A). Although we follow Applicant’s argument, we doubt that
“lashes” and “laches” are “common word pairs” or that ordinary consumers know how to
properly pronounce “laches” (a distinctly legal concept).

Serial No. 98666953
- 12 -
berries.20 Applicant argues that his own mark “is inspired by Japanese culture and
crafted in the finest Japanese textile mills …. imbuing it with a specific cultural
resonance and geographic identity that GOCHI does not share as it is an inspiration
from the word ‘goji,’ which is the ingredient of the nutritional and sport drinks offered
by the Registrant.”21 Although Applicant made of record articles which indicate his
original product is a “Japanese exfoliating towel,” and marketing materials which
tout the Japanese origin of his towels,22 there is no evidence of record that consumers
of Applicant’s skincare goods at issue in this application understand a particular
meaning or impression of the fanciful term GOSHI. And, as we discussed above, there
is no evidence that consumers understand GOCHI as having the connotation of goji
berries.
Applicant, without explicitly saying so, seems to invoke a line of cases involving
one coined mark in which the Board has found that “the familiar is readily
distinguishable from the unfamiliar.” Nat’l Distillers & Chem. Corp. v. William Grant
& Sons, 505 F.2d 719, 721 (CCPA 1974) (distinguishing DUET and DUVET, where
20 Id. at 9-10, 12-13. Applicant’s argument set forth above that “Youngevity is the dominant
house mark,” see supra text accompanying note 12, does not persuade us that the marks are
not similar. This is so because “only the mark as set forth in the [registration] may be
considered; whether or not the mark is used with an associated house mark is not
controlling.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted);
see also In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, No. 86928469, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 108, at *11 (“[W]e
do not consider how Applicant and Registrant actually use their marks in the marketplace,
but rather how they appear in the registration and the application.”).
21 7 TTABVUE 5.
22 May 1, 2025 Office Action Response at TSDR 47, 61-84.

Serial No. 98666953
- 13 -
“duvet” was not a familiar English word).23 We find this line of cases distinguishable
here. First, “a familiar versus an unfamiliar mark is not enough in and of itself to
dictate a common result in every case.” Faberge, Inc. v. Dr. Babor GmbH & Co., No.
91064923, 1983 TTAB LEXIS 75, at *8. Second, and more importantly, in this case
there is no evidence that the cited mark GOCHI is a “familiar” word to relevant
consumers, and especially ordinary purchasers of Applicant’s moisturizers, lotions
and washes. As we discussed above, it is not a known word in any language. But, even
if the connotations differ slightly, this is not enough to overcome the strong
similarities between the marks in this case. See Sage Therapeutics, 2024 TTAB
LEXIS 139, at *13 (similarity in any one element may be sufficient to find the marks
confusingly similar).
Finally, Applicant’s argument that “even where two marks are similar in content
and sound, differences in the parties’ use of the marks weigh against a likelihood of
confusion” is not persuasive.24 Applicant cites to cases such as Fed. Express Corp. v.
Fed. Espresso, Inc., 201 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2000) and Swatch AG v. Beehive
Wholesale, LLC, 739 F.3d 150, 154, 158 (4th Cir. 2014), in support of this argument,25
but unlike these infringement cases, the Board considers only the drawings of the
23 This case was decided in 1974, before “duvet” became a commonly used term for comforters.
That the facts in National Distillers might be assessed differently today does not undermine
the principle stated by the court.
24 4 TTABVUE 11.
25 See id. at 11-12.

Serial No. 98666953
- 14 -
marks in the involved application and cited registration. United Foods, Inc. v. J.R.
Simplot Co., No. 91072437, 1987 TTAB LEXIS 33, at *7.
In sum, we find GOSHI and GOCHI are highly similar in appearance and sound.
In reaching this conclusion, we have kept in mind the fallibility of memory over a
period of time. Edom Labs., 2012 TTAB LEXIS 81, at *16. Our focus is on the
recollection of the average purchaser, in this case, a purchaser of lotions, washes,
moisturizers, or supplements, “who retains a general rather than specific impression
of the marks.” Aquitaine Wine, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 108, at *4-5.
Therefore, the first DuPont factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion. See
Inn at St. John’s, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13 (similarity of the marks in any one
element may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar).
C. The Goods
The second DuPont factor addresses the relatedness of the goods. In analyzing the
relatedness of the goods, we look to the identifications in the application and cited
registration. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
These goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of
confusion. On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086 (Fed. Cir.
2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Under the second
factor, it is sufficient if “the respective goods are related in some manner and/or if the
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the
mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., 668 F.3d at
1369 (citation omitted).

Serial No. 98666953
- 15 -
Evidence of relatedness may include news articles and/or evidence from computer
databases showing that the relevant goods are used together or used by the same
purchasers; advertisements showing that the relevant goods are advertised together
or sold by the same manufacturer or dealer; and/or copies of prior use-based
registrations of the same mark for the goods listed in both the subject application and
the cited registration. In re Country Oven, Inc., No. 87354443, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381,
at *5; see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (evidence that “a single company sells the goods and services of both
parties, if presented, is relevant to a relatedness analysis”).
Registration may be refused if any of the identified goods in the subject application
is likely to cause confusion with any of the goods listed in the cited registration. See
SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (a single good from
among several may sustain a finding of likelihood of confusion); Tuxedo Monopoly,
Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336 (CCPA 1981) (likelihood of confusion
must be found if there is likely to be confusion with respect to any item that comes
within the identification of goods or services in the application).
As a reminder, the goods identified in the subject application are:
Body lotions; Body wash; Facial moisturizers; Facial
washes; Skin toners, in International Class 3.
The goods identified in the cited registration are:
Nutritional supplements, dietary supplements, and liquid
dietary supplements; nutritionally fortified fruit-based
beverages, in International Class 5; and
Sports drinks, in International Class 32.

Serial No. 98666953
- 16 -
The broadly identified goods “Nutritional supplements, dietary supplements, and
liquid dietary supplements” in Class 5 in the cited registration are not restricted by
purpose or type, and thus they are presumed to encompass such goods for all
purposes. Cf. In re Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc., No. 85627379, 2015 TTAB LEXIS
65, at *10 (broadly worded identification of “furniture” necessarily encompasses
narrowly identified “residential and commercial furniture”).
The Examining Attorney made of record evidence that shows it is common for the
same entities to provide the goods in the application and cited registration under the
same mark. First, there are five use-based registrations for third-party marks the
Examining Attorney argues identify the same or similar goods as those of Applicant
(e.g., lotions, moisturizers, washes, toners) and Registrant (nutritional and dietary
supplements):26
• FARM-TO-GLOW (Registration No. 7454486) for, inter alia, non-
medicated skin care lotions in Class 3 and dietary and nutritional
supplements in Class 5;
• MET TATHIONE (Registration No. 7407186) for, inter alia, skin lotions
in Class 3 and dietary supplements in Class 5;
• WELLGRADE (Registration No. 7448634) for, inter alia, non-medicated
skin care creams and lotions in Class 3 and dietary supplements and
nutritional supplements in Class 5;
• PORE FAVOR (Registration No. 7577309) for, inter alia, body wash,
facial lotion, facial washes, and skin toners in Class 3 and nutritional
supplements in Class 5; and
• YOUR BODY, BUILT FOR LIFE (Registration No. 7466897) for, inter
alia, skin lotion in Class 3 and dietary and nutritional supplements in
Class 5.
26 6 TTABVUE 11-13; see February 4, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 6-7, 12-21.

Serial No. 98666953
- 17 -
In addition, the Examining Attorney made of record internet evidence from
thirteen different third parties to establish that the same entities commonly provide
these goods under the same mark:27
• BEVERLY HILLS MD: “Quench + Hydrate Daily Gel Moisturizer,”
“Refresh + Renew Cleansing Gel”; and “Dermal Repair Complex”
supplements;28
• MURAD: various facial moisturizers, toners, “Essential-C Cleanser”;
and “Clear Skin Supplement”;29
• DR. BARBARA STURM: “Super Anti-Aging Face Cream,” “Anti-Aging
Body Cream,” various facial cleansers, body washes, facial scrubs, and
toners; and “Skin Anti-Pigmentation Supplements”;30
• BEAUTY PIE: moisture lotion, “Japanfusion Pure Transforming
Cleanser,” “Super Healthy Skin Foamy Face Wash,” “Dr Glycolic Pore
Purifying Glycolic Acid Toner”; and “Goody Two Chews” supplements,
including for “hair skin & nails”;31
• OSMOSIS: various facial cleansers, moisturizers, toners; and
supplements to “keep your body and skin functioning at optimal levels,”
including “Skin Defense” dietary supplement;32
• GOOP: “72-Hour Supercharged Hydrating Water Cream” facial
moisturizer, “Cloudberry Exfoliating Jelly Cleanser”; and “Goop Glow
Morning Skin Superpowder” dietary supplement;33
27 6 TTABVUE 9-11. We have omitted the evidence from the JANE IREDALE website for this
purpose because the skincare supplements sold on the site are branded under a different
mark. See July 2, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 161.
28 See July 2, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 15-42.
29 Id. at TSDR 44-62.
30 Id. at TSDR 63-85.
31 Id. at TSDR 86-97.
32 Id. at TSDR 98-118.
33 Id. at TSDR 119-26.

Serial No. 98666953
- 18 -
• HONEST: various moisturizers, hydrating face cream, shampoo + body
wash, face and body lotions; and “Love the Bump Prenatal Once Daily”
dietary supplement;34
• PAULA’S CHOICE: various moisturizers, lotions, facial cleansers, skin
toners; and “Hyaluronic Acid + Ceramide” dietary skin care
supplement;35
• THE ORGANIC PHARMACY: “Herbal Toner,” “Neck & Chest” firming
lotion, “Rose Body Lotion,” “Face Cream,”; and “Essential Fatty Acid +
B Complex” nutritional supplement to “improve skin health ….”; 36
• dōTERRA: “Facial Cleanser,” “Anti-Aging Moisturizer,” “Hydrating
Cream,” “Pore Reducing Toner,” “baby Hair & Body Wash”; and bone
nutrient and phytoestrogen supplements;37
• ELEMIS: various face moisturizers and creams, toners, facial cleansers,
body washes; and “Pro-Collagen Skin Future” anti-aging skincare
supplements;38
• DR. LARA DEVGAN: “Advanced Lauric Acid Cleanser,” various body
and face creams; and “Gummy Super Green Complex” and “Collagen
Booster Hearts” dietary supplements;39 and
• PERRICONE MD: various facial cleansers and moisturizers, “High
Potency Hyaluronic Intensive Body Therapy,” “Intensive Pore
Minimizing Toner,” “Face Finishing & Firming Toner”; and various
supplements, including “Skin & Total Body Plus” and “Skin Clear”
supplements.40
In total, the record contains evidence of eighteen entities offering the Class 3 goods
in the subject application and Class 5 goods in the cited registration under the same
34 Id. at TSDR 127-39.
35 Id. at TSDR 162-82.
36 Id. at TSDR 183-92.
37 Id. at TSDR 193-215.
38 Id. at TSDR 216-46.
39 Id. at TSDR 247-59.
40 Id. at TSDR 261-81.

Serial No. 98666953
- 19 -
mark. We agree with the Examining Attorney that this evidence shows that the goods
in the application are related to the goods in the cited registration, in part, because
consumers may encounter entities offering both skin lotions, washes, moisturizers,
and toners as well as nutritional or dietary supplements under the same mark in the
marketplace. Hewlett-Packard, 281 F.3d at 1267. Indeed, Applicant concedes that the
evidence of record shows that “certain lifestyle or wellness brands have expanded into
both skincare and nutritional supplements,”41 and “a small number of premium
wellness and lifestyle brands have expanded to offer both supplements and skincare
goods under the same mark,”42 supporting a finding that skincare and nutritional
supplements are related.
This same third-party use and registration evidence also shows that the products
are complementary in nature and closely related insofar as dietary and nutritional
supplements and topical skincare (i.e. lotions, washes, moisturizers, and toners) are
advertised and typically used together as part of a single skin care or health regimen
or routine. See, e.g., In re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, at *21-
24 (pepper sauce and agave related where evidence showed both were used for the
same purpose in the same recipes and thus consumers were likely to purchase the
products at the same time and in the same stores); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp.,
No. 79046106, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 447, at *17 (medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and
medical ultrasound devices are related, based in part on the fact that such goods have
41 4 TTABVUE 15-16.
42 7 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 98666953
- 20 -
complementary purposes and may be used by same medical personnel on same
patients to address same medical issue).
For example, the PERRICONE MD website states that customers should
“combine supplements with anti-inflammatory diet and topical skincare to look and
feel your best,” as part of a “three-tier philosophy of healthy aging and beautiful
skin.”43 Similarly, the MURAD website advertises skin moisturizers alongside
various supplements,44 and advises customers to: “Pair your supplement regimen
with a twice-daily skincare regimen.”45 The ELEMIS website touts that its “Pro-
Collagen Skin Future supplements are designed to support and enhance the ELEMIS
Pro-Collagen skincare range,” which include various moisturizers.46 Its dietary
supplements, like moisturizers, are designed to “support improved hydration,
luminosity, firmness, elasticity, and minimise the appearance of fine lines and
wrinkles.”47 One ELEMIS customer review relates how she uses supplements as part
of a “skincare routine”:
After testing these supplements for just one week I have
noticed that all of my blemishes cleared out quicker than
usual and my skin became much more hydrated and firm.
I struggle with dry skin despite drinking a lot of water and
often need to top up with my moisturiser during the day,
this was not the case while taking these supplements and
my morning and evening skincare routine was sufficient.48
43 July 2, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 261.
44 Id. at TSDR 44-48, 57.
45 Id. at TSDR 60.
46 Id. at TSDR 216-20, 238-39.
47 Id. at TSDR 239.
48 Id. at TSDR 242.

Serial No. 98666953
- 21 -
Another reports: “The supplements are easy to take and have a pleasant taste,
making them a convenient addition to my daily routine. I appreciate that they
support skin health from within, complementing my topical skincare products.”49 The
JANE IREDALE site touts the ability of supplements to: “Get faster, longer-lasting
results from your skincare and beauty regimen.”50
Applicant urges us to follow the finding in Vital Pharms., Inc. v. Kronholm, No.
91181806, 2011 TTAB LEXIS 207, where the Board found that “nutritional
supplements and cosmetics, perfumes and fragrances” were not related.51 Aside from
the fact that each case must be decided on its own merits based on the evidence in
the record (and the goods here are different), see In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d
1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001), Vital Pharms. is distinguishable because in that case
there was no evidence of relatedness of the goods. As there the Board explained:
[T]he parties’ respective goods and services, as identified in
the respective registrations and application are, on their
face, distinctly different. There is no evidence of record
showing that applicant’s goods and opposer’s services are
related in such a manner that they could, because of the
similarity of the marks, give rise to the mistaken belief that
they originate from the same source …. Here, there is no
evidence that nutritional supplements and cosmetics,
perfumes and fragrances would be sold in the same
department or be situated near each other; nor is there
evidence that the goods are complementary or would
otherwise be purchased together, such that consumers
would encounter both types of products in the course of a
single shopping trip. Moreover, there is no basis, such as
evidence that the same companies make nutritional
49 Id. at TSDR 244.
50 Id. at TSDR 161.
51 4 TTABVUE 15.

Serial No. 98666953
- 22 -
supplements and cosmetics, perfumes and fragrances, or
that they sell such products under a single mark, upon
which we could conclude that consumers would assume
that these different products emanate from a single source.
Vital Pharms., 2011 TTAB LEXIS 207, at *15-16. But here we have evidence of
relatedness in the form of numerous third-party registrations and websites.
We also are not convinced by Applicant’s argument that, of the third-party
evidence of record, “only Osmosis Beauty offers a liquid nutritional supplement.”52
Registrant’s identified goods are not limited to liquid supplements, and we must and
do accord the registered mark the full scope of protection of the goods identified in
the registration, regardless of what the record may reveal as to the extent of actual
use. Trademark Act Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). i.am.symbolic, 866 F.3d at
1324-25; Octocom Sys. v. Hous. Comput. Servs., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990).53
Applicant’s argument that the Examining Attorney has “effectively broadened and
generalized” the identification and “submitted evidence addressed to the broader
identification, not the actual one” also is misplaced.54 The evidence was appropriately
targeted to dietary and nutritional supplements; the identification does not exclude
supplements in any particular form such as, as suggested by Applicant, vitamins or
powders.55 Nor is the lack of evidence regarding “fruit-based beverages” (the Class 32
52 Id.
53 We note that, even though we have not considered Applicant’s arguments based on third
party marks not of record, see supra Section II, it would not have changed the result in this
case.
54 7 TTABVUE 6 (citing In re OSF Healthcare Sys., No. 88706809, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 353,
at *28).
55 Id.

Serial No. 98666953
- 23 -
goods in the cited registration) important,56 as confusion as to any one good in the
cited registration is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion. SquirtCo,
697 F.2d at 1041.57
We find that the second DuPont factor weighs in favor of likely confusion.
D. The Channels of Trade
As for the third DuPont factor, Applicant argues that “Registrant’s goods are sold
in bulk quantities and are intended to be consumed in small doses.”58 The cited
registration contains no such limits, and we must evaluate the trade channels based
on the goods identified in the registration. KME Ger. GmbH v. Zhejiang Hailiang Co.,
No. 91267675, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 379, at *20, rev’d on other grounds, 2025 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 25637 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2025). This is despite what the evidence might show
to be the actual trade channels and purchasers for the goods. Id. And as the
Examining Attorney argues, the third-party website evidence discussed above shows
that the same online providers sell both the goods in the cited registration and the
goods in the subject application, and that these goods are bought by the same
consumers — e.g., those seeking improved skin.59
56 Id. (“[N]one of the 13 websites shows a brand selling ‘nutritionally fortified fruit-based
beverages’ alongside topical skincare”).
57 Applicant confuses the second and third DuPont factors when it cites to In re HerbalScience
Grp., No. 77519313, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 382. See 7 TTABVUE 7. We address this argument
below under the third factor.
58 4 TTABVUE 22.
59 See 6 TTABVUE 9.

Serial No. 98666953
- 24 -
Applicant’s argument that the holding in HerbalScience, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 382,
compels a different result is not convincing.60 In that case, the applicant’s identified
goods for use in manufacturing were sold to manufacturers (e.g., “Botanical extracts
for use in the manufacture of nutraceuticals”), and the registrant’s goods (“dietary
and nutritional supplements”) were sold to consumers, and this was deemed
sufficient to avoid confusion. In this case, both types of goods are sold to the general
public, including those interested in improved skin.
We find that the third DuPont factor weighs in favor of likely confusion.
E. Purchaser Care and Sophistication
The fourth DuPont factor considers the “conditions under which and buyers to
whom sales are made, i.e., ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.” DuPont,
476 F.2d at 1361. “Purchaser sophistication may tend to minimize likelihood of
confusion. Conversely, impulse purchases of inexpensive items may tend to have the
opposite effect.” Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1376 (citing Recot, Inc., 214 F.3d at
1329).
Applicant maintains that “even modest levels of purchaser care are sufficient to
distinguish similar-sounding marks” when marks and goods differ.61 The evidence
shows that products under Registrant’s mark are advertised at $191.99 “retail” and
$153.95 “W/S” (which we take to mean “wholesale”) for four, one-liter bottles on
Registrant’s website, and $153.95 for the same four, one-liter bottles on
60 7 TTABVUE 7.
61 4 TTABVUE 22.

Serial No. 98666953
- 25 -
Amazon.com.62 The recommended dose is 30-120 ml daily.63 Despite this relatively
expensive price, an “identification [of goods] includes all goods of the type identified,
without limitation as to their nature or price,” and “the goods are presumed to include
[ones] that are relatively inexpensive.” Sock It To Me, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 201, at *25.
Other supplements of record (some of which also are listed with “retail” and
“wholesale” prices) cost as little as $22.00 per bottle or package.64 Some lower-cost
options include:
• BEAUTY PIE: various gummy supplements – $22.00-32.0065
• HONEST: “Love The Bump Prenatal Once Daily” supplement – $19.9966
• dōTERRA: “Bone Nutrient Essential Complex” supplement — $26.67
(retail)67
As to Applicant’s skincare products, Applicant argues they are “priced at a
premium and are targeted at a sophisticated consumer base seeking high-quality
skincare and bath products,” which “retail for approximately $40 or less and are
positioned as a mid-tier personal care brand.”68 The evidence shows that Applicant’s
body lotion and body wash sell for $30.00 per bottle.69 Third-party evidence in the
62 May 1, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 38-40, 87-94. The wholesale price on the
Registrant’s website and the retail price on Amazon.com are the same.
63 Id. at TSDR 38-40.
64 See July 2, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 15-281.
65 Id. at TSDR 83.
66 Id. at TSDR 124-25.
67 Id. at TSDR 200.
68 4 TTABVUE 23.
69 May 1, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 29, 33.

Serial No. 98666953
- 26 -
record confirms that the skincare products identified in the subject application may
cost even less. For example:
• BEAUTY PIE: Japanfusion Pure Transforming Cleanser – $25.0070
• ELEMIS: Rehydrating Ginseng Toner – $14.0071
• HONEST:72
o Sensitive Skin Daily Calm Moisturizer – $24.99
o Shampoo + Body Wash – $11.99
• dōTERRA:73
o Facial Cleanser – $21.33
o Pore Reducing Toner – $26.00
o baby Hair & Body Wash – $20.00
• DR. BARBARA STURM:74
o Cleanser – from $22.00
o Balancing Toner – from $15.00
The evidence shows that prices for skincare and supplement products span a wide
gamut, and thus we cannot assume a higher level of care based on price alone. But,
because we are concerned with the selection of nutritional and dietary supplements
in the cited registration, we conclude that some prospective consumers for these goods
might be expected to exercise a reasonable degree of care regarding products that
they ingest to improve their health.
Even if we infer that purchasers of Registrant’s supplements exercise more care,
however, these circumstances might aggravate rather than mitigate the likelihood of
70 July 2, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 76.
71 Id. at TSDR 210.
72 Id. at TSDR 113, 117.
73 Id. at TSDR 179-80, 186, 189.
74 Id. at TSDR 64.

Serial No. 98666953
- 27 -
confusion. If a careful purchaser of nutritional supplements is aware of the reputation
of Registrant’s products, upon encountering a substantially similar mark for related
and complementary skincare products, that purchaser might believe that he/she is
dealing with Registrant. On the other hand, skincare products are bought by general
consumers, and a less sophisticated consumer who had a positive experience with
GOCHI products, upon encountering GOSHI supplements, may mistakenly believe
that the products emanate from a single source. When relevant consumers include
both consumers who exercise more care and the general public, the standard of care
for purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated potential purchaser, who is
unlikely to exercise more than an ordinary degree of care. In re Samsung Display Co.,
No. 90502617, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 258, at *22 (citing Stone Lion Cap. Partners, LP v.
Lion Cap. LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Thus, the fourth DuPont factor is neutral. Id. at *24-25.
F. Lack of Actual Confusion
Applicant asserts that there is no evidence of actual confusion in the record.75 The
question of actual confusion is addressed in the seventh and eighth DuPont factors
regarding the “nature and extent of any actual confusion” and the “length of time
during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence
of actual confusion.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361.
There is no opportunity to hear from Registrant about whether it is aware of any
reported instances of confusion in the context of this ex parte appeal:
75 4 TTABVUE 25; 7 TTABVUE 9.

Serial No. 98666953
- 28 -
The fact that an applicant in an ex parte case is unaware
of any instances of actual confusion is generally entitled to
little probative weight in the likelihood of confusion
analysis, inasmuch as the Board in such cases generally
has no way to know whether the registrant likewise is
unaware of any instances of actual confusion, nor is it
usually possible to determine that there has been any
significant opportunity for actual confusion to have
occurred.
In re Opus One, Inc., No. 75722593, 2001 TTAB LEXIS 707, at *19-20 (citations
omitted).
Moreover, the seventh and eighth DuPont factors are interrelated; the absence of
evidence of actual confusion under the seventh DuPont factor is entitled to little
weight in our likelihood of confusion analysis unless there also is evidence, under the
eighth factor, that there has been a significant opportunity for actual confusion to
have occurred. We must look at actual market conditions to the extent there is
evidence of such conditions of record. In re Guild Mortg. Co., No. 86709944, 2020
TTAB LEXIS 17, at *19. Here, there is no evidence that, in the actual marketplace,
the same consumers have been exposed to both marks for the respective goods, such
that we could make a finding as to the “length of time during and conditions under
which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.” DuPont,
476 F.2d at 1361. Indeed, Applicant only claimed use in commerce for two of the
products identified in its application.76 We would not expect to see evidence of actual
confusion for the goods based on intent to use.
The seventh and eighth DuPont factors are neutral.
76 See supra note 2 (certain goods in application filed on an intent-to-use basis).

Serial No. 98666953
- 29 -
G. Thirteenth DuPont Factor
Finally, Applicant and the Examining Attorney argue the applicability of the
Board’s decision in In re Strategic Partners, Inc., No. 77903451, 2012 TTAB LEXIS
80, in connection with Applicant’s ownership of Registration No. 6168638 for the
standard character mark GOSHI for “Exfoliating cloths; Exfoliating pads; Loofahs for
household purposes; Bath sponges; Bath products, namely, loofah sponges; Cleaning
cloth; Facial cleansing sponges; Scrub sponges,” International Class 21.77
Under the thirteenth DuPont factor, the Board considers “[a]ny other established
fact probative of the effect of use,” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. It is a “catchall” factor
that “accommodates the need for flexibility in assessing each unique set of facts ....”
Country Oven, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *19 (quoting Strategic Partners, 2012 TTAB
LEXIS 80, at *6). “This includes a variety of circumstances, such as the coexistence
of an applicant’s prior-registered mark with the cited registration. Where an
applicant owns a prior registration and the mark is ‘substantially the same’ as in the
applied-for application, this can weigh against finding that there is a likelihood of
confusion.” Id. (citing Inn at St. John’s, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *18 (internal
citation omitted)).
In determining whether the coexistence of an applicant’s prior registration with a
cited registration weighs against finding confusion between the marks, we may
consider: (1) whether the applicant’s prior registered mark is the same as applicant’s
77 Registration No. 6168638 issued October 6, 2020 on the Principal Register under
Trademark Act Section 1(a) based on use in commerce as early as March 18, 2020. See May
1, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 53-55.

Serial No. 98666953
- 30 -
mark or is otherwise not meaningfully different; (2) whether the identifications of
goods in the application and prior registration are identical in relevant part; and
(3) the length of time the applicant’s prior registration has coexisted with the
registration being considered as the basis for the Section 2(d) refusal. Strategic
Partners, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 80, at *5-9.
Applicant argues in his brief that Strategic Partners supports a finding of no
likelihood of confusion because:
The Applicant’s prior registration of “GOSHI” and the
Cited Marks have coexisted for over five years …. The
Applicant’s prior registration of “GOSHI” is identical to the
Applicant’s Mark in the present case, and the
identifications of goods are a natural extension of its [sic]
brand into the skin and body care space. The present
application reflects a natural and logical extension of that
established brand into complementary body care products,
including body wash, body lotion, facial cleansers,
moisturizers, and toners. These goods are used in
conjunction with Applicant’s existing exfoliating and
bathing products and occupy the same skin and body care
space. Thus, Applicant is not adopting a new or unrelated
mark for an unrelated field, but rather expanding the
GOSHI brand within the same consumer category –
personal cleansing and skin care.78
The Examining Attorney, on the other hand, argues that Strategic Partners is
inapplicable in this appeal because “applicant’s prior registration is not for identical
or identical in part goods and/or services as the subject application. Indeed, the
referenced prior registration deals with goods that are not even in the same class as
the present Class 003 application.”79 Applicant responds in his reply brief by arguing
78 4 TTABVUE 21.
79 6 TTABVUE 16.

Serial No. 98666953
- 31 -
that the co-existence of the marks for Applicant’s different goods should weigh
against likelihood of confusion “regardless of whether the Strategic Partners
framework is satisfied.”80
As with the applicant’s prior registration in Strategic Partners, the prior
Registration No. 6168638 is for the identical mark Applicant seeks to register here –
GOSHI in standard characters. See Strategic Partners, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 80, at *7.
In addition, Applicant’s prior registration issued over five years ago, and thus “is not
subject to attack by the owner of the cited registration on a claim of priority and
likelihood of confusion.”81 Id. at *8. Thus, elements (1) and (3) of the test set forth in
Strategic Partners are met.
But as to element (2), the prior registration does not cover any of the topical
skincare goods identified in the present application; instead, it covers various cloths
and sponges for personal cleaning use. Thus, the “unique facts” in Strategic Partners
are not present here. Moreover, to the extent that Applicant advances a quasi “family-
of-marks” theory based on his prior registration, we agree with the Examining
Attorney that this argument is not available in an ex parte appeal to defeat a Section
2(d) refusal. In re Cynosure, Inc., No. 76653359, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 379, at *2.
80 7 TTABVUE 8. Applicant cites to Guild Mortg., 912 F.3d at 1381, in support of this point.
But that case addressed lack of actual confusion in connection with goods that were the
subject of the subject application and cited registration for a very long period – over 40 years
– where the applicant and registrant operated in the same geographic market. The holding
in that case does not help Applicant’s argument based on other goods, particularly given the
lack of evidence of the extent of use of Applicant’s or Registrant’s goods.
81 Section 14(3) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3), bars certain claims for cancellation
of registrations that issued more than five years prior to the filing of the claim. This includes
a likelihood of confusion claim under Section 2(d).

Serial No. 98666953
- 32 -
The thirteenth DuPont factor is neutral.
H. Conclusion
We have carefully considered and weighed the evidence properly made of record
and the arguments related thereto. Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1384 (“[I]t is
important … that the Board itself weigh the DuPont factors used in its analysis and
explain the results of that weighing.”) (emphasis in original).
Registrant’s GOCHI and Applicant’s applied-for mark GOSHI, both in standard
characters, are highly similar in appearance and sound. The goods are related in part,
and these related goods are offered in overlapping channels of trade to the same
classes of consumers. The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and thirteenth factors
are neutral. No factors weigh against likelihood of confusion.
We conclude that confusion is likely between Applicant’s applied-for mark GOSHI
and the cited mark GOCHI in Registration No. 3495209.82
Decision
The refusal to register application Serial No. 98666953 is affirmed.
82 Thus, we do not reach the question of likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and
the stylized mark in Registration No. 3476489.