Southwest Financial Federal Credit Union

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: January 7, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Southwest Financial Federal Credit Union
_____
Serial No. 98427867
Serial No. 98427875
(Consolidated)
_____
Darin M. Klemchuk of Klemchuk PLLC for Southwest Financial Federal Credit
Union.
Colleen Orscheln, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 132,
Brandon Marsh, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Heasley, Larkin, and Allard,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Southwest Financial Federal Credit Union (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the standard-character mark SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL and
the composite word-and-design mark
both for services in International Class 36 ultimately identified as

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 2 -
Credit union services; Financial services, namely, banking
services featuring financing loans for consumers;
installment loans; savings account services; financing
loans for automobiles; providing personal lines of credit;
Financial services, namely, banking services featuring
checking account services; Banking services featuring the
provision of individual retirement account services;
banking services provided via electronic device access
allowing a consumer to use a telephone number to conduct
basic banking transactions; audio response access being
automated teller machine services; Financial services,
namely, banking services featuring issuing of credit cards;
banking services provided via personal computer account
access; Financial services, namely, banking services
featuring providing money market deposit accounts, and
issuing debit cards; financial services, namely, banking
services for electronic check acceptance services; Financial
services, namely, banking services for financing loans for a
mortgage.1
The Examining Attorney has refused registration of both marks on two grounds.
First, the Examining Attorney has refused registration of both marks under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that the marks so
resemble the mark PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL in typeset form, registered
on the Principal Register for the services listed below in International Class 36
Financial analysis and consultation; financial
management and investment in the fields of asset
allocation and management, cash management, estates,
college funding, retirement, insurance and investment;
insurance consultation and brokerage; financial support
services, namely, providing consultation to professionals in
1 Application Serial No. 98427867 (the “’867 Application”) to register the standard-character
mark and Application Serial No. 98427875 (the “’875 Application”) to register the composite
mark were both filed on February 29, 2024 under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claimed first use of the marks anywhere and first use
of the marks in commerce at least as early as November 1962. The same Examining Attorney
was assigned to both applications.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 3 -
an [sic] variety of disciplines, namely, taxation,
accountancy, underwriting, actuary;2
as to be likely, when used in connection with the services identified in the ’867 and
’875 Applications, to cause confusion.
Second, the Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s word
mark under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2), on the
ground that the words SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL are primarily geographically
descriptive of the services, and has refused registration of Applicant’s composite mark
under Section 2(e)(2) and Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a),
unless Applicant disclaims the exclusive right to use SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL
apart from the mark as shown.
Applicant appealed the refusals when the Examining Attorney made them final.3
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs in each appeal.4 Because the
2 The cited Registration No. 2687936 (the “’936 Registration”) issued on February 18, 2003
based on a showing of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1052(f), and was most recently renewed in 2023. The registrant has disclaimed the
exclusive right to use FINANCIAL apart from the mark as shown. “Prior to November 2,
2003, ‘standard character’ drawings were known as ‘typed’ drawings. A typed or typeset mark
is the legal equivalent of a standard character mark.” Heil Co. v. Tripleye GmbH, Opp. No.
91277359, 2024 WL 4925901, at *26 n.121 (TTAB 2024) (citing In re Viterra, Inc., 671 F.3d
1358, 1363 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
3 As discussed below, the Examining Attorney also issued final refusals to register both marks
because Applicant did not comply with a requirement for amendment of its identification s of
services, but Applicant offered amendments in its briefs, 4 TTABVUE 10-11 (’867 and ’875
Applications), and the Examining Attorney accepted those amendments in her briefs. 6
TTABUVE 3 (’867 Application); 7 TTABVUE 3 (’875 Application).
4 Citations in this opinion to the briefs refer to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing
system. The number preceding TTABVUE corresponds to the docket entry number, and any
numbers following TTABVUE refer to the page(s) of the docket entry where the cited
materials appear. Applicant’s brief appears at 4 TTABVUE in both appeals and the
Examining Attorney’s brief appears at 6 TTABVUE in the appeal in the ’867 Application and

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 4 -
issues presented in both appeals are very similar and the records are virtually
identical in each case, we consolidate the appeals sua sponte, In re S. Malhotra & Co.,
Ser. No. 79194076, 2018 WL 4660940, at *1 (TTAB 2018), and will decide them in a
single opinion. We affirm the Section 2(d) refusals in both cases and do not reach the
geographic descriptiveness and disclaimer refusals. In re Princeton Equity Grp. LLC,
Ser. No. 97397212, 2025 WL 1638891, at *4 (TTAB 2025).
I. Prosecution Histories and Records on Appeal5
We briefly summarize below the prosecution histories of the ’867 and ’875
Applications, and their virtually identical records.
’867 Application
In the ’867 Application, Applicant sought registration of its word mark based on a
specimen consisting of multiple pages from its website at swfinancial.org.6 The
Examining Attorney issued an Office Action refusing registration on the basis of the
cited ’936 Registration and the geographic descriptiveness of the mark,7 and required
Applicant to amend its identification of services.8 The Examining Attorney made of
record USPTO electronic records regarding the ’936 Registration,9 third-party
at 7 TTABVUE in the appeal in the ’875 Application. Unless otherwise indicated, we will cite
the briefs in the appeal in the ’867 Application.
5 Citations in this opinion to the application records are to pages in the downloadable .pdf
version of the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) database of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
6 February 29, 2024 Specimen in the ’867 Application at TSDR 12-42.
7 September 20, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 2-6.
8 Id. at TSDR 6-7.
9 Id. at TSDR 9-10.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 5 -
webpages of Wells Fargo, Bristol County Savings Bank, and BNC National Bank that
she claimed showed the relatedness of the involved services, trade channels, and
classes of consumers,10 and an entry from Britannica.com captioned “Southwest.”11
Applicant responded by arguing against the likelihood of confusion refusal and
purporting to amend its identification of services.12 Applicant also argued that no
disclaimer of SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL was required,13 even though the Examining
Attorney had not required a disclaimer as to the standard-character mark, but had
instead refused registration of the mark in its entirety based on geographic
descriptiveness. Applicant made of record pages from the website of bankrate.com
discussing the differences between banks and credit unions,14 and pages from its own
website.15
The Examining Attorney then issued an Office Action making final the likelihood
of confusion and geographic descriptiveness refusals, as well as the refusal based on
the requirement of an amendment to Applicant’s identification of services.16 The
Examining Attorney made of record additional third-party webpages of Citizens
Bank, KeyBank, PNC, Regions, and Truist that she claimed “further provide that the
10 Id. at TSDR 4, 11-28.
11 Id. at TSDR 29-35.
12 December 13, 2024 Response to Office Action at TSDR 7-20.
13 Id. at TSDR 20.
14 Id. at TSDR 22-41.
15 Id. at TSDR 42-49.
16 February 10, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 1-10.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 6 -
relevant services are provided under the same mark,”17 third-party webpages from
whatstates.com and sciencing.com regarding the meaning of the word “southwest,”18
and third-party webpages pages from compeer.com, smartasset.com, and
vermillionfinancial.com that she claimed show that “the term FINANCIAL is often
used in the industry as describing various banking services.”19
’875 Application
The prosecution of the ’875 Application proceeded in parallel with the ’867
Application, and the records are virtually identical.20 In the ’875 Application, the
Examining Attorney required a disclaimer of the exclusive right to use the words
SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL apart from Applicant’s composite mark as shown,21 and
included that requirement in her final Office Action,22 together with the refusals
based on likelihood of confusion and Applicant’s failure to amend its identification of
services.23
17 Id. at TSDR 5, 11-35.
18 Id. at TSDR 36-60.
19 Id. at 8, 61-70.
20 In the ’875 Application, the Examining Attorney did not make of record the third-party
webpages from whatstates.com and sciencing.com regarding the meaning of the word
“southwest,” or the third-party webpages from compeer.com, smartasset.com, and
vermillionfinancial.com regarding use of the term “financial,” which appear in the record in
the ’867 Application.
21 September 20, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 5-6.
22 February 10, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 7-8.
23 Id. at TSDR 2-7.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 7 -
II. Analysis of Likelihood of Confusion Refusals
“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] mistake, or to deceive.” In re Charger
Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). 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”). Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1379. 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).
“Two key factors in every Section 2(d) case are the first two factors regarding the
similarity or dissimilarity of the marks and the goods or services, because the
fundamental inquiry mandated by §2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences
in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.” DC Comics
v. Cellular Nerd LLC, Opp. No. 91246950, 2022 WL 17832492, at *10 (TTAB 2022)
(internal quotations and quotation marks omitted).
Applicant focuses on these two key factors in its briefs. 4 TTABVUE 12-21 (’867
and ’875 Applications. Applicant also discusses the fourth and eighth DuPont factors.
4 TTABVUE 21-23 (’867 and ’875 Applications).

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 8 -
A. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
Under the first DuPont factor, “we consider the ‘similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression.’” In re Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla, Ser. No. 90522364, 2025 WL
2953731, at *4 (TTAB 2025) (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, Opp. No. 91270181, 2024 WL
1638376, at *5 (TTAB 2024) (quoting In re Inn at St. John’s LLC, Ser. No. 87075988,
2018 WL 2734893, at *5 (TTAB 2018) (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).
“The proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead
whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression
such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection
between the parties.” Sage Therapeutics, 2024 WL 1638376, at *5 (quoting Coach
Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “The
focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally ‘retains a general
rather than a specific impression of marks.’” Id. (quoting In re i.am.symbolic, llc, Ser.
No. 85916778, 2018 WL 3993582, at *4 (TTAB 2018) (citations omitted)). The
“average purchasers” here include ordinary consumers who purchase the various
financial and banking services that are identified in the ’867 and ’875 Applications.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 9 -
1. ’867 Application
The marks at issue in the ’867 Application are SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL and
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL, both in standard characters.
Applicant argues that the fact that “Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark include
some (but not all) of the same terms is not dispositive.” 4 TTABVUE 13. According to
Applicant, a “simple comparison of Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark clearly
demonstrates the differences between the marks in sight, sound, and connotation:
Applicant’s Mark: SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL
The ’936 Mark: PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL”
Id.24 Applicant argues that the
Cited Marks [sic] are three-word marks—one including the
term “Pacific” not present in Applicant’s Mark and the
other with a completely separate leading term. Likewise,
the existence of additional and different terms in the
Cited Mark distinguishes the marks in both sight and
sound such that Applicant’s Mark is distinguishable from
the Cited Mark and no likelihood of confusion exists.
Id. (emphasis in bold here in italics in the original).
Applicant further argues that
[t]he leading, and therefore dominant, portion of the ’936
Mark is “Pacific”—a term not even present in Applicant’s
Mark. And while the Examiner maintains that Applicant
“has merely removed the PACIFIC from the beginning of
the wording in Reg. No. 2687936’s mark to form its mark,”
this is decidedly inaccurate, as Applicant’s Mark was
created and in use for many years prior to any use of the
24 Applicant’s display of the marks in this manner in its brief in the ’867 Application is not
the lens through which we must consider their similarity. As noted above, “marks ‘must be
considered . . . in light of the fallibility of memory’ and ‘not on the basis of side-by-side
comparison.’” St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d at 751 (quoting San Fernando Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD
Elecs. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 685 (CCPA 1977)).

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 10 -
Cited Mark in commerce—as shown in the prosecution
history for each mark, Applicant’s Mark was first used in
1962 while the Cited Mark was not used until 1997. . . . The
absence of this dominant term from Applicant’s Mark
means Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark also convey
distinct commercial impressions from one another, as the
term “Pacific” in the Cited Mark makes clear and specific
reference to the Pacific coast of the United States—a
connotation not included in Applicant’s Mark.
Id. at 14-15 (citation omitted).
The Examining Attorney responds that “PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL
and applicant’s mark, SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL both contain locations
(SOUTHWEST OR PACIFIC SOUTHWEST) followed by the descriptive term
FINANCIAL. Thus, the marks share a highly similar sound, appearance, and overall
commercial impression, and therefore are confusingly similar.” 6 TTABVUE 5. The
Examining Attorney argues that “consumers are likely to perceive applicant’s mark
as merely a variant of registrant’s mark when used on the services identified by the
parties,” and that “Applicant’s mark is identical to registrant’s mark except for the
removal of the term PACIFIC from the beginning of the mark.” Id.
The Examining Attorney further argues that “Applicant argues that it did not
remove PACIFIC to create the mark, as applicant claims the mark has been in
existence since 1962, and registrant’s mark was formed in 1997,” but that Applicant’s
“mark was not registered as a trademark in 1962, and applicant did not apply for
trademark registration of the mark until 2024, over twenty years after registrant ’s
mark had registered.” Id.
Before we discuss the similarity of the marks, we must note that Applicant’s and
the Examining Attorney’s discussion of Applicant’s “removal” of a word from the cited

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 11 -
mark in the formation of Applicant’s mark confuses the issue.25 The TRADEMARK
MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) summarizes the law as follows:
“Additions or deletions to marks may be sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion
if: (1) the marks in their entireties convey significantly different commercial
impressions; or (2) the matter common to the marks is not likely to be perceived by
purchasers as distinguishing source because it is merely descriptive or diluted.”
TMEP § 1207.01(b)(iii) (collecting cases). But the language discussing “additions or
deletions to marks” should not be taken literally. Although an applicant could
intentionally delete matter from a known prior mark (or add matter to a known prior
mark), the inter partes discovery tools that could yield evidence regarding an
applicant’s selection of its mark are unavailable to the USPTO and applicants in the
ex parte context. In this context, the issue is not whether Applicant deliberately
“removed” such matter, but rather whether the absence of such matter avoids a
likelihood of confusion. In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(“The presence of an additional term in [a] mark does not necessarily eliminate the
likelihood of confusion if some terms are identical.”).
Marks must be considered in their entireties, but “there is nothing improper in
stating that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular
feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the
marks in their entireties.” In re Jimenez, Ser. No. 97551823, 2025 WL 3126703, at *5
25 Applicant and the Examining Attorney made similar arguments regarding Applicant’s
“removal” of matter from the cited mark in the appeal in the ’875 Application. 4 TTABVUE
15; 7 TTABVUE 5.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 12 -
(TTAB 2025) (citing In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We agree with
Applicant that PACIFIC is the dominant portion of the cited mark PACIFIC
SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL because it is the lead word in the mark, the second word
SOUTHWEST was found by the Board almost 50 years ago to be “a geographical term
referring to the southwestern section of the United States, and . . . a somewhat weak
term,” In re Allied Equip. Co., 1977 WL 22683, at *2 (TTAB 1977), and the registrant
was required to disclaim the exclusive right to use the third word FINANCIAL apart
from the mark as shown.26 In comparing the marks in their entireties, we will give
greater weight to the word PACIFIC in the cited mark than to the other two words.27
Although PACIFIC is the dominant portion of the cited PACIFIC SOUTHWEST
FINANCIAL mark, the involved marks share the words SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL
and “Applicant’s mark is identical to the [second and third] word[s] of [the cited] mark
and is entirely incorporated by it.” Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla, 2025 WL 2953731,
at *5. “Marks have frequently been found to be similar where one mark incorporates
26 As noted above, the registrant secured registration of its PACIFIC SOUTHWEST
FINANCIAL mark on the Principal Register by showing that the mark as a whole had
acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.
27 Because both Applicant’s mark and the cited mark are standard-character marks, “each
could be used in any typeface, color, or size, including the same stylization actually used or
intended to be used by the other party, or one that minimizes the differences or emphasizes
the similarities between the marks.” Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., Opp.
No. 91194148, 2015 WL 5316485, at *8 (TTAB 2015) (citing Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City
Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (the “registrant is entitled to depictions
of the standard character mark regardless of font style, size, or color, not merely ‘reasonable
manners’ of depicting its standard character mark.”)). Accordingly, we must assume that the
registrant could display its PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL mark in a manner that
emphasizes the phrase SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL and deemphasizes the word PACIFIC.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 13 -
the entirety of another mark, as is the case here.” Id. (quoting TiVo Brands LLC v.
Tivoli, LLC, Opp. No. 91221632, 2018 WL 6921323, at *16 (TTAB 2018)). See also
Hunter Indus., Inc. v. Toro Co., Opp. No. 91203612, 2014 WL 1649332, at *11 (TTAB
2014) (“[l]ikelihood of confusion has been found where the entirety of one mark is
incorporated within another”) (finding the applicant’s mark PRECISION and the
opposer’s mark PRECISION DISTRIBUTION CONTROL to be confusingly similar)
(citing Mighty Leaf Tea, supra; Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324
(CCPA 1967); In re U. S. Shoe Corp., Ser. No. 446404, 1985 WL 72046 (TTAB 1985)).
“Similarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree.” St. Helena Hosp., 774
F.3d at 752 (citation omitted). The PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL and
SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL marks are similar in appearance and sound because of
the presence of SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL in both marks, and they both connote
financial services provided by an entity in the Southwest region of the United States.
There are differences in appearance, sound, and meaning between the marks due to
the presence of the dominant word PACIFIC in the cited mark, but we find that the
marks are more similar than dissimilar in appearance, sound, and meaning because
they share the phrase SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL. A consumer with a general rather
than specific recollection of the cited mark PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL who
separately encounters Applicant’s mark SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL may notice the
absence of the word PACIFIC in Applicant’s mark, but is more likely than not to
understand Applicant’s mark to be a shortened version of the cited mark. Ye Mystic
Krewe of Gasparilla, 2025 WL 2953731, at *5 (“if consumers recognize the differences

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 14 -
in the marks, those consumers familiar with the registered GASPARILLA
TREASURES mark may perceive Applicant’s GASPARILLA mark as an extension of
Registrant’s product offerings under a shortened version of Registrant’s mark” )
(citing Schieffelin & Co. v. Molson Cos., Opp. No. 69312, 1989 WL 277823, at *4
(TTAB 1989) (“Those consumers who do recognize the differences in the marks may
believe that applicant’s mark is a variation of opposer’s mark that opposer has
adopted for use on a different product.”)). The first DuPont factor thus supports a
conclusion that confusion is likely with respect to the word mark shown in the ’867
Application. Naterra, Inc. v. Bensalem, 92 F.4th 1113, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
2. ’875 Application
The marks at issue in the ’875 Application are Applicant’s composite mark
and the cited standard-character mark PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL.
Applicant argues that “[o]n their face, Applicant’s SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL
design mark and the Cited Mark are completely dissimilar in sight, sound, and
commercial impression.” 4 TTABVUE 11. Applicant argues that “[a] simple
comparison of Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark clearly demonstrates the
differences between the marks in sight, sound, and connotation:
Applicant’s Mark:
The Cited Mark: PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL”

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 15 -
Id. at 13.28 According to Applicant,
[q]uite plainly, the Cited Mark is a three-word mark
including the term “Pacific” not present in Applicant’s
Mark, while Applicant’s Mark is a two-work mark that
includes a distinct design element not included in the Cited
Mark. The existence of an additional and different term
in the Cited Mark and the design element in Applicant’s
Mark distinguishes the marks in both sight and sound such
that Applicant’s Mark is distinguishable from the Cited
Mark and no likelihood of confusion exists.
Id. at 14 (emphasis in bold here in italics in the original). Applicant also argues that
the word PACIFIC is the dominant portion of the cited mark,29 but does not address
the dominant portion of its composite mark. Id. at 15.
The Examining Attorney makes essentially the same arguments that she made in
the appeal in the ’867 Application, 7 TTABVUE 4-6, and also argues that the design
element in Applicant’s composite mark does not distinguish it from the cited mark
because “the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to
make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used
by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services,” id. at 5 (citations omitted),
and “applicant’s wording SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL is considered the dominant
feature of the mark because consumers will likely remember and refer to the mark
by the word portion when requesting the services.” Id. at 6.
28 As noted above, we must not consider these two marks on the basis of this sort of side-by-
side comparison, but rather “in light of the fallibility of memory . . . .” St. Helena Hosp., 774
F.3d at 751 (quotation and quotation marks omitted).
29 As discussed above, we have found the word PACIFIC to be the dominant element of the
cited mark.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 16 -
We agree with the Examining Attorney that the words SOUTHWEST
FINANCIAL are the dominant portion of Applicant’s composite mark. “In marks
‘consisting of words and a design, the words are normally accorded greater weight
because they are likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, to be
remembered by them, and to be used by them to request the goods.’” Sabhnani v.
Mirage Brands, LLC, Canc. No. 92068086, 2021 WL 6072822, at *16 (TTAB 2021)
(quoting In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, Ser. No. 86928469, 2018 WL 1620989, at
*2 (TTAB 2018) (citing Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1366 (citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d
1579, 158-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983))). “The verbal portion of a word and design mark ‘likely
will appear alone when used in text and will be spoken when requested by
consumers.”’ Id. (quoting Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1366 (internal citation omitted)).30 In
comparing the marks in their entireties, we will give greater weight to the words
“Southwest Financial” in Applicant’s composite mark than to the design element to
their left.
As noted above, the cited PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL mark is a
standard-character mark that “‘may be used in ‘any particular font style, size, or
color’, including ‘the same font, size and color as the literal portions of [Applicant’s]
mark.’” In re OSF Healthcare Sys., Ser. No. 88706809, 2023 WL 6140427, at *3 (TTAB
2023) (quoting Aquitaine Wine USA, 2018 WL 1620989, at *5 (quoting Trademark
Rule 2.52(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.52(a))). Accordingly, we must assume that the entire
30 In the text of Applicant’s specimen of use of its composite mark, Applicant is referred to by
the words “Southwest Financial.” February 29, 2024 Specimen in the ’875 Application at
TSDR 14-55.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 17 -
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL mark, or just the phrase SOUTHWEST
FINANCIAL within it, could be depicted in the same size and initial capital font style
in which the words “Southwest Financial” appear in Applicant’s composite mark.
As discussed above in connection with Applicant’s word mark, the cited mark and
Applicant’s composite mark have similarities and differences. The cited mark and
Applicant’s composite mark are similar in appearance and sound because of the
presence of the words SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL in both marks, particularly when
we assume the depiction of those words in the cited mark in the same size and font
style as they appear in Applicant’s composite mark, or in a manner that emphasizes
them, and both marks connote financial services provided by an entity in the
Southwest region of the United States.
The differences in appearance are slightly greater here because of the presence of
the design element to the left of the words “Southwest Financial” in Applicant’s
composite mark, but we find that the marks are more similar than dissimilar in
appearance as well as in sound and meaning. A consumer with a general rather than
specific recollection of the cited mark PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL who
separately encounters Applicant’s composite mark may notice the absence of the word
PACIFIC in Applicant’s mark and the presence of Applicant’s design element, but is
again more likely than not to understand Applicant’s mark to be a shortened version
of the cited mark. Overall, the first DuPont factor supports a conclusion that
confusion is likely with respect to the composite mark shown in the ’875
Application. Naterra, 92 F.4th at 1119.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 18 -
B. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Services, Channels of Trade,
and Classes of Consumers31
“The second DuPont factor considers ‘[t]he similarity or dissimilarity and nature
of the goods or services as described in an application or registration . . . .” Detroit
Athletic Co., 903 F.2d at 1306. “This factor considers whether ‘the consuming public
may perceive [the goods or services] as related enough to cause confusion about the
source or origin of the goods or services.’” St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d at 752 (quoting
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “In
analyzing the services, the Board considers [t]he similarity or dissimilarity and
nature of the services as described in an application or registration.” OSF Healthcare,
2023 WL 6140427, at *4 (quoting In re Embiid, Ser. No. 88202890, 2021 WL 2285576,
at *10 (TTAB 2021)).
The “‘services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of
confusion.’” Id. (quoting In re Country Oven, Inc., Ser. No. 87354443, 2019 WL
6170483, at *2 (TTAB 2019)).32 “They need only be ‘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.” Id. (quoting Country
31 As noted above, the ultimate identifications of services and the pertinent portions of the
records are identical in the ’867 and ’875 Applications and we will discuss the implicated
DuPont factors together in this section.
32 The “Examining Attorney need not prove, and we need not find, similarity as to each
[service] listed in the description of [services]” in Class 36 in the application. OSF Healthcare,
2023 WL 6140427, at *5 (citation omitted). “‘[I]t is sufficient for finding a likelihood of
confusion if relatedness is established for any [service] encompassed by the identification of
[services] within a particular class in the application.” Id. (citations omitted).

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 19 -
Oven, 2019 WL 6170483, at *2 (quoting Coach Servs., 668 F.3d at 1369 (internal
quotation omitted)).
The relatedness of goods or services may be established based on (1) the language
of the involved identifications of goods or services, which may show, on the face of the
identifications, that the goods or services are literally or legally identical, or otherwise
intrinsically related, and (2) evidence of third-party uses or registrations, which may
show that the identified goods or services are commonly offered by the same entity
under the same mark. Id. at *4 (quotations and citations omitted) (“Evidence of
relatedness may include news articles or evidence from computer databases showing
that the relevant goods [or services] are used together or used by the same
purchasers; advertisements showing that the relevant goods [or services] are
advertised together or sold by the same manufacturer or dealer; or copies of prior use-
based registrations of the same mark for both applicant’s goods [or services] and the
goods [or services] listed in the cited registration [and] [t]he application and
registration themselves may provide evidence of the relationship between the [goods
or] services.”).
“[W]e must construe the services identified in the [’936] [R]egistration as broadly
as reasonably possible ‘to include all [services] of the nature and type described
therein,’” id. at *5 (quoting In re Solid State Design Inc., Ser. No. 87269041, 2018 WL
287909, at *6 (TTAB 2018) (internal quotation omitted)), and “we must resolve any
ambiguities regarding their coverage in favor of the cited registrant ‘given the
presumptions afforded the registration under Section 7(b)’ of the Trademark Act.” Id.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 20 -
(quoting In re C.H. Hanson Co., Ser. No. 77983232, 2015 WL 6121759, at *5 (TTAB
2015) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b)). “[W]e must also give the services identified in the
application their full scope in our analysis of the second DuPont factor.” Id. (citation
omitted).
In both appeals, the Examining Attorney relies on third-party webpages as
evidence of relatedness. In OSF Healthcare, the Board explained that “[w]ith respect
to Internet evidence, in determining exactly what services are offered through the
respective websites, we acknowledge that services may not be explicitly described at
all, or may be described in colloquial language that does not track the technical
language of acceptable identifications of goods and services in applications and
registrations, including those involved here.” Id. at *10 (citation omitted). “In such
instances, we must determine the nature of the services that are offered, and decide
whether they fall within the full scope of the language in the involved identifications.”
Id. (citation omitted).
Applicant argues in both appeals that “proper evidence of the alleged relatedness
of Applicant’s goods [sic] with those of the Registrant must show that the same goods
[sic] and services emanate from the same source or are complementary products that
would be purchased and used together,” 4 TTABVUE 17-18 (’867 Application); 4
TTABVUE 18 (’875 Application), and that
as between Applicant’s Mark and the ’936 Mark, the
operative goods and services are “credit union services” and
“financial management and investment in the fields of
asset allocation and management, cash management,
estates, college funding, retirement, insurance and
investment” as well as “actuary services.” Thus, evidence

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 21 -
of any alleged “similarity” must demonstrate that credit
unions also offer financial management and investment
services in the fields of asset allocation and management,
cash management, estates, college funding, retirement,
and insurance, and that wealth management or growth
platforms also offer credit union services. The Examiner
has failed to provide this evidence.
4 TTABVUE 18 (’867 and ’875 Applications) (emphasis in bold here in italics in the
original).
Applicant further argues that
[i]nstead, the Examiner posits that because banks
sometimes offer both checking and savings services as well
as broad financial and accounting services, the same can
be said for Applicant’s services and those offered in
connection with the Cited Mark. Yet, this is an apples to
oranges analysis, as neither Registrant nor Applicant are
a bank. Indeed, the Examiner relies on the provision of a
wide range of financial services provided by banks, rather
than credit unions; yet the two are completely separate
types of entities governed by wholly distinct laws and
separate regulatory bodies. Banks are subject to and
ensured by the FDIC, while credit unions are regulated and
ensured according to the NCUA. Further, credit unions are
member only, non-profit entities, rather than a true
commercial enterprise. . . . The Examiner has failed to
appreciate the intentional differences between these types
of institutions and the impact of those differences on
consumers. That some unrelated banking institutions in
the U.S. may offer checking and savings accounts as well
as general financial services is not dispositive of whether
Applicant—a credit union—offers goods or services that
consumers will perceive originate with Registrant—a
wealth growth platform. Thus, while the Examiner claims
to have identified evidence demonstrating “the same entity
commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the
relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods
and/or services under the same mark, the relevant goods
and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade
channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the
same fields of use, and the goods and/or services are similar
or complementary in terms of purpose or function,” none of

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 22 -
the evidence submitted by the Examiner pertains to credit
unions (like Applicant) or wealth growth platforms (like
Registrant).
4 TTABVUE 18-19 (’867 and ’875 Applications) (record citation omitted; emphasis in
bold here in italics in the original).
According to Applicant, “[t]he true issue is whether Registrant’s goods [sic] or
services and Applicant’s good [sic] and services are likely to be seen as emanating
from the same source,” and “[a]s neither Registrant nor Applicant are a bank, the
Examiner’s evidence is not dispositive and fails to demonstrate a likelihood of
confusion between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark.” 4 TTABVUE 19 (’867 and
’875 Applications) (emphasis in bold here in italics in the original). Applicant
concludes that
[c]onsumers purchasing Registrant’s asset allocation, cash
management, estates, college funding, retirement,
insurance and investment services, as well as taxation,
accounting and actuary services, will not expect that
Registrant also provides credit union membership services
such as savings and checking accounts or share certificates,
and vice versa. Thus, Applicant offers credit union
services in the form of checking and savings accounts and
loans distinct from the Registrant’s very specific market for
financial investment and consultation services, including
tax preparation and accounting services.
4 TTABVUE 20 (’867 and ’875 Applications) (emphasis in bold here in italics in the
original).
The Examining Attorney responds as follows:
While applicant argues that they are a credit union and not
a bank, many of the services listed in applicant’s
identification are related to banking services and are not
limited to credit unions only. Applicant’s identification is
“Credit union services; Financial services, namely,

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 23 -
banking services featuring consumer loans, installment
loans, savings accounts, auto financing, and personal lines
of credit; Financial services, namely, banking services
featuring checking accounts, certificates of deposit,
individual retirement accounts, and audio response
account access; Financial services, namely, banking
services featuring credit cards, automated teller machine
network, and personal computer account access; Financial
services, namely, banking services featuring money
market deposit accounts, and debit check cards; Financial
services, namely, banking services featuring mortgage
loans.” Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the
description of the goods and/or services stated in the
application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic
evidence of actual use.
6 TTABVUE 6 (’867 Application); 7 TTABVUE 6-7 (’875 Application) (emphasis in
original).
The Examining Attorney argues that the Internet evidence “establishes that the
same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and/or
services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark,” that “the
relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels
and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use,” and that “the
goods and/or services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function,”
because “[a]ll of the previously provided evidence are services that are in the same
field of financial services, and are not similar to applicant’s cited cases which are
goods and services.” 6 TTABVUE 6 (’867 Application); 7 TTABVUE 6 (’875
Application).
We agree with the Examining Attorney that the services other than “Credit union
services” identified in the applications are not limited to services provided by credit

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 24 -
unions or to credit union members.33 In the absence of an express limitation in the
identifications, we must consider whether the identified “financial services” and
“banking services” are related to one or more of the four distinct services identified in
the cited ’936 Registration.34
The applications cover multiple financial and banking services, including
“Financial services, namely, banking services featuring financing loans for
consumers;” “savings account services;” “financing loans for automobiles;” “providing
personal lines of credit;” “Financial services, namely, banking services featuring
checking account services;” “banking services provided via electronic device access
allowing a consumer to use a telephone number to conduct basic banking
transactions;” “automated teller machine services;” “Financial services, namely,
banking services featuring providing money market deposit accounts, and issuing
debit cards;” and “Financial services, namely, banking services for financing loans for
a mortgage.”
The Examining Attorney made of record webpages from financial institutions that
offer one or more services that fall within the full scope of these services, in addition
to services that fall within the broadest reasonable construction of the services
33 The services identified as ““Credit union services” are distinct services separated by a semi-
colon from the other distinct services identified in the ’867 and ’875 Applications. See Monster
Energy Co. v. Lo, Opp. No. 91225050, 2023 WL 417620, at *7 n.35 (TTAB 2023) (citing In re
Midwest Gaming & Ent. LLC, Ser. No. 85111552, 2013 WL 1442237, at *4 (TTAB 2013) and
TMEP Section 1402.01(a) (July 2021)).
34 The services identified in the cited ’936 Registration are not restricted in terms of classes
of consumers, so we must assume that they could be rendered to members of the general
public, including members of credit unions such as Applicant. Sabhnani, 2021 WL 6072822,
at *14.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 25 -
identified in the ’936 Registration as “Financial analysis and consultation” and
“financial management and investment in the fields of asset allocation and
management, cash management, estates, college funding, retirement, insurance and
investment.”35 We summarize those webpages below:36
• Wells Fargo offers checking and savings accounts, and mobile app services
which fall within the full scope of the services identified in the ’867 and ’875
Applications as “banking services provided via electronic device access
allowing a consumer to use a telephone number to conduct basic banking
transactions,” in addition to services broadly described on the website as
“Financial guidance and support,” including “digital tools” to help
consumers budget and save, guidance on how to “start saving to meet your
retirement goals,” and “steps that may help you manage life -changing
events,” services which fall within the broadest reasonable construction of
the services identified in the ’936 Registration as “Financial analysis and
consultation;”37
• BNC National Bank offers checking and savings account, home loan, and
mobile banking services, in addition to services described on the website as
“wealth-building strategies,” “management and wealth advisory [sic],” and
a “plan to manage your funds and track your long-term financial goals,”
services which fall within the broadest reasonable construction of the
services identified in the ’936 Registration as “Financial analysis and
consultation;”38
35 As discussed above, Applicant purports to limit the comparison of services to the “credit
union services” identified in the ’867 and ’875 Applications and the “financial management
and investment in the fields of asset allocation and management, cash management, estates,
college funding, retirement, insurance and investment” and “actuary services” identified in
the ’936 Registration. 4 TTABVUE 18 (’867 and ’875 Applications). But as noted above, it is
sufficient if the Examining Attorney shows relatedness between any service identified in the
’867 and ’875 Applications and any service identified in the ’936 Registration.
36 Three of these financial institutions, Wells Fargo, Truist, and Regions, are each listed as
the “Most Popular Bank” in two or more states in the United States in the bankrate.com
materials made of record by Applicant. December 13, 2024 Response to Office Action at TSDR
34-37.
37 September 20, 2024 Office Actions at TSDR 11-13 (’867 Application), TSDR 11-14 (’875
Application).
38 Id. at TSDR 20-28 (’867 Application), TSDR 19-26 (’875 Application).

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 26 -
• Citizens Bank offers checking accounts, savings accounts, credit card
services, and mobile and online banking services, in addition to the
opportunity to “Meet with a Banker” to “help you focus on what’s important
and map out a plan for your future,” a service which falls within the
broadest reasonable construction of the services identified in the ’936
Registration as “Financial analysis and consultation;”39
• KeyBank offers checking accounts, savings accounts, credit card services,
and mortgage services, in addition to online access to information about
“Savings & Budgeting,” “Life Events,” “Home Ownership,” “Banking 101,”
“What is Financial Wellness?,” “Checking or Savings: How to Tell Which
Account Your Money Should be In,” “How to Pay When Traveling Abroad,”
and “How to Manage Debt as a Couple When Only Your Partner Has Debt,”
a service which falls within the broadest reasonable construction of the
services identified in the ’936 Registration as “Financial analysis and
consultation;”40
• PNC offers checking and savings account, credit card, and online and
mobile banking services, in addition to online access to information
regarding the questions “What Can Personal Loans Be Used For?,” “What
is a High Yield Savings Account and How Does It Work?, and “What is a
No-Spend Challenge?,” among other subjects, and the opportunity to
schedule a “Financial Wellness Conversation,” services which fall within
the broadest reasonable construction of the services identified in the ’936
Registration as “Financial analysis and consultation,” and services
described on the website as “Investing and Managing Wealth,” which fall
within the broadest reasonable construction of the services identified in the
’936 Registration as “financial management and investment in the fields of
asset allocation and management, cash management, estates, college
funding, retirement, insurance and investment;”41
• Regions offers checking and savings accounts, credit cards, online and
mobile banking, and mortgage services, in addition to online access to “Tips
and Tools” to “Learn more about financial wellness,” and to information
about other financial matters, a service which falls within the broadest
reasonable construction of the services identified in the ’936 Registration
as “Financial analysis and consultation;”42 and
39 February 5, 2025 Final Office Actions at TSDR 11-13 (’867 Application); 10-13 (’875
Application).
40 Id. at TSDR 15-19 (’867 Application); 14-18 (’875 Application).
41 Id. at TSDR 20-23 (’867 Application); 19-22 (’875 Application).
42 Id. at TSDR 24-28 (’867 and ’875 Applications).

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 27 -
• Truist offers checking and savings accounts, credit cards, and mortgage
services, in addition to online access to information about investing and
retirement, and various financial matters, a service which falls within the
broadest reasonable construction of the services identified in the ’936
Registration as “Financial analysis and consultation.”43
Applicant does not dispute the quantity or quality of the Examining Attorney’s
evidence, which shows that financial institutions offering one or more of the services
that fall within the full scope of services identified in the ’867 and ’875 Applications
also offer services that fall within the full scope of the “financial analysis and
consultation” services identified in the ’936 Registration. Applicant instead argues
improperly that the Examining Attorney must show that “credit unions also offer
financial management and investment services in the fields of asset allocation and
management, cash management, estates, college funding, retirement, and insurance,
and that wealth management or growth platforms also offer credit union
services,” 4 TTABVUE 18 (’867 and ’875 Applications), that the Examining Attorney
has only shown that “banks sometimes offer both checking and savings services as
well as broad financial and accounting services,” id., and that the Examining
Attorney “relies on the provision of a wide range of financial services provided by
banks, rather than credit unions.” Id. (emphasis in bold here in italics in the
original). As discussed above, the identified financial and banking services are not
limited to services provided by credit unions to their members, and the evidence here
is sufficient to show the relatedness of multiple services identified in the ’867 and
’875 Applications and the “financial analysis and consultation” services identified in
43 Id. at TSDR 29-35 (’867 and ’875 Applications).

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 28 -
the ’936 Registration. The second DuPont factor supports a conclusion that confusion
is likely as to the marks in the ’867 and ’875 Applications.
The third DuPont factor considers the “similarity or dissimilarity of established,
likely-to-continue trade channels.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. The record shows that
the involved services are provided through the same channels of trade, the websites
or brick-and-mortar offices of financial institutions, to the same classes of consumers,
members of the general public who use banking services and who seek financial
advice. The third DuPont factor supports a conclusion that confusion is likely with
respect to the marks in the ’867 and ’875 Applications.
C. The Fourth DuPont Factor
The fourth DuPont factor considers “‘[t]he conditions under which and buyers to
whom sales are made, i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.’” Heil Co.,
2024 WL 4925901, at *34 (citing Stone Lion Cap. Partners, L.P. v. Lion Cap. LLP,
746 F.3d 1317, 1323-24 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361)). “[W]e
look to the language of the identifications to ascertain the . . . degree of care in
purchasing.” Id. (citing Stone Lion, 746 F.3d at 1323-24). “A heightened degree of care
when making a purchasing decision may tend to minimize likelihood of confusion,”
while “[c]onversely, impulse purchases of inexpensive items may tend to have the
opposite effect.” Id. (citations omitted).
Under the argument heading “Sophisticated Consumers Seeking
Specialized Goods Eliminate the Likelihood of Confusion,” 4 TTABVUE 21
(’867 and ’875 Applications) (emphasis supplied by Applicant), Applicant argues that

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 29 -
“[h]ere, Applicant’s Mark is not likely to cause confusion given the parties’ separate
channels of trade and their intended end-consumer, as well as the degree of care
likely to be exercised by relevant consumers.” Id. at 22 (’867 and ’875 Applications).
Applicant argues that “absent from the Examining Attorney’s finding of a likelihood
of confusion is any consideration for the conditions under which and the
sophistication of the buyers to whom sales of the relevant goods/services are made.”
Id. at 21-22 (’867 and ’875 Applications). According to Applicant,
[t]he Examiner does not dispute, but has failed to
appreciate, that even the least sophisticated consumers
will exercise greater care in choosing to participate as a
member in a credit union and in selecting an entity to
provide guidance in the fields of asset allocation, estates,
retirement, college funding, taxation, and accounting. This
factor likewise weighs against a finding of likelihood of
confusion, particularly when considered in connection with
the overall differences between the marks themselves as
well as the goods and services.
Id. at 22 (’867 and ’875 Applications).44
Applicant further argues that “[c]onsumers purchasing a specialty item exercise
a greater degree of care in distinguishing the source of the products and services,”
and that “even the least sophisticated consumers will exercise greater care in
choosing to participate as a member in a credit union and in selecting an entity to
44 As with the second and third DuPont factors, Applicant improperly limits its discussion of
the fourth DuPont factor to consumers of the “credit union services” identified in the ’867 and
’875 Applications and the “financial management and investment in the fields of asset
allocation and management, cash management, estates, college funding, retirement,
insurance and investment” and “actuary services” identified in the ’936 Registration.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 30 -
provide guidance in the fields of asset allocation, estates, retirement, college funding,
taxation, and accounting.” Id. at 23 (’867 and ’875 Applications) (citation omitted).45
The services identified in the applications include “banking services featuring
financing loans for consumers;” “financing loans for automobiles;” “providing personal
lines of credit;” “banking services featuring checking account services;” “banking
services provided via electronic device access allowing a consumer to use a telephone
number to conduct basic banking transactions;” “banking services featuring issuing
of credit cards;” “banking services provided via personal computer account access;”
“banking services featuring providing money market deposit accounts, and issuing
debit cards;” and “banking services for financing loans for a mortgage.”
The Federal Circuit and the Board have found, as a general matter, that some
consumers of banking services may exercise a higher degree of care and others may
not. See, e.g., Amalgamated Bank of N.Y. v. Amalgamated Trust & Sav. Bank, 842
F.2d 1270, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Banking is, we may take notice, unlike other
business. Instead of buyers, banking has customers who may be creditors of the bank
-- depositors -- or debtors to the bank -- borrowers and others to whom bank credit is
extended. Some of both categories one would expect to select their bank after long
and careful consideration. Others do not even know they will be customers of a bank
until they discover that they are, i.e., when paper they have signed, payable to
someone else, is assigned to a bank. We would suppose that bankers have to know
45 In that regard, we note again that the involved identified financial and banking services
are not limited to services provided by a credit union to its members.

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 31 -
the habits of their customers, and the application of such knowledge is implicit in the
agreement here involved. It would be strange for the customers of the banks to be
confused about whom they were dealing with, and their bankers not know
it.”); Lincoln Nat’l Corp. v. Anderson, Opp. No. 91192939, 2014 WL 879506, at *15
n.18 (TTAB 2014) (where relevant purchasers of banking, financial planning, and
investment services consisted of both ordinary and knowledgeable and sophisticated
consumers, “this factor certainly would not weigh significantly in applicant’s favor.
At most it is neutral in our overall likelihood of confusion determination based on all
of the relevant duPont factors”).
Against the backdrop of these cases and the recitations of services, we find that
not all consumers of the identified banking services are sophisticated or likely to
exercise a significant degree of care in purchasing. Applicant offers no evidence
showing that consumers of banking services involving auto, home, and personal
loans, checking accounts, on-line banking, and credit and debit cards, everyday
services that are used by millions of members of the general public, are likely to
exercise any particular care in purchasing and using those services. Where, as here,
the purchasers of the identified services may include both businesses and ordinary
consumers, “Board precedent requires the decision to be based on the least
sophisticated potential purchasers.” Stone Lion, 746 F.3d at 1325 (quotation and
quotation marks omitted). We find that the least sophisticated potential purchasers
of banking services involving auto, home, and personal loans, checking accounts, on-
line banking, and credit and debit cards are unlikely to exercise more than ordinary

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 32 -
care in using those services. The fourth DuPont factors is thus neutral in our analysis
of the likelihood of confusion.
D. The Absence of Evidence of Actual Confusion
The eighth DuPont factor considers “[t]he length of time during and conditions
under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.”
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. Generally, this factor is “not that important in ex parte
cases unless the applicant provides us with contextual evidence that allows us to
meaningfully assess the length of time and degree to which the applicant ’s and
registrant’s commercial activities would have provided an opportunity for confusion
to have manifested itself if it were likely.” Embiid, 2021 WL 2285576, at *19 (citing
In re Guild Mortg. Co., Ser. No. 86709944, 2020 WL 1639916, at *8 (TTAB 2020) (“our
analysis as to the second, third, and fourth du Pont factors, discussing the similarity
or dissimilarity of the services, channels of trade, and relevant consumers, is based,
as dictated by precedent from the Federal Circuit, on the identifications as set
forth in the application and the cited registration . . . [but] the eighth duPont factor,
by contrast . . . requires us to look at actual market conditions, to the extent there
is evidence of such conditions of record.”) (emphasis in original; citations omitted)).
In Guild Mortg., the applicant provided evidence of those “actual market
conditions” in the form of a declaration from a corporate executive establishing facts
regarding the applicant’s use of its mark, as well as evidence regarding the use of the
cited registered mark. Guild Mortg., 2020 WL 1639916, at *8-9. The record here is
devoid of such evidence. Applicant instead argues that

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 33 -
[t]he fact that the Parties have co-existed in the
marketplace for many years without any actual confusion
further demonstrates the absence of any likelihood of
confusion. Applicant has existed and used its marks since
1962 and the Cited Mark has been in use in commerce since
1997. That means that Applicant’s Mark and the Cited
Mark have co-existed in the marketplace for at least 35
years without any actual confusion between the marks.
4 TTABVUE 22-23 (’867 and ’875 Applications).
Applicant’s arguments are meritless. The dates of use claimed in the ’867 and ’875
Applications and in the ’936 Registration are not evidence of use of the involved
marks, cf. DowntownDC Bus. Improvement Dist. v. Clarke, Opp. No. 91275100, 2024
WL 4449409, at *8 n.75 (TTAB 2024), and neither is the argument of Applicant’s
attorney. Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla, 2025 WL 2953731, at *6 n.15 (citing Cai v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted)).
Moreover, “in this ex parte context, there has been no opportunity to hear from [the]
[r]egistrant about whether it is aware of any reported instances of confusion. We
therefore are getting only half the story.” Guild Mortg., 2020 WL 1639916, at *9
(citations omitted). The eighth DuPont factor is neutral in our analysis of the
likelihood of confusion.
E. Summary
The key first and second DuPont factors, and the third DuPont factor, support a
conclusion that confusion is likely in each case, while the fourth and eighth DuPont
factors are neutral in each case. The marks are more similar than dissimilar, the
involved financial services are related, and those services are offered through the
same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. Consumers with a general

Serial Nos. 98427867 and 98427875 (Consolidated)
- 34 -
recollection of the cited mark used in connection with the “Financial analysis and
consultation” services identified in the ’936 Registration who separately encounter
Applicant’s word mark and composite mark used in connection with the various
financial and banking services identified in the ’867 and ’875 Applications are likely
to believe, mistakenly, that those services have a common source.
Decision: The refusals to register under Section 2(d) are both affirmed.46
46 As noted above, we need not and do not reach the refusals that Applicant’s word mark in
the ’867 Application is primarily geographically descriptive and that the words
SOUTHWEST FINANCIAL must be disclaimed in the ’875 Application.