Legend IP Holdings Production, LLC

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: August 13, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Legend IP Holdings Production, LLC
_____
Serial No. 979149921
Serial No. 97914939
Serial No. 97914960
Serial No. 97914922
Serial No. 97914949
Serial No. 97914929
Serial No. 97914933
Serial No. 97914946
Serial No. 97914918
Serial No. 97914940
Serial No. 97914978
Serial No. 97914984
_____
Anthony M. Keats and Matthew E. Graham of Keats Gatien, LLP,
for Legend IP Holdings Production, LLC.
Cameron McBride, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106,
Mary Sparrow, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Lebow and Allard,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Allard, Administrative Trademark Judge:
1 These appeals have been consolidated. See discussion infra Section I.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 2 -
Legend IP Holdings Production, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark GODZILLA X KONG: THE NEW EMPIRE (in
standard characters) for a variety of goods and services (discussed in more detail
herein) identified in twelve applications.
In each of the twelve applications, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark, when used
on or in connection with the goods or services identified in the involved applications,
so resembles one or more GODZILLA or GODZILLA-formative marks, all registered
on the Principal Register for a variety of goods and services to the same entity, Toho
Co., Ltd. (“Toho Co.”), that Applicant’s GODZILLA X KONG: THE NEW EMPIRE
mark is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.
In each matter, Applicant, in an attempt to overcome the refusal under Section
2(d), submitted a “License and Consent Agreement” (referred to herein simply as “the
Agreement”).2
After each refusal was made final, Applicant appealed,3 and, in some instances,
requested reconsideration.4 In those matters where Applicant requested
2 See June 14, 2024 Response to Office Action at TSDR 8 in Ser. No. 97914992.
Citations to the prosecution file refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system and identify documents by title and date.
3 See, e.g., 1 TTABVUE in Ser. No. 97914918.
Citations to the record throughout the decision include references to TTABVUE, the Board’s
online docketing system. The number preceding “TTABVUE” corresponds to the docket entry
number; the number(s) following “TTABVUE” refer to the page number(s) of that particular
docket entry.
4 See, e.g., 1 TTABVUE in Ser. No. 97914992.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 3 -
reconsideration, the Board suspended each appeal and remanded them to the
Examining Attorney to consider the request.5 After the requests were denied, each
appeal resumed. Applicant then requested and was granted two extensions of time to
file its brief on the basis that it was negotiating a new consent agreement.6 Applicant,
however, did not file a new consent agreement.
Both Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs in support of each appeal.7
In each of its briefs, Applicant identifies what it characterizes as the sole issue on
appeal: “Whether the consent agreement between Applicant and Toho Co., Ltd., the
owner of the Cited Marks (‘Toho’), forms a valid consent agreement pursuant to
[TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE] TMEP § 1207.01(d)(viii) [(2026)
(“TMEP”)], such that confusion between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Marks is
unlikely.”8 There is no dispute as to the other DuPont factors; in fact, when the
Examining Attorney argued that the first, second and third factors weighed in favor
of a likelihood of confusion, Applicant did not dispute these arguments or even
address them. It simply sought to overcome the refusal with the Agreement.
5 See e.g., 2 TTABVUE in Ser. No. 97914992.
6 See e.g., 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 TTABVUE in Ser. No. 97914992.
7 See e.g., Applicant’s brief appears at 10 TTABVUE and the Examining Attorney’s brief
appears at 12 TTABVUE in Ser. No. 97914992.
Applicant attached to each of its briefs a copy of the Agreement, which was previously
properly made of record during examination. See e.g., 10 TTABVUE 9 in Ser. No. 97914992.
Attaching record evidence to the brief is unnecessary and is discouraged. In re Lorillard
Licensing Co., LLC, No. 76680117, 2011 TTAB LEXIS 206, at *4 (TTAB 2011) (discouraging
attaching evidence to briefs that has been previously made of record); In re Thor Tech, Inc.,
No. 78487208, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 88, at *3 n.3 (TTAB 2007) (attaching evidence from record
to briefs is duplicative and is unnecessary).
8 See e.g., 10 TTABVUE 5 in Ser. No. 97914992; 4 TTABVUE 5 in Ser. No. 97914918.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 4 -
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm each of the refusals.
I. Appeals Consolidated
The issue in each appeal is the same, i.e., how much evidentiary weight should be
afforded the Agreement given by the owner of the registrations that have been cited
as a bar to registration under Section 2(d). As with any Section 2(d) refusal, our
determination is based on an analysis of all of the probative evidence of record bearing
on the likelihood of confusion factors set out in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”). Consent agreements are analyzed
under the tenth DuPont factor, which examines the nature and extent of any
interaction or relationship between the parties in the market. DuPont, 476 F.2d at
1361.
Because the weight to be accorded the Agreement will be the same in each matter
and because the records of each application are largely the same, we consolidate the
twelve appeals and decide them in a single opinion. See, e.g., In re S. Malhotra & Co.
AG, No. 79194076, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 344, at *3 (TTAB 2018) (Board sua sponte
consolidated two appeals); see also TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF
PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 1214 (2026) (“When an applicant has filed an ex parte appeal
to the Board in two or more co-pending applications, and the cases involve common
issues of law or fact, the Board, … upon its own initiative, may order the consolidation
of the appeals for purposes of … final decision.”) and authorities cited therein. We
cite to the record in application Serial No. 97914992 unless otherwise indicated.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 5 -
II. Likelihood of Confusion
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark that
“[c]onsists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent
and Trademark Office … as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods
of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ….”15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d). As mentioned, our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis
of all of the probative evidence of record bearing on the likelihood of confusion factors.
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. 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).
Varying weights may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending on the evidence
presented. See Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2011); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[T]he various
evidentiary factors may play more or less weighty roles in any particular
determination.”). In every Section 2(d) case, two key factors are the similarity or
dissimilarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods or services. Herbko Int’l,
Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “each
case must be decided on its own facts and the differences are often subtle ones.”
Industrial Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 1199 (CCPA 1973).
The Examining Attorney and Applicant both focus their briefs on the probative
value of the Agreement, which, as mentioned, is reviewed under the tenth DuPont
factor, i.e., the one concerning the market interface between Applicant and
Registrant. Before evaluating the weight to accord the Agreement, we must first

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 6 -
address all the other relevant DuPont factors. In re Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla,
No. 90522364, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *6 (TTAB 2025). Because Applicant does
not dispute the first, second or third DuPont factors and did not address them in its
briefs on appeal and did not address them during examination, we offer only a brief
explanation of our conclusion as to each of them. In re Morinaga Nyugyo K. K., No.
86338392, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 448, at *3 (TTAB 2016).
When issuing the final office action in each application, the Examining Attorney
relied on multiple different GODZILLA and GODZILLA-formative marks, all
registered to Toho Co. We therefore focus our analysis on the most similar mark cited
by the Examining Attorney against each application. Because we ultimately find that
confusion is likely as to the mark of each involved application and the select cited
registration, we need not consider the other cited registered marks and whether
confusion is likely as to them. See In re Max Cap. Grp. Ltd., No. 77186166, 2010 TTAB
LEXIS 1, at *5 (TTAB 2010) (confining 2(d) analysis to one of two cited marks).
A. Similarity or Dissimilarity and Nature of the Goods or Services
We turn first to the second DuPont factor, which considers the similarity or
dissimilarity of the goods or services as they are identified in the involved
applications and cited registrations. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1306
(Fed. Cir. 2018); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous. Comput. Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942-
43 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because Applicant does not dispute the second DuPont factor as
to any of the refusals, we offer the following streamlined analysis of our findings using
a chart format, showing the pertinent goods or services in bold for convenience.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 7 -
It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established
for any item encompassed by the identification of goods or services within a particular
class in an application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Grp, Inc., 648
F.2d 1335, 1366 (CCPA 1981). Thus, the Examining Attorney need not prove that
each of the goods or services in each class of the involved application is the same as
or related to each of the goods or services in the cited registration. In re Gebhard, No.
78950320, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 155, at *4 (TTAB 2009).
Eleven out of the twelve applications identify goods or services that are identical
or legally identical to those of the cited registration. We begin with these.
1. Serial No. 97914992
Involved Application “Entertainment services in the nature of development,
creation, production, distribution, and post-production
of motion pictures; Film production; Multimedia
entertainment services in the nature of development,
production, and post-production services in the fields of
video and films; providing temporary use of Non-
downloadable videogames; providing temporary use of
Non-downloadable videogame software; Entertainment
services, namely, providing escape rooms,” in
International Class 41
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 72453249
Including, inter alia, “production of advertising
films,” in International Class 35
Here, Applicant’s “film production” services is broad enough to encompass all
types of films, including “production of advertising films” of the cited registration,
rendering these services legally identical. New Era Cap Co. v. Pro Era, LLC, No.
9 January 27, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914992.
Reg. No. 7245324 issued on December 19, 2023.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 8 -
91216455, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 199, at *39-40 (TTAB 2020) (“Caps” as identified in the
application is broad enough to encompass all types of caps, including “athletic caps”
identified in Opposer’s registration, rendering the parties’ goods in-part legally
identical.); In re Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc., No. 85627379, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65,
at *10 (TTAB 2015) (“Applicant’s broadly worded identification of ‘furniture’
necessarily encompasses Registrant’s narrowly identified ‘residential and commercial
furniture.’”).
2. Serial No. 97914939
Involved Application “Backpacks; Bags, namely, hand bags, canvas shopping
bags; Tote bags; Purses; Messenger bags; Fanny packs;
Luggage; Duffle bags; Wallets,” in International Class 18.
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 724532410
Including, inter alia, “Handbags; … small purses; …,”
in International Class 18.
Applicant’s “hand bags” and Registrant’s “handbags” are identical. And
Applicant’s identified “purses” is broad enough to include Registrant’s identified
“small purses,” rendering these goods legally identical. New Era Cap, 2020 TTAB
LEXIS 199, at *39-40; Hughes Furniture, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10.
3. Serial No. 97914960
Involved Application Including, inter alia, “Action figures[,]” in
International Class 28
10 January 27, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914939.
For the details of the cited registration, see n.9.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 9 -
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 185840311
Including, inter alia, “plastic action figures,” in
International 28
Applicant’s “Action figures” is broad enough to encompass Registrant’s “plastic
action figures,” and, as a result, Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are legally
identical. New Era Cap, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 199, at *39-40; Hughes Furniture, 2015
TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10.
4. Serial No. 97914922
Involved Application Including, inter alia, “Motion pictures being films
about action, adventure, comedy, drama, science
fiction, and fantasy[,]” in International Class 9
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 185840312
Including, inter alia, “cinematographic and motion
picture films featuring entertainment[,]” in
International Class 9
The cited registration identifies “cinematographic and motion picture films
featuring entertainment.” Because “entertainment” is defined as “something
diverting or engaging[,]”13 we find that the cited registration’s identified
11 January 27, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914960.
Reg. No. 1858403, issued on October 18, 1994; renewed. The mark is registered in “typeset”
form, which is the legal equivalent of standard character format. Prior to November 2, 2003,
“standard character” drawings were known as “typed” or “typeset” drawings. See In re Viterra
Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A typeset mark is the legal equivalent of a
standard character mark. TMEP § 807.03(i).
12 January 27, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914922.
For the details about the cited registration, see n.11.
13 MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/entertainment?src=search-dict-hed, accessed on July 29, 2026. In re
Jimenez, No. 97551823, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 441, at *17 n.14 (TTAB 2025) (Board took judicial
notice of the dictionary definition of, for example, the word “jasper”).

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 10 -
“cinematographic and motion picture films featuring entertainment” broad enough to
encompass Applicant’s more narrowly described “Motion pictures being films about
action, adventure, comedy, drama, science fiction, and fantasy[.]” Accordingly, these
goods are legally identical. New Era Cap, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 199, at *39-40; Hughes
Furniture, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10.
5. Serial No. 97914949
Involved Application “Tops and bottoms as clothing; T-shirts; Shirts; Tank
tops; Sweatshirts; Hooded sweatshirts; Hoodies; Pants;
Shorts; Dresses; Skirts; Underwear; Sleepwear; Hats;
Headwear; Shoes; Socks; Footwear; Costumes as
clothing, namely, Halloween costumes, cosplay
costumes,” in International Class 25
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 236048914
Including, inter alia, “clothing and footwear, namely,
short sleeve T-shirts[,]” in International Class 25
Applicant’s “T-shirts” is broad enough to encompass Registrant’s “short sleeve T-
shirts”; accordingly, these goods are legally identical. New Era Cap, 2020 TTAB
LEXIS 199, at *39-40; Hughes Furniture, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10.
6. Serial No. 97914929
Involved Application “Enamel jewelry pins; Key chains; Jewelry,” in
International Class 14
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 724532415
Including, inter alia, “Key chains; … jewellery (sic)[,]”
in International Class 14
14 January 27, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914949.
Reg. No. 2360489 issued on June 20, 2000; renewed. The mark is registered in typeset form,
which is the legal equivalent of standard character format. See discussion, supra, n.11.
15 January 27, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914929.
For the details about the cited registration, see n.9.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 11 -
Applicant’s “key chains” and “jewelry” are identical to Registrant’s “Key chains”
and “jewellery”.
7. Serial No. 97914933
Involved Application Including, inter alia, “Printed comic books[,]” in
International Class 16
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 116185816
“Comic Books,” in International Class 16.
Registrant’s “comic books” is broad enough to encompass Applicant’s more
narrowly identified “printed comic books,” and, as a result, the goods are legally
identical. New Era Cap, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 199, at *39-40; Hughes Furniture, 2015
TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10.
8. Serial No. 97914946
Involved Application Including, inter alia, “Bed sheets; … Lap blankets; …
Wall hangings of textile[,]” in International Class 24
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 724532417
Including, inter alia, “bed sheets; … lap blankets; …
wall hangings of textile[,]” in International Class 24
Applicant’s identified “bed sheets,” “lap blankets,” and “wall hangings of textile”
are identical to Registrant’s identified “bed sheets,” “lap blankets,” and “wall
hangings of textiles.”
16 January 27, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914933.
Reg. No. 1161858, issued July 21, 1981; renewed. The mark is registered in typeset form,
which is the legal equivalent of standard character format. See discussion, supra, n.11.
17 January 27, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914946.
For details about the cited registration, see n.9.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 12 -
9. Serial No. 97914940
Involved Application “Drinkware; Cups; Mugs; Lunch boxes,” in
International Class 21
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 724532418
Including, inter alia, “tableware, except forks, knives
and spoon, namely, tea services, dishes, plates, cups,
drinking glasses, soup bowls, drinking straws, napkin
holders, chopsticks, cruets[,]” in International Class 21
Applicant’s “cups” are identical to Registrant’s “cups”. And Applicant’s
“drinkware” is broad enough to encompass Registrant’s more narrowly identified
“drinking glasses.” Accordingly, these goods are legally identical. New Era Cap, 2020
TTAB LEXIS 199, at *39-40; Hughes Furniture, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10.
10. Serial No. 97914978
Involved Application “Fruit-based snack food; Nut and dried fruit- based
snack bars; Dehydrated fruit snacks; Snack mix
consisting of dehydrated fruit and processed nuts; Food
package combinations consisting primarily of
cheese, meat, processed vegetables, and/or
processed fruit,” in International Class 29
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 724532419
Identifying, inter alia, “processed meat products;
processed vegetables and fruits[,]” in International
Class 29.
Applicant’s identified “[f]ood package combinations consisting primarily of cheese,
meat, processed vegetables, and/or processed fruit” encompasses and is legally
identical in-part to Registrant’s “processed meat products,” and “processed vegetables
and fruits.” And Registrant’s “processed …. fruits” is broad enough to encompass
18 December 1, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914940.
For details about the cited registration, see n.9.
19 December 1, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914978.
For details about the cited registration, see n.9.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 13 -
Applicant’s more narrowly defined “[f]ruit-based snack food,” and, as a result, they
are legally identical. New Era Cap, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 199, at *39-40; Hughes
Furniture, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10.
11. Serial No. 97914984
Involved Application “Breakfast cereal; Cereal-based snack food; Cookies;
Crackers; Candy; Candy bars; Food package
combinations consisting primarily of bread, crackers
and/or cookies,” in International Class 30
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 724532420
Including, inter alia, “cereal preparations, namely,
breakfast cereals; … confectionery, namely, frozen
confectionery, yogurt covered pretzels, candy, cakes,
pies, chewing gum, cookies, cinnamon sugar covered
corn chips[,]” in International Class 30
Applicant’s “[b]reakfast cereal,” “candy,” and “[c]ookies” are identical to
Registrant’s “cereal preparations, namely breakfast cereals,” “candy,” and “cookies,”
respectively.
12. Serial No. 97914918
This application does not have identical goods. Nevertheless, it is well settled that
Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods and services need not be identical or even
competitive in order to find that they are related for purposes of a likelihood of
confusion analysis. 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). Rather,
the goods or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the
20 December 1, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914984.
For details about the cited registration, see n.9.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 14 -
mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.” See Coach Serv. v. Triumph
Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven, Inc. v.
Wechsler, No. 91117739, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 58, at *28-29 (TTAB 2007)). Evidence of
relatedness may include, for example, copies of prior use-based registrations of the
same mark for both applicant’s goods and the goods listed in the cited registration.
See, e.g., In re Ox Paperboard, LLC, No. 87847482, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 266, at *15-16
(TTAB 2020).
The identification of goods in Application Serial No. 97914918 is set out below
together with the pertinent identification of the cited registration:
Involved Application “Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix
containing protein and vitamins; Protein for use as a
nutritional supplement in various powdered and ready-
to-drink beverages,” in International Class 5
Cited Registration
GODZILLA
Reg. No. 724532421
Including, inter alia, “cosmetics; cosmetic preparations,
namely, hair care preparations; cosmetic sunscreen
preparations; … perfumes[,]” in International Class 3
The record shows that Applicant’s identified goods, i.e., “powdered nutritional
supplement drink mix containing protein and vitamins,” and Registrant’s identified
goods, such as cosmetics, are the type of goods that are commonly registered under
the same mark by the same registrant, as shown by the following use-based
registrations of record:
21 December 1, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 2 in Ser. No. 97914918.
For details about the cited registration, see n.9.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 15 -
• DR. LORCY (Reg. No. 677560) identifies both “Powdered nutritional
supplement drink mix” (Class 3) and both “cosmetics” and “cosmetics in
general, including perfumes” (Class 5);22
• CPTG CERTIFIED PURE TESTED GRADE (Reg. No. 6598484) identifies both
“Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix” (Class 5) and “cosmetics” (Class
3);23
• PARTNER.CO (Reg. No. 7573349) identifies both “cosmetics and cosmetic
preparations” (Class 3) and “powdered nutritional supplement drink mix”
(Class 5);24
• HIR+MU (Reg. No. 6805904) identifies both “cosmetic preparations,” “cosmetic
preparations for the hair and scalp,” and “Cosmetics in general, including
perfumes” (Class 3) and “Protein supplements” and “Powdered nutritional
supplement drink mix” (Class 5);25
• DERMABIOTICS (Reg. No. 7134003) identifies both “Cosmetics” (Class 3) and
“Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix” (Class 5);26 and
• GUNDRY MD identifies various cosmetics, including “Cosmetic hand creams;
Cosmetic creams; Cosmetic creams for skin care; Cosmetic nourishing creams;
Cosmetic skin fresheners; Cosmetics and make up” (Class 3) and “Powdered
nutritional supplement drink mix” (Class 5).27
Use-based, third-party registrations, although not evidence that the marks shown
therein are in use or that the public is familiar with them, nonetheless are probative
to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods listed therein are of a kind that
may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See e.g., In re C.H. Hanson
Co., 2015 TTAB LEXIS 357, at *17 (TTAB 2015) (Although five third-party
22 May 12, 2025 Office Action at 13-14.
23 May 12, 2025 Office Action at 15-16.
24 May 12, 2025 Office Action at 17-18.
25 May 12, 2025 Office Action at 19-22.
26 May 12, 2025 Office Action at 23-24.
27 May 12, 2025 Office Action at 28-29.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 16 -
registrations were “limited in number,” “they nonetheless have probative value to the
extent they serve to suggest that the identified goods are of a kind which are produced
or marketed by a single source under a single mark.”); Joel Gott Wines LLC v.
Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., No. 91197659, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 314, at *27-28 (TTAB 2013)
(finding that third-party registrations covering both wine and water were probative
of the relatedness of those beverages). Thus, the above-cited third party registrations
are probative of the issue of relatedness.
Two third-party website printouts of record also show that those entities offer
cosmetics of the type identified by the Registrant, on the one hand, and nutritional
supplement beverages or mixes, the goods identified by Applicant, on the other hand,
emanate from the same source under the same mark:
• Beauty Pie (BeautyPie.com) offers both cosmetics and powdered supplements
under the BEAUTY PIE mark;28 and
• Goop (Goop.com) offers both cosmetics and supplements under the GOOP
mark.29
Based on this evidence of record, we find that these third-party use-based
registrations, considered in conjunction with the Internet evidence, support the
conclusion that the goods are related.
For these reasons, we find that the respective goods of the Application and
discussed cited registrations are related. The second DuPont factor therefore weighs
28 May 12, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 30-39.
29 May 12, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 40-48.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 17 -
in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark (in Serial No.
97914918 or No. 12) and the mark in the cited registration.
B. Similarity or Dissimilarity of Established, Likely-to-Continue Trade
Channels
We next consider the third DuPont factor, “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity of
established, likely-to-continue trade channels.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. As with
the comparison of the goods, we must make our determination based on the
identifications of the involved applications and cited registrations. See In re Detroit
Athletic, 903 F.3d at 1308; Octocom Sys, 918 F.2d at 942-43.
1. Identical and Legally Identical Goods (Application Nos. 1-11)
We consider now the first eleven applications discussed above, which contain
identifications that include goods or services that are identical or legally identical to
those of the cited registration.30
Because the goods in those applications and the discussed cited registrations are
identical or legally identical, and because none of them have restrictions as to
channels of trade or classes of consumers, Applicant’s and Registrant’s identical and
legally identical goods and services are presumed to travel in the same channels of
trade to the same class of purchasers. See In re Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1362 (finding
Board entitled to rely on legal presumption of channels of trade and classes of
consumers in determining likelihood of confusion).
30 See discussion supra Section II(A)(1)-(11).

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 18 -
Thus, as to these eleven involved applications, the third DuPont factor weighs
heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
2. Related Goods (Application No. 12)
Considering the last application, number 12 in our list,31 we note that this
application and the discussed cited registration also do not contain any restrictions
as to trade channels. Therefore, we presume that both Applicant’s and Registrant’s
identified goods move through all channels of trade normal for such goods. See In re
FCA US LLC, No. 85650654, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 116, at *25 (TTAB 2018), aff’d mem.,
778 F. App’x 962 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
With this in mind, we find that the record establishes that the trade channels
overlap. The same website evidence demonstrating that the goods identified by both
Applicant and Registrant are related under the second DuPont factor, i.e., the
BeautyPie and Goop websites, also support a find that such goods move in the same
channels of trade, such as cosmetic retailers, and that they are sold to the same
classes of consumers, namely, members of the general public. See, e.g., In re Anderson,
No. 76511652, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 42, at *30 (TTAB 2012);
Based on this evidence, we find that the channels of trade for the “[p]owdered
nutritional supplement drink mix containing protein and vitamins” identified in
Applicant’s involved application and “cosmetics” identified in the cited registration
overlap and that this overlap in trade channels supports a finding, under the third
DuPont factor, that a likelihood of confusion exists. Again, Applicant does not dispute
31 See discussion supra Section II(A)(12).

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 19 -
this evidence or even address this factor in its brief, nor did it address it during
examination.
The third DuPont factor weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
C. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
Under the first DuPont factor, we consider the similarity or dissimilarity of
Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks in their entireties, considering their appearance,
sound, meaning and commercial impression. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361; see also In re
Detroit Athletic, 903 F.3d at 1303. “Similarity in any one of these elements may be
sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, No.
87075988, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Davia, No.
85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, at *3-4 (TTAB 2018)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F.
App’x 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “[S]imilarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of
degree.” In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Coors
Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
That the goods are identical in-part to those in the discussed cited registrations
reduces the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion as to those applications. In re Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1363;
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
“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

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 20 -
between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting Coach Servs., 668 F.3d at 1368).
Because the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks is determined based on the
marks in their entireties, our analysis cannot be predicated on dissecting the marks
into their various components. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir.
1985); see also Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 1007 (CCPA
1981) (“It is axiomatic that a mark should not be dissected and considered piecemeal;
rather, it must be considered as a whole in determining likelihood of confusion.”).
Nonetheless, 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 Nat’l Data,
753 F.2d at 1059. In some circumstances, “one feature of a mark may be more
significant than another, and it is not improper to give more weight to this dominant
feature in determining the commercial impression created by the mark.” Leading
Jewelers Guild, Inc. v. LJOW Holdings, LLC, No. 91160856, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 35,
at *14 (TTAB 2007). That is, more or less weight may be given to a particular feature
of a mark provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in
their entireties. Nat’l Data, 753 F.2d at 1058.
Recall that Applicant seeks to register GODZILLA X KONG: THE NEW EMPIRE,
while the cited mark is GODZILLA. Both are in standard character format.
The marks share the same the term GODZILLA. Because Applicant’s and
Registrant’s marks are used with identical and legally identical goods and services in

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 21 -
eleven out of twelve of the involved applications, and with related goods in the twelfth
application, the shared term GODZILLA will have the same meaning and engender
similar commercial impressions in each mark.
In short, Applicant has merely added extra words to the registered GODZILLA
mark. While there is no rule that marks are automatically considered similar where
one encompasses the entirety of another, the fact that Registrant’s mark is subsumed
in its entirety by Applicant’s mark increases the similarity between them. See, e.g.,
In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applicant’s mark ML
is similar to registrant’s mark ML MARK LEES); DowntownDC Bus. Improvement
Dist. v. Clarke, No. 91275100, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *67-68 (TTAB 2024)
(DOWNTOWNDC DISTRICT OF FASHION similar to DISTRICT OF FASHION);
Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Dev., No. 92063808, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 347, at *20
(TTAB 2019) (ROAD WARRIOR and WARRIOR similar).
Based on the foregoing discussion, we find the marks are highly similar, and, as a
result, the first factor weighs heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion. Naterra
Int’l, Inc. v. Bensalem, 92 F.4th 1113, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (when marks are highly
similar, the first factor should weigh “heavily” in the confusion analysis).
D. Market Interface and the Agreement
Finally, we address the tenth DuPont factor: the market interface between
Applicant and Registrant, which in this case requires an evaluation of the Agreement.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 22 -
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. Applicant argues that its Agreement is entitled to
“substantial weight.”32
Consent agreements are evidence that “may or may not tip the scales in favor of
registrability, depending upon the entirety of the evidence.” In re Mastic Inc., 829
F.2d 1114, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[D]epending on the circumstances,” consent
agreements “may … carry great weight” since the parties to the agreement are in a
“better position to know the real life situation than bureaucrats or judges.” Bongrain
Int’l (Am.) Corp. v. Delice de France, Inc., 811 F.2d 1479, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
“However, ‘there is no per se rule that a consent, whatever its terms, will always tip
the balance to finding no likelihood of confusion, and it therefore follows that the
content of each agreement must be examined.’” In re Ye Mystic Krewe, 2025 TTAB
LEXIS 412, at *13 (quoting In re Bay State Brewing Co., No. 85826258, 2016 TTAB
LEXIS 46, at *16 (TTAB 2016)). When considering the probative value of a consent
agreement, the Federal Circuit guidance requires consideration of several non-
exclusive and non-exhaustive factors:
(1) Whether the consent shows an agreement between both
parties;
(2) Whether the agreement includes a clear indication that
the goods and/or services travel in separate trade channels;
(3) Whether the parties agree to restrict their fields of use;
(4) Whether the parties will make efforts to prevent
confusion, and cooperate and take steps to avoid any
confusion that may arise in the future; and
32 10 TTABVUE 6.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 23 -
(5) Whether the marks have been used for a period of time
without evidence of actual confusion.
In re Ye Mystic Krewe, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *14-15 (citing In re Four Seasons
Hotels Ltd., 987 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Mastic Inc., 829 F.2d at
1117-18). See also In re Dare Foods Inc., No. 88758625, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 92, at *14
(TTAB 2022). At bottom, we “must look at all of the surrounding circumstances, as in
DuPont, to determine if the consent reflects the reality of no likelihood of confusion
in the marketplace, or if the parties struck a bargain that may be beneficial to their
own interests, regardless of confusion to the public.” In re Mastic Inc., 829 F.2d at
1116-17.
As mentioned, Applicant, in its brief, argues that the Agreement “should be given
great weight[.]”33 The Examining Attorney, on the other hand, argues that the
agreement is a “naked consent” and is insufficient to overcome a likelihood of
confusion refusal because it “neither (1) sets forth reasons why the parties believe
there is no likelihood of confusion, nor (2) describes the arrangements undertaken by
the parties to avoid confusing the public.”34
The text of the Agreement, which is relatively short, reads in full:
TOHO CO., LTD and its affiliates (collectively,
“[Registrant]”), is the owner of certain intellectual property
rights in the Gojira character (a/k/a Godzilla) that has
appeared in motion pictures produced by Toho, including a
number of GODZILLA-formative trademarks which are
the subject of trademark registrations in the United States
33 10 TTABVUE 6.
34 12 TTABVUE 13.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 24 -
and numerous countries throughout the world (collectively,
the “[Registrant’s IP]).
[Registrant] hereby confirms that Legendary Pictures
Productions, LLC (“Legendary”) is a licensee of
[Registrant] and that [Applicant] enjoys the right to
develop, produce and exploit live-action motion pictures
based upon the [Registrant’s IP] pursuant to and as set
forth in a Motion Picture License Agreement entered into
by and between [Registrant] and Legendary (the
“Agreement”).
In accordance with the rights granted under the
Agreement, [Applicant] produced the motion picture
entitled “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” (the
“Picture”), and Legendary’s affiliate Legend IP Holdings
Production, LLC (“[Applicant]”) is seeking to register
various trademarks comprising the title of the Picture
(collectively, the “Trademarks”). [Registrant] hereby
confirms that, pursuant to the Agreement, [Applicant] is
authorized to seek registration of the Trademarks
incorporating [Registrant’s IP] in connection with the
exploitation of the Picture. For the sake of clarity, pursuant
to the Agreement, [Registrant] shall retain ownership of
the Godzilla character and the [Registrant’s IP], and
Legendary and Applicant shall hold the Trademarks in
trust for [Registrant].35
All its terms are contained on approximately one-half page, while the signature
blocks take up the remainder of the page. While there is no per se rule that a short
agreement will fail, its brevity suggests, at best, a general agreement between the
parties, not a detailed one. “[T]he more information that is in the consent agreement
as to why the parties believe confusion to be unlikely, and the more evidentiary
support for such conclusions in the facts of record or in the way of undertakings by
the parties, the more we can assume that the consent is based on a reasoned
35 June 14, 2024 Response to Office Action at TSDR 8 in Ser. No. 97914992.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 25 -
assessment of the marketplace, and consequently the more weight the consent will
be accorded.” In re Donnay Int’l, SA, No. 74160268, 1994 TTAB LEXIS 21, at *9
(TTAB 1994).
Although the Agreement is styled as a License Agreement under which Applicant
holds the applied-for marks “in trust for” Toho, it remains subject to the same
analytical framework applicable to consent agreements under the tenth DuPont
factor. In re Four Seasons Hotels, 987 F.2d at 1567; In re Ye Mystic Krewe of
Gasparilla, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *14-15. Even where a consent is accompanied
by a licensing relationship, the Board examines whether the agreement contains the
type of marketplace details and safeguards that demonstrate a reasoned assessment
that confusion is unlikely. Cf. In re Wacker Neuson SE, No. 79060553, 2010 TTAB
LEXIS 440, at *26 (TTAB 2010) (thin consent viable where the parties were related
and the goods under both marks were manufactured and sold by the applicant). The
present agreement lacks those details.
We acknowledge that the Agreement states that Applicant “is authorized to seek
registration of the Trademarks incorporating [Registrant’s IP] in connection with the
exploitation of the Picture.”36 Although “Trademarks” is not defined, we assume for
purposes of our analysis that it means the marks of the involved applications
inasmuch as there is no dispute about this.
Considering the Agreement in light of the five factors listed above, we find the
first factor is met. That is, the Agreement shows an agreement between both
36 June 14, 2024 Response to Office Action at TSDR 8 in Ser. No. 97914992.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 26 -
Applicant and Registrant, and, indeed, is signed by both of them. The fact that the
Agreement is also signed by Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC, Toho Co.’s
licensee, and an affiliate of Applicant’s, does not impact our analysis for this purpose.
Considering the remaining factors, however, we find that they are not met by the
Agreement and, as a result, we find that the Agreement entered into here by
Applicant and Registrant is a “naked” consent. There are simply no undertakings of
record between Applicant and Registrant which impact the likelihood of confusion
analysis. This Agreement is too bare and conclusory for us to conclude that the marks
can coexist without a likelihood of confusion.
Specifically, Applicant and Registrant do not explain or even address how their
respective goods and/or services travel, or will travel, in separate trade channels.
Applicant did not submit any evidence showing the established trade channels or any
evidence that that the trade channels will not overlap. “In the absence of evidence
with respect to [Applicant’s and Registrant’s] specific channels of trade …, it is
reasonable to conclude that they are the same as those generally used in the trade.”
In re Mastic Inc., 829 F.2d at 1118. Here, the only evidence or argument of record
with respect to trade channels is that submitted by the Examining Attorney, showing
that, with regard to Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods that are identical or legally
identical (as is the case with eleven of the twelve involved applications), the trade
channels are presumed to be the same.37 With regard to the one involved application
37 See discussion supra Section II(A)(1)-(11).

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 27 -
where Applicant’s goods were found to be related to those of the Registrant, we found
that the channels of trade overlap.38
Nor do Applicant and Registrant agree to restrict their fields of use, a restriction
that is considered under the third factor. Moreover, neither party identifies in the
Agreement any efforts that they must take to prevent confusion or to avoid any
confusion that may arise in the future, which is considered under the fourth factor.
Finally, there is no evidence regarding how long Applicant and Registrant have
simultaneously used their marks in the United States, if at all, and if so, how long
the marks have been concurrently used without evidence of actual confusion, points
relevant to the fifth factor. There may be a logical explanation of this, however,
because there is no evidence Applicant is using its mark in commerce. Here, Applicant
filed each of its applications on an intent to use basis and no amendments to allege
use have been filed, nor does Applicant argue that the marks have coexisted in the
marketplace for any length of time. Along these lines, we note that the Agreement
consents solely to registration of the marks of the involved applications but does not
separately consent to their use.
We are not persuaded by Applicant’s argument that
there can be no consumer confusion between Applicant’s
mark and the Cited Marks because Applicant is merely
holding the Applied-for mark “in trust for Toho” (the owner
of the Cited Marks). As such, Toho is the source of both
Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Marks, while the
agreement authorizes Applicant to hold Applicant’s Mark
in trust for Toho while Applicant exploits the live-action
“GODZILLA” motion pictures per the terms of the parties’
38 See discussion supra Section II(A)(12).

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 28 -
separate and confidential “Motion Picture License
Agreement.”39
Because Applicant seeks to register the marks, it would be considered the source of
its identified goods and services. To eliminate any confusion as to source, one simple
solution would have been for Registrant to have filed the applications in its own
name, which would have resulted in its being identified as the registrant, rather than
relying on Applicant to hold them “in trust for Toho.”
In short, the Agreement appears to simply to be an arrangement between the
parties solely as to registration with no regard to whether it reflects the realities of
no likelihood of confusion if and when both marks are concurrently used in the
marketplace. While we give some weight to the existence of the Agreement and its
express authorization by Applicant “to seek registration of the Trademarks
incorporating [Registrant’s IP] in connection with the exploitation of the Picture,” we
find that the Agreement as a whole suffers multiple failings such that this factor
“weighs only slightly against a conclusion of likely confusion.” In re Ye Mystic Krewe,
2025 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *26-27.
E. Balancing the DuPont Factors
Having carefully considered all of the evidence made of record, as well as all of the
arguments related thereto, we now turn to the task of weighing the DuPont factors
for which there has been evidence and argument. In re Charger Ventures LLC, 64
F.4th 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
39 10 TTABVUE 7.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 29 -
We turn first to those eleven involved applications that identify goods and services
that are identical or legally identical to those of the cited registrations (Ser. Nos.
97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914940, 97914978, and 97914984). Here, the second and third DuPont
factors weigh heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
With regard to the twelfth involved application (Ser. No. 97914918), the involved
application was found to identify goods related to those identified in the cited
registration, and their channels of trade and classes of consumers were found to
overlap. In this case, the second and third DuPont factors weigh in favor of a
likelihood of confusion.
Turning to the first DuPont factor, the marks are highly similar due to the shared
term GODZILLA, which constitutes the entirety of the cited mark and the first term
of the mark of each of the involved applications. As a result, the first DuPont factor
weighs heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
For the reasons discussed above, the Agreement, which we consider under the
tenth DuPont factor, is of limited probative value.
Because the first, second and third DuPont factors outweigh the tenth factor in
all instances, we conclude that confusion is likely as to each of the involved
applications.

Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929, 97914933,
97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, 97914984
- 30 -
Decision
The refusal to register each mark of each of the twelve involved applications
(Serial Nos. 97914992, 97914939, 97914960, 97914922, 97914949, 97914929,
97914933, 97914946, 97914918, 97914940, 97914978, and 97914984) is affirmed.