Kayed Lafi

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: June 30, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Kayed Lafi
_____
Serial No. 98191310
_____
Augusto Perera of Augusto Perera P.A., for Kayed Lafi,
Hyun-Jung Oh, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 129,
Pamela Y. Willis, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Heasley, and O’Connor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Kayed Lafi, seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
composite mark

Serial No. 98191310
- 2 -
(“PRO” disclaimed) for “nutritional supplements” in International Class 5.1
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark, as used in
connection with these goods, so resembles the registered composite mark
(with “GLOBAL NUTRITION” disclaimed) for “nutritional supplements; protein
supplement, namely, whey protein isolate,” in International Class 5, as to be likely to
cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.2
1 Application Serial No. 98191310 was filed on September 21, 2023, based on a declared
intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1051(b). According to the Application, “The English translation of GALLO in the mark is
rooster. The mark consists of a depiction of a rooster’s head below [sic] the word GALLO’S in
styled form further having below the word ELITE in block letters and the phrase PERFORM
LIKE A PRO below also in stylized form, further having to each side a depiction of a lighting
[sic] rod.” Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
Citations to the prosecution file refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system and identify the documents by title, date, and page in the
downloadable .pdf version. Citations to the briefs and other materials in the appeal record
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE online docket system.
2 Registration No. 4844031, issued on the Principal Register on November 3, 2015. The mark
consists of “the design of a world globe in blue and white with the wording ‘GALLO’ in red
outlined in black and ‘GLOBAL NUTRITION’ in black appearing across the globe. The
color(s) red, blue, black and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark.” The registration
has been renewed.

Serial No. 98191310
- 3 -
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed. We affirm the refusal to
register.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act provides that a mark may be refused
registration if it:
[c]onsists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in
the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used
in the United States by another and not abandoned, 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).
To determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion between marks under
Section 2(d), we analyze the evidence and arguments under the factors set forth in In
re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (the “DuPont
factors”), cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138, 135 (2015).
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and the similarities between the goods. Bullshine Distillery LLC
v. Sazerac Brands, LLC, 130 F.4th 1025, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2025). “While the Board is
required to consider each DuPont factor for which it has evidence, the Board ‘may
focus its analysis on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and
relatedness of the goods.’ Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC, 826
F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Dixie Restaurants, 105 F.3d [1405,] 1407 [(Fed.
Cir. 1997)] (‘We see no error in the [B]oard’s decision to focus on the DuPont factors

Serial No. 98191310
- 4 -
it deemed dispositive.’).” Stratus Networks v. UBTA-UBET Commc’ns. Inc., 995 F.3d
994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
A. Identity of the Goods
The second DuPont factor concerns the “similarity or dissimilarity and nature of
the goods or services as described in an application or registration….” DuPont, 476
F.2d at 1361. “The relevant inquiry in an ex parte proceeding focuses on the goods
and services described in the application and registration.” In re Charger Ventures
LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
As the Examining Attorney correctly notes, the involved Application and
Registration both identify “nutritional supplements.”3 Applicant acknowledges that
this is a key consideration,4 but does not controvert this identity of goods. “In view of
the identity of the recited [goods], there is no need for us to further consider the
relatedness of the goods.” In re FabFitFun, Inc., No. 86847381, 2018 WL 4043156, *2
(TTAB 2018).
Given this identity of goods, it is further presumed under the third DuPont factor
that the respective nutritional supplements will travel in the same channels of trade
to the same classes of consumers—members of the general public seeking to
supplement their nutritional levels. Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]t
is well established that, absent restrictions in the application and registration,
3 Examining Attorney’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 8.
4 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 3.

Serial No. 98191310
- 5 -
[identical] goods and services are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to
the same class of purchasers.”).
Accordingly, the second DuPont factor, and by presumption, the third, weigh
heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
B. Similarity of the Marks
Under the first DuPont factor, we determine the similarity or dissimilarity of
Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks in their entireties, taking into account their
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. DuPont, 476 F.2d at
1361. “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks
confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, No. 87075988, 2018 WL 2734893,
*5 (TTAB 2018) aff’d 777 Fed. Appx. 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing In re Davia, No.
85497617, 2014 WL 2531200, *2 (TTAB 2014)); Cecile Gagnon Co. v. Bourjois, Inc.,
223 F.2d 731, 733 (CCPA 1955) (“And with respect to sound, meaning, and
appearance, substantial identity between the marks in any one or more of such
attributes is, in of itself, fatal to the registration of his mark by an applicant.”).
The respective marks, once again, are Registrant’s
and Applicant’s .

Serial No. 98191310
- 6 -
The literal portions of the marks are GALLO GLOBAL NUTRITION, with “GLOBAL
NUTRITION” disclaimed, and GALLO’S ELITE PERFORM LIKE A PRO, with
“PRO” disclaimed.
We agree with the Examining Attorney that the marks, taken as a whole, are
similar. The Examining Attorney correctly observes that “The terms GALLO and
GALLO’S are most significant in both parties’ marks and appear first.”5 See, e.g.,
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (“[U]pon encountering each mark, consumers must first notice this identical
lead word.”); “Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods. Inc., [1988 WL 252340, *3] (TTAB
1988) (‘it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon
the mind of a purchaser and remembered’).” In re Dare Foods Inc., No. 88758625,
2022 WL 970319, *6 (TTAB 2022).6
Applicant concedes as much, stating:
Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or
syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v.
Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372
… (Fed. Cir. 2005). Purchasers in general are inclined to focus on the first
word or portion in a trademark.7
Applicant nonetheless argues that the marks differ in sight and sound, as well as
connotation and commercial impression. To begin with, Applicant argues,
“applicant’s mark begins with ‘GALLO’S,’ which introduces a possessive form that is
5 Examining Attorney’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 4.
6 In addition, the rooster design above the word GALLO’S calls attention to and reinforces
that word because the translation of GALLO is rooster.
7 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 98191310
- 7 -
not present in the cited mark. This distinction in the leading word alters the overall
impression of the marks.”8 We beg to differ. See, e.g., Southwestern Mgmt., Inc. v.
Ocinomled, Ltd., No. 94002242, 2015 WL 4464550, *17 (TTAB 2015) (“No meaningful
distinction arises from the possessive form of Applicant’s mark.”); In re Binion, No.
76590702, 2009 WL 5194992, *3 (TTAB 2009) (noting that “[t]he absence of the
possessive form in applicant’s mark ... has little, if any, significance for consumers in
distinguishing it from the cited mark”); In re Curtice-Burns, Inc., No. 73393279, 1986
WL 83754, *2 (TTAB 1986) (finding the marks McKENZIE’S and McKENZIE
“virtually identical in commercial impression”).
The marks’ remaining words do little to distinguish them. Applicant urges that:
[T]he phrase “ELITE PERFORM LIKE A PRO” in the applicant’s mark
conveys a strong message of high performance and excellence in athletic or
fitness contexts. This suggests that the goods are tailored for serious
athletes or individuals seeking to enhance their physical performance.
…
GALLO’S ELITE PERFORM LIKE A PRO: [t]argets a niche audience of
high-achieving individuals—such as athletes, professionals, or fitness
enthusiasts—seeking tools or services for peak performance.9
In contrast, Applicant asserts:
[T]he cited mark “GALLO GLOBAL NUTRITION” emphasizes a broader,
more general approach to nutrition. The term “GLOBAL” suggests a wide-
reaching, inclusive brand that may cater to a diverse audience interested
in overall health and wellness rather than performance-specific outcomes.
…
GALLO GLOBAL NUTRITION: [a]ppeals to a broader, general audience,
including families, individuals, and health-conscious consumers. The
8 Id., 4 TTABVUE 8.
9 Id., 4 TTABVUE 16.

Serial No. 98191310
- 8 -
commercial impression conveys trust, reliability, and a commitment to
health and well-being on a global scale.10
As we have noted, though, identical goods are presumed to travel in the same
channels of trade to the same class of consumers. Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1362. In this
case, Applicant’s identical goods, nutritional supplements, may indeed appeal to
athletes and fitness enthusiasts, but that is simply a subset of the broader, more
general class of consumers of nutritional supplements, to which both brands are
presumed to appeal.
Applicant contends that “the phrase ‘PERFORM LIKE A PRO’ is a descriptive and
commonly used expression in the sports and nutrition industry. This phrase is often
employed by various brands to convey a message of high performance and
professionalism. The widespread use of this phrase further contributes to its
commercial weakness, as it fails to uniquely identify a single source of goods.”11 But
if anything, this supports the Examining Attorney’s position, for it concedes that the
trailing terms in Applicant’s mark are not distinctive, and suggests that customers
would instead look to the dominant shared term GALLO to identify the goods’ origin.
If, as here, the dominant portion of both marks is the same, then the marks may be
confusingly similar notwithstanding such peripheral differences. See In re Mighty
Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In re Charger Ventures LLC, 64
10 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 16-17.
11 Id., 4 TTABVUE 4-5.

Serial No. 98191310
- 9 -
F.4th at 1382 (“an additional … component may technically differentiate a mark but
do little to alleviate confusion.”).12
In terms of sound, Applicant argues that “applicant’s mark, GALLO’S ELITE
PERFORM LIKE A PRO, is pronounced as ‘GAL-ohs ee-LITE per-FORM like a PRO,’
while the cited mark, GALLO GLOBAL NUTRITION, is pronounced as ‘GAL-oh
GLOH-bal noo-TRI-shun.’”13 That, he contends, “creates a clear auditory separation
that significantly reduces any likelihood of confusion when the marks are spoken
aloud.”14 As this argument admits, though, the dominant terms, GALLO and
12 So too with “ELITE,” which follows GALLO’S and precedes PERFORM LIKE A PRO in
Applicant’s mark. Applicant lists “ELITE” among his “Design Elements.” Nov. 21, 2024
Response to Office Action at 26. As depicted in the mark, the component is stylized and
abstract, such that it would be difficult for consumers to discern as a word. Indeed, especially
to the untrained eye it is almost unreadable, and appears to be more of a design than a literal
element. The test is “how consumers will perceive the mark, which is the
perspective DuPont factor one considers.” Fuente Mktg. Ltd. v. Vaporous Techs., LLC, 172
F.4th 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2026) (boldface originally in italics). To the extent this element in
the mark would be perceived as a design element, it would be subordinate to the literal
elements, particularly GALLO’S, and would not serve to avoid confusion. Made In Nature v.
Pharmavite, 2022 WL 2188890, at *22.
Alternatively, even if consumers perceived “ELITE” as a literal element, it would not suffice
to distinguish the marks. The word ELITE is a common laudatory term, possessing no more
distinctiveness than PERFORM LIKE A PRO, and suggesting, at most, a line extension of
nutritional supplements offered by the same source. “The word ‘elite’ means choice, superior,
select (See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary) and is but a common laudatory
word well known to the public. If a prospective purchaser encounters an ‘AMERICAN’
microphone and an ‘AMERICAN ELITE’ microphone he would readily assume that the latter
is the product of the manufacturer of the former but of better quality or inversely that the
former is the cheaper grade of the latter.” In re Electro-voice, Inc., 1966 WL 6416, *1 (TTAB
1966). Applicant agrees that ELITE in its mark “conveys a sense of superiority or high
quality, suggesting that the products are premium or top-tier nutritional supplements.” 4
TTABVUE 12. Thus, no matter how “ELITE” is perceived—as a design or as a word--it does
little or nothing to alleviate confusion.
13 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 9.
14 Id.

Serial No. 98191310
- 10 -
GALLO’S, are pronounced virtually the same: “GAL-oh” and “GAL-ohs.” The only
difference is Applicant’s possessive form, which, as we have seen, yields a virtually
identical commercial impression. Both marks thus lead with the dominant words
GALLO and GALLO’S, which are virtually identical in sight and sound. “Similarity
in sound alone may be sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion.” In re 1st USA
Realty Prof’s., Inc., No. 78553715, 2007 WL 2315610, *5 (TTAB 2007) (citing Krim-
Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co., 390 F.2d 728, 732 (CCPA 1968)). See Giant Food, Inc. v.
Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir.1983) (“Another factor
weighing heavily in our decision is that the dominant portion of both parties’ marks
sounds the same when spoken.”).
Visually, Applicant maintains, “the cited mark features a design element of a
world globe, which is a prominent visual component that is not present in the
applicant’s mark. The absence of this design element in the applicant’s mark creates
a clear visual separation between the two marks, reducing the likelihood of
confusion.”15 We find, however, that the world globe depicted in the cited registered
mark reinforces the word “GLOBAL” in the word mark:
15 Id., 4 TTABVUE 9.

Serial No. 98191310
- 11 -
As Applicant admits, “‘GLOBAL’ in the cited mark implies a broader, more
expansive reach, indicating that the products may cater to a worldwide audience.”16
Thus, if anything, Registrant’s global design element emphasizes the breadth of its
appeal– to a broad class of customers presumably encompassing Applicant’s intended
customer base.
It is true that Applicant’s mark contains certain design elements, such as a rooster
head and lightning bolts, that do not appear in Registrant’s mark. But when
evaluating a mark consisting of words and a design, 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. Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, No. 91223352, 2022 WL 2188890,
*22 (TTAB 2022). “In the case of a composite mark containing both words and a
design, ‘the verbal portion of the mark is the one most likely to indicate the origin of
the goods to which it is affixed.’” Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1362 (quoting CBS Inc. v.
Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 1581-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). And, as noted, the rooster design
reinforces the GALLO portion of GALLO’S in Applicant’s mark because GALLO is
translated to “rooster.” Therefore, in both marks, the terms GALLO and GALLO’S
have a significant impact on the overall commercial impressions and tend to indicate
a common origin, notwithstanding the different designs.
With respect to connotation and commercial impression, Applicant contends,
somewhat incongruously, that “[t]he meaning or connotation of a mark must be
16 Id., 4 TTABVUE 9, 12.

Serial No. 98191310
- 12 -
determined in relation to the named goods or services. Even marks that are identical
in sound and/or appearance may create sufficiently different commercial impressions
when applied to the respective parties’ goods or services so that there is no likelihood
of confusion.”17 Here, however, the goods are identical, and “where . . . the goods at
issue are identical, the degree of similarity necessary to support a conclusion of likely
confusion declines.” Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1363, quoted in Cai v. Diamond Hong, 901
F.3d at 1373.
For these reasons, we find that the marks, taken in their entireties, are similar.
The first DuPont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
C. Number and Nature of Third-party Marks in Use on Similar
Goods
Applicant asserts that the marks’ shared term, GALLO:
is a common surname and has been widely used in various trademarks
across the USPTO registry. This prevalence indicates that the term is
commercially weak and does not serve as a strong source identifier for any
single entity. As demonstrated by the evidence on record, numerous
registrations exist that incorporate “GALLO” in connection with similar
goods and services, showcasing the term's diluted significance in the
marketplace.18
Applicant’s assertion falls—and fails—under the sixth DuPont factor, “the
number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at
1361. A mark’s strength varies along a spectrum from very strong to very weak.
Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, 857 F.3d 1323, 1325 (Fed.
17 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 10-11, 14.
18 Id., 4 TTABVUE 4.

Serial No. 98191310
- 13 -
Cir. 2017). The mark’s placement along that spectrum affects the scope of protection
to which it is entitled. Iron Balls Int’l v. Bull Creek Brewing, LLC, No. 92079099,
2024 WL 2844425, *13 (TTAB 2024). “There are two prongs of analysis for a mark’s
strength ...: conceptual strength and commercial strength.” Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd.,
71 F.4th 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “Conceptual strength is a measure of a mark’s
distinctiveness, and distinctiveness is often classified in categories of generally
increasing distinctiveness[:] ... (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4)
arbitrary; or (5) fanciful.” Id. (cleaned up). “Commercial strength, on the other hand,
is the marketplace recognition value of the mark.” Id. at 1363 (internal citation and
punctuation omitted).
An applicant may adduce evidence of active use-based third-party registrations to
show that a mark or a segment thereof is descriptive, suggestive, or so commonly
adopted that the public will look to other elements to distinguish the source of the
goods or services. See, e.g., Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd., 71 F.4th 1355, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2023); Sock It to Me v. Fan, No. 91230554, 2020 WL 3027605, *12 (TTAB 2020).
Applicant’s evidence falls far short of proving his assertion. He adduces evidence
of six third-party registrations of questionable relevance, much less probative value
in demonstrating the conceptual or commercial weakness of GALLO.19 He
summarizes the third-party registrations in the following table:
19 Citing “third-party registrations, with no evidence of the extent of their use in commerce,
does not diminish the commercial strength of [Registrant’s] mark. ‘We have frequently said
that little weight is to be given such [third-party] registrations in evaluating whether there
is likelihood of confusion. The existence of these registrations is not evidence of what happens
in the market place or that customers are familiar with them....’ AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure
Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, [1406] (CCPA 1973)…. ‘Applicant’s citation of third-party

Serial No. 98191310
- 14 -
registrations as evidence of market weakness is unavailing because third-party registrations
standing alone, are not evidence that the registered marks are in use on a commercial scale,
let alone that consumers have become so accustomed to seeing them in the marketplace that
they have learned to distinguish among them by minor differences.’ In re Morinaga Nyugyo
Kabushiki Kaisha, [No. 86338392, 2016 WL 5219811, *8 (TTAB 2016).”
Sock It To Me v. Fan, 2020 WL 3027605, at *12.

Serial No. 98191310
- 15 -
Table
20
The sixth DuPont factor concerns “similar marks in use on similar
goods.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361 (emphasis added). Yet notably, not one of
Applicant’s third-party registered marks contains the key term GALLO. Two of
Applicant’s third-party registrations are for completely unrelated goods—poultry
feed.13 Such disparate goods carry no probative value under this factor. Omaha
20 Nov. 21, 2024 Response to Office Action at 21-22; third-party registrations at 45-52.

Serial No. 98191310
- 16 -
Steaks Int’l v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (error
to rely on third-party evidence of similar marks for dissimilar goods, as Board must
focus “on goods shown to be similar”).
Applicant’s QALLO third-party registration lacks probative value, first because it
is not “GALLO,” and second because it is not based on use in commerce in the United
States, but on a foreign registration pursuant to the Madrid Protocol. Made in Nature
v. Pharmavite, 2022 WL 2188890, at *14.
In short, the few registrations are not qualitatively or quantitatively analogous to
the evidence the Federal Circuit found probative in Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS
Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur
Draussen GmbH v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
cited in DC Comics v. Cellular Nerd LLC, No. 91246950, 2022 WL 17832492, *14
(TTAB 2022).
As the Examining Attorney correctly concludes, “there is no evidence of record
demonstrating that the actual term GALLO is diluted or a common surname.”21
The cited mark,
,
is registered on the Principal Register without a claim of acquired distinctiveness,
and must be treated as inherently distinctive. 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). In re Fiesta Palms
21 Examining Attorney’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 98191310
- 17 -
LLC, No. 76595049, 2007 WL 950952, *3 (TTAB 2007). “Where, as here, the mark is
registered without a Section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness, the mark is
presumed to be inherently distinctive.” Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew
Shop, LLC, 17 F.4th 129, 146 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also In re Chippendales, 622 F.3d
at 1352 (“[I]f the mark is inherently distinctive, it is presumed that consumers will
view it as a source identifier.”). And since the mark’s trailing terms, “GLOBAL
NUTRITION,” are disclaimed, its lead dominant element, GALLO, serves as the
distinctive source identifier.
Applicant’s evidence does nothing to contract or attenuate the strength of
Registrant’s mark, or its dominant element, GALLO, either conceptually or
commercially. We thus accord the registered mark the normal scope of protection to
which inherently distinctive marks are entitled. The sixth DuPont factor is neutral.
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the dispositive DuPont factors, similarity
of the marks and identity of the goods, as well as the channels of trade and classes of
consumers, weigh in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). The
remaining applicable Dupont factor, the number and nature of similar marks in use
on similar goods, is neutral.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d).