Enjoy the City North, Inc.

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: March 6, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Enjoy the City North, Inc.
____
Serial No. 98097499
_____
Larry Rosenthal of Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP,
for Enjoy the City North, Inc.
Daniel Capshaw, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,
Loksye Lee Riso, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Lykos, Goodman and Heasley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Enjoy the City North, Inc., DBA SaveAround, (“Applicant”) seeks registration on
the Principal Register of the mark VELOCITY LOGIC (in standard characters) for
the following goods and services:1
1 Application Serial No. 98097499 was filed on July 23, 2023. In order to obviate a specimen
refusal, Applicant amended the filing basis for the goods in International Class 9 to Section
1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). The Class 35 and 42 services are based on Applicant’s claim of first
use anywhere and use in commerce since at least as early as August 31, 2020 under Section
1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a).

Serial No. 98097499
- 2 -
Downloadable software for administering loyalty rewards
programs in International Class 9;
Administration of a consumer loyalty program to promote
retail services of others; Business administration of
consumer loyalty programs; Business research and data
analysis services in the field of customer sales; Promoting
the goods and services of others by means of a loyalty
rewards card scheme; Promoting the goods and services of
others by means of a point accumulation program with
points used for discounts on future purchases of those
goods and services in International Class 35; and
Providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable
software for administering loyalty rewards program in
Class 42.
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark,
in all classes, under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on
a likelihood of confusion with the Principal Register mark VELOCITY (in standard
characters) for the following International Class 35 services:
Business management, organization, operation and
supervision of loyalty programs and award programs;
incentive award programs in connection with loyalty
programs or incentive awards to promote the sale of
products and services of others; providing incentive loyalty
award programs for customers through the distribution of
loyalty cards, stored value cards, loyalty awards points or
mileage points for the purpose of promoting and rewarding
loyalty; online retail store services featuring air fares,
holiday packages, stationery, printed matters issuing gift
certificates as part of an incentive award customer loyalty
Page references to the application record are to the .pdf version from the USPTO’s Trademark
Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. Applicant’s brief is at 6 TTABVUE; the
Examining Attorney’s brief is at 8 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 98097499
- 3 -
program which may be redeemed for transportation, travel,
food, beverage or accommodation services.2
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. The Examining Attorney and Applicant
have filed briefs. We affirm the refusal to register as to all three classes of goods and
services.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that so
resembles a registered mark as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the
goods or services of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Our determination of
likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all probative facts
in the record that are relevant to the likelihood of confusion factors set forth in In re
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”). See
also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We consider
each DuPont factor for which there is evidence and argument. See, e.g., In re Guild
Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re Country Oven, Inc., No.
87354443, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *2.
2 Registration No. 3717282, registered on December 1, 2009; renewed. The registration also
covers Class 36 and Class 39 services, which were not cited by the Examining Attorney as a
basis for the refusal.

Serial No. 98097499
- 4 -
In every Section 2(d) case, two key factors are the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks and the goods or services. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165
(Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098,
1103 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the
cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or
services] and differences in the marks.”). These factors, and others, are discussed
below.
A. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Goods and Services
The second DuPont factor considers “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity and nature
of the goods [or services] as described in an application or registration.” DuPont, 476
F.2d at 1361. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1327; Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Octocom Sys., Inc. v.
Houston Comp. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The goods and services need not be identical or even competitive to find a
likelihood of confusion. On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086
(Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 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.” Coach Servs. 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). It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is

Serial No. 98097499
- 5 -
established for any good or service encompassed by the identification of goods or
services within a particular class in the application or registration. See Tuxedo
Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336 (CCPA 1981). “Because
each class in Applicant’s multi-class application is, in effect, a separate application,
we consider each class separately [where appropriate], and determine whether [the
Examining Attorney] has shown a likelihood of confusion with respect to each.” N.
Face Apparel Corp. v. Sanyang Indus. Co., No. 91187593, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 328, at
*32.
Although Applicant acknowledges that the relatedness inquiry is based on the
goods and services as identified in the application and registration, Applicant argues
that the goods and services are dissimilar. 6 TTABVUE 8, 9.
Specifically, Applicant argues that although the wording in the identifications
appears similar, the goods and services are dissimilar. 6 TTABVUE 8-9. Applicant
supports this argument with references to webpages from both Applicant and
Registrant that it submitted during prosecution. 6 TTABVUE 8-9. Applicant asserts
that VELOCITY in Registrant’s mark refers to the Virgin Australia airlines’ frequent
flyer program for the public (Velocity frequent flyer) which also shows that Virgin
Australia partners with a number of businesses to offer frequent flyer mile points. 6
TTABVUE 8. April 30, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, pp. 92-94; October 2, 2024
Response to Office action, pp. 9-11. Applicant argues that its services are different as
it “provides software for creation and implementation of fully customized loyalty and
rewards solutions and programs – i.e., for businesses to originate and run their own

Serial No. 98097499
- 6 -
loyalty programs” and does not have a loyalty program or partner with businesses for
loyalty points. 6 TTABVUE 8, 9. April 30, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, pp. 96-
98; October 2, 2024 Response to Office action, pp. 13-16.
Although in some circumstances the Board will consider extrinsic evidence to
provide clarification when a description for goods or services is unclear, see e.g., In re
Trackmobile, Inc., No. 715890, 1990 TTAB LEXIS 20 at *5, we do not find the
identification of services for the cited registration or the identification for goods and
services in Applicant’s application so ambiguous or technical that we need extrinsic
evidence to determine their meaning. Therefore, our determination will focus on the
identifications of the involved application and the cited registration. See Stone Lion
Cap. Partners, LP v. Lion Cap. LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It was
proper, however, for the Board to focus on the application and registrations rather
than on real-world conditions, because ‘the question of registrability of an applicant’s
mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the
application.’”) (quoting Octocom Sys., 918 F.2d at 942).
We now turn to our consideration of the identifications in both the application and
cited registration.
As indicated, Applicant’s Class 35 services are:
Administration of a consumer loyalty program to promote
retail services of others; Business administration of
consumer loyalty programs; Business research and data
analysis services in the field of customer sales; Promoting
the goods and services of others by means of a loyalty
rewards card scheme; Promoting the goods and services of
others by means of a point accumulation program with

Serial No. 98097499
- 7 -
points used for discounts on future purchases of those
goods and services in International Class 35.
Registrant’s services are:
Business management, organization, operation and
supervision of loyalty programs and award programs;
incentive award programs in connection with loyalty
programs or incentive awards to promote the sale of
products and services of others; providing incentive loyalty
award programs for customers through the distribution of
loyalty cards, stored value cards, loyalty awards points or
mileage points for the purpose of promoting and rewarding
loyalty; online retail store services featuring air fares,
holiday packages, stationery, printed matters issuing gift
certificates as part of an incentive award customer loyalty
program which may be redeemed for transportation, travel,
food, beverage or accommodation services.
The Examining Attorney submitted dictionary definitions of “administration” and
“administer.” Administration is defined as “performance of executive duties:
management” and “the act or process of administering something”; administer is
defined as “to manage or supervise the execution, use or conduct.” October 30, 2024
Office Action, pp. 8-15, MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (merriam-webster.com).
In view of the dictionary definitions, Applicant’s “Business administration of
consumer loyalty programs” and “Administration of a consumer loyalty program to
promote retail services of others” would include the services identified by Registrant
as “business management” and “supervision” of loyalty programs and award
programs. In addition, Applicant’s services of “Promoting the goods and services of
others by means of a loyalty rewards card scheme” and “Promoting the goods and
services of others by means of a point accumulation program with points used for
discounts on future purchases of those goods and services” are encompassed by

Serial No. 98097499
- 8 -
Registrant’s more broadly identified “incentive award programs in connection with
loyalty programs or incentive awards to promote the sale of products and services of
others.”
Therefore, we find Applicant’s and Registrant’s Class 35 services are related.
Applicant’s Class 9 goods are downloadable software for administering loyalty
rewards programs; its Class 42 services are providing temporary use of on-line non-
downloadable software for administering loyalty rewards program.
To support his contentions that Applicant’s Class 9 and Class 42 software goods
and services are related to Registrant’s Class 35 services, the Examining Attorney
made 23 third-party registrations of record.3 The third-party registrations cover the
following goods and services:
3 Two of these registrations are owned by the same registrant. The registrations are: Reg. No.
6823442 INSPIRED REWARDS (Classes 9 and 35); Reg. No. 7177924 ZAX REWARDZ
(Classes 9 and 35); Reg. No. 5975412 (Classes 9, 35 and 42); Reg. No. 5146857
APPCARD (Classes 9, 35 and 42); Reg. No. 6647848 (Classes 9 and 35); Reg.
No. 5807569 (Classes 9 and 35); Reg. No. 7101466 (Classes 9, 35 and 42); Reg.
No. 7068822 LYFT REWARDS (Classes 9 and 35); Reg. No. 4676280 TILLSTER (Classes 35
and 42); Reg. No. 6919445 THE UPSIDE (Classes 35 and 42); Reg. No. 7089277 LOYALTY
AS A SERVICE (Classes 9, 35 and 42); Reg. No. 6132920 BUMPED (Classes 35 and 42); Reg.
No. 5273624 (Classes 9 and 35); Reg. No. 6435798 DOORDASH FOR WORK (Classes
9, 35, and 42); Reg. No. 5529130 HATCH LOYALTY (Classes 35 and 42); Reg. No. 5701068
COINS & MORE (Classes 9 and 35) Reg. No. 6247663 (Classes 9 and 35); Reg. No.
7502652 DUTCH BROS (Classes 9, 35 and 42); Reg. No. 6896046 BRANDCLUB (Classes 9,
35 and 42); Reg. No. 4597599 (Classes 9, 35 and 42); Reg. No. 6267924
SIJOME (Classes 9, 35 and 42); Reg. No. 5936967 VENGA (Classes 35 and 42).

Serial No. 98097499
- 9 -
• administration of loyalty rewards programs or loyalty rewards programs
promoting the goods/services of others and downloadable software for loyalty
rewards programs;
• administration of loyalty rewards programs or loyalty rewards programs
promoting goods/services of others and non-downloadable software for loyalty
rewards programs; or
• administration of loyalty rewards programs or loyalty rewards programs
promoting the goods/services of others and downloadable or non-downloadable
software for loyalty rewards programs.
October 30, 2024 Office Action, pp. 28-75.
The Examining Attorney also submitted internet webpages to support the
relationship of downloadable or non-downloadable software for loyalty rewards and
loyalty rewards program services. Zaxby’s offers a loyalty reward program and
software application for smart phone for loyalty rewards; KashKick offers a rewards
loyalty platform and online platform for earning rewards. April 2, 2024 Office Action,
pp. 9-30.
These third-party registrations and the website evidence are sufficient to suggest
that downloadable and non-downloadable software for loyalty programs and
administration of loyalty programs and/or the offering of loyalty programs to promote
the goods and services of others may be offered by a single entity under the same
mark. In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., Ser. No. 74186695, 1993 TTAB LEXIS 36, at
*7. See also In re Davey Prods. Pty, Ser. No. 77029776, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 524, at
*14-15 (internet evidence showing goods or services emanating from the same source
under the same mark is relevant evidence of relatedness.).

Serial No. 98097499
- 10 -
We find accordingly that Applicant’s Class 9 software goods and Class 42 software
services are related to Registrant’s Class 35 services.
B. Channels of Trade, Classes of Consumers, and Conditions of Sale
We consider the “similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade
channels” and “[t]he conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e.
‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361.
Turning first to trade channels, there are no restrictions in Applicant’s
identification or the cited registration as to trade channels or classes of consumer.
Absent an explicit restriction in the application or registration, the identified goods
and services must be presumed to move in all channels of trade that would be normal
for such goods and services and to be offered to all usual prospective consumers for
services of that type. DeVivo v. Ortiz, No. 91242863, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 15, at *40.
Applicant directs some of its argument to the classes of consumers. Applicant
argues that Registrant’s users are the general public who use the services to gain
points to purchase flights or businesses who want to incentivize their customers to
use their services. 6 TTABVUE 9. In contrast, Applicant asserts its users are
“merchants who use the software developed by Velocity Logic Group.” 6 TTABVUE
9.
Applicant also argues that the trade channels are dissimilar. 6 TTABVUE 9.
Applicant argues that the general public does not “see or know about VELOCITY
LOGIC when participating in such a rewards program, because it is the back end of
the system.” 6 TTABVUE 10. Applicant also argues that while “businesses as a whole

Serial No. 98097499
- 11 -
may come across both marks, different teams or departments within those businesses
would be seeing the marks.” 6 TTABVUE 10. In particular, Applicant submits that
Registrant’s mark would be encountered by the sales and marketing department
while Applicant’s mark would be encountered by the technical department. 6
TTABVUE 10. Applicant specifically argues:
The Cited Mark would be seen by the sales and marketing
teams looking to increase[] sales through cross promotions
with an existing rewards program. On the other hand, the
Appellant’s Mark would be seen by the technical team
looking for a technical solution to host their own rewards
program. Someone looking to implement a software
solution would not normally come across VFF’s loyalty
partnership program in their business role, and the specific
VFF rewards program would be irrelevant to their needs.”
6 TTABVUE 10.
The evidence also shows that Applicant’s service is a “business to business” type
service, that is, Applicant is promoting the sale of its goods and services to other
businesses, and not to the general public. Applicant’s webpages show that it provides
potential purchaser businesses a demonstration and will speak to them, through
webpage contact and information and question form requests. April 30, 2025 Request
for Reconsideration, pp. 91-94; October 2, 2024 Response to Office Action, pp. 10-13.
Applicant’s software is installed on the merchant’s system, and is not seen by the
public. April 30, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, pp. 4-5.
Registrant’s webpages show that rewards services are directed to the general
public. Points can be earned or redeemed through a phone app, rewards can be earned
through a chrome extension and credit cards, and there are special offers on
Registrant’s webpage for earning points. April 30, 2025 Request for Reconsideration,

Serial No. 98097499
- 12 -
pp. 92-94; October 2, 2024 Response to Office Action, pp. 9-11. The record does not
indicate how Registrant solicits businesses to participate in its “shop and earn”
rewards program.
Although it appears that businesses may be solicited for both services, we find
that there is insufficient information in the record to infer that Applicant’s and
Registrant’s services travel in the same trade channels.
Turning next to conditions of sale, purchaser sophistication or degree of care may
tend to minimize likelihood of confusion. Conversely, impulse purchases of
inexpensive items may tend to have the opposite effect. Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve
Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We
must make our determination based on the least sophisticated consumer. Stone Lion
Cap. Partners, 746 F.3d at 1325.
Applicant argues that sophistication of the users differs between Applicant and
Registrant. 6 TTABVUE 10. Specifically, Applicant argues that Registrant’s users
are members of the general public who sign up for frequent flyer programs at no cost,
or businesses looking to increase the use of their services by customers who
participate in Registrant’s loyalty reward program. 6 TTABVUE 10. Applicant argues
that its users are “merchants using Appellant’s software who are making a
sophisticated business decision and investing tens of thousands of dollars to
implement and operate a complete system to gain and keep loyal customers” and that

Serial No. 98097499
- 13 -
these purchasers would “scrutinize their choice for such a software solution.”4 6
TTABVUE 10.
The Examining Attorney does not dispute this, but argues that even sophisticated
purchasers are not immune from source confusion. 6 TTABVUE 12.
Although we have no information on the cost of the services, and they are not
restricted in the identification by price point, based on the nature of Applicant’s
services and Applicant’s webpages showing that the services are directed to
businesses, we find purchasers of Applicant’s services would exercise more care. In re
Info. Builders Inc., No. 87753964, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 20, at *12-14 (“some degree of
purchasing care may be exercised” in view of the inherent nature of the involved
computer software goods and computer system services).
C. Strength or Weakness of the Mark
The sixth DuPont factor is “[t]he number and nature of similar marks in use on
similar goods [or services].” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. It “is a measure of the extent
to which other marks weaken the assessed mark.” Spireon Inc. v. Flex Ltd., 71 F.4th
1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1373). There are two
types of strength: conceptual and commercial. Id. (citing In re Chippendales USA,
Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). The strength of the cited mark affects
the scope of protection to which a mark is entitled.
4 There is no evidence in the record regarding the pricing of Applicant’s services, which is
mere argument. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
(“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”).

Serial No. 98097499
- 14 -
Evidence of third-party use bears on the strength or weakness of a mark. Juice
Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Palm
Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1373). “[T]he purpose of a defendant introducing third-party
uses is to show that customers have become so conditioned by a plethora of such
similar marks that customers ‘have been educated to distinguish between different
such marks on the bases of minute distinctions.’” Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1373
(citation omitted). Evidence of third-party registrations for marks “on similar goods
[or services] can bear on a mark’s conceptual strength.” Spireon, 71 F.4th 1363 (citing
Juice Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339).
Applicant provided more than 60 third-party VELOCITY and VELOCITY-
formative registrations, most of which do not relate to loyalty services, but cover more
general business services (e.g., business consultation) in other fields.5 April 30, 2025
Request for Reconsideration, pp. 16-90. A few of the registrations relate to more
general advertising and marketing services; two of the VELOCITY-formative marks
cover services similar to loyalty program services, which Applicant also submitted as
a separate exhibit on reconsideration.6 April 30, 2025 Request for Reconsideration,
pp. 11-14, 37, 59-60.
5 Some of the VELOCITY-formative registrations emanate from the same registrant (e.g,
VELOCITY BUSINESS ADVISORS (2), VELOCITY GLOBAL (4), VELOCITY TRUCK
CENTERS/VELOCITY VEHICLE GROUP, VELOCITY SOLUTIONS/VELOCITY (4),
MAXIMUM VELOCITY/MAXIMUM VELOCITY SPORTS, V12 VELOCITY (3), VELOCITY
OUTDOOR/VELOCITY V OUTDOOR (2), VELOCITY/V VELOCITY ACCELERATING
POTENTIAL (2)).
6 Applicant provided two third-party TEAM VELOCITY AND VELOCITY B2B registrations
which relate most closely to loyalty program type services (consumer loyalty programs in the

Serial No. 98097499
- 15 -
As to the third-party registrations covering general business services, Applicant
argues that “[a]lthough the actual business services may be disparate to varying
degrees, they are all visible to businesses looking for ways to add perceived value to
their offerings through association with existing rewards programs, further diluting
and weakening the Cited Mark” and narrowing the scope of protection of the
VELOCITY term. 6 TTABVUE 12. As to the two third-party registrations covering
somewhat similar loyalty/promotion services, Applicant argues that their co-
existence lends support to registration of its mark. 6 TTABVUE 11.
However, Applicant has not provided any evidence showing the extent of any use,
and third-party registrations alone are “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); In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, No.
86338392, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 448, at *22-23.
As to third-party registrations, the relevant inquiry is “the number and nature of
similar marks in use on similar goods [or services].” Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v.
Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877-78 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). See also
Omaha Steaks Int’l v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (error to rely on third-party evidence of similar marks for dissimilar goods,
Board must focus “on goods shown to be similar”).
nature of trade-in and upgrade for automobile dealership; business management of gift card
programs for others). April 30, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, pp. 11-14, 37, 59-60.

Serial No. 98097499
- 16 -
Applicant argues (without supporting evidence)7 that there is a closer relationship
between those services identified in the cited registration and the third-party
registrations identifying various business services that are not loyalty awards and
incentive services because businesses potentially may be exposed to them. However,
third-party registrations simply identifying various business services are not similar
enough to establish weakness of the cited mark for loyalty programs, award programs
and incentive award programs. See In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d at 1328 (third-
party registrations not probative where party had neither proven nor sufficiently
explained how the goods were similar to the goods in the cited registration); In re
Thor Tech, Inc., No. 78634024, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 253, at *19 (third-party
registrations are of limited probative value because the goods identified in the
registrations appear to be in fields which are far removed from trailers and
recreational vehicles).
As to the two third-party registrations that are similar to the recited services in
Registrant’s mark, two third-party registrations is not sufficient to show conceptual
weakness. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, No. 87075988, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170 at *10-
12, aff’d mem., 777 Fed. App’x. 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (four registrations of varying
probative value did not show conceptual weakness).
7 Applicant has not explained how Applicant’s and Registrant’s customers would be
potentially exposed to these business services, many of which are in in vastly different fields.

Serial No. 98097499
- 17 -
D. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
We next consider the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as
to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression under the first DuPont
factor. Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1371 (citing DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361). Similarity
in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.
In re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, at *4.
The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks is determined based on the marks in
their entireties; the analysis cannot be predicated on dissecting the marks into their
various components. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985). On
the other hand, different features may be analyzed to determine whether the marks
are similar. Id. There is nothing improper in giving more or less weight to a particular
feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the
marks in their entireties. Id.
The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a
general, rather than specific, impression of trademarks. See Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v.
Akea, LLC, No. 91196527, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 166, at *17; Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott
Paper Co., No. 91055167, 1975 TTAB LEXIS 236, at *6. The test, under the first
DuPont factor, is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a
side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in
terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the
goods and services offered under the respective marks is likely to result. Coach Servs.
v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Serial No. 98097499
- 18 -
Applicant’s mark is VELOCITY LOGIC and the cited mark is VELOCITY.
Applicant argues that although VELOCITY LOGIC and VELOCITY share a
common term, VELOCITY, the marks as a whole, are “dissimilar enough” to avert a
likelihood of confusion. 6 TTABVUE 7. Applicant contends that LOGIC is the
dominant term in its mark and “the dominant portions of the two marks are different,
furthering their dissimilarity.” 6 TTABVUE 5. Applicant argues that VELOCITY is
laudatory (i.e., “the speed at which goods and services are provided”) and acts as a
modifier of LOGIC. 6 TTABVUE 7. Applicant asserts that VELOCITY LOGIC as a
whole implies “using logical reasoning and coming to logical conclusions at great
speed.” 6 TTABVUE 7.
While there is no rule that marks are automatically considered similar where one
mark encompasses the entirety of another, the fact that Registrant’s mark
VELOCITY is subsumed within Applicant’s mark VELOCITY LOGIC 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 (DOWNTOWNDC DISTRICT OF FASHION similar to
DISTRICT OF FASHION); Hunter Indus., Inc. v. Toro Co., No. 91203612, 2014 TTAB
LEXIS 105, at *33 (PRECISION mark confusingly similar to PRECISION
DISTRIBUTION CONTROL mark) (citations omitted).
VELOCITY is the first term in Applicant’s mark and the term mostly likely to be
remembered by the consumer. Presto Prods. Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., No.

Serial No. 98097499
- 19 -
91074797, 1988 TTAB LEXIS 60, at *8 (“it is often the first part of a mark which is
most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered”); see also
In re Detroit Ath. Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The identity of the marks’
initial two words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those
words first.”); Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1372 (“VEUVE nevertheless remains a
‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the
label”).
Although the marks are not identical in terms of appearance and sound due to the
addition of LOGIC in the Applicant’s mark, we find that they are very similar in
appearance due to the presence of the identical lead term VELOCITY. The word
VELOCITY will sound the same when both marks are verbalized and will be the first
word heard when the marks are verbalized. Because of the shared first term, the
marks are similar in appearance and sound.
As to connotation, VELOCITY relates to speed and LOGIC suggests computer
functions, which would be potentially suggestive in relation to Applicant’s goods and
services.8 As argued by Applicant, VELOCITY would be perceived to mean speed in
both marks; there is nothing in the record to suggest that VELOCITY will have a
8 The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries
that exist in printed format or regular fixed editions. In re Red Bull GmbH, No. 75788830,
2006 TTAB LEXIS 136, at *8-9.
n. Velocity is defined as “Rapidity or speed of motion; swiftness”;
n. Logic: (computers) is defined as “The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer,
such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.”
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (ahdictionary.com) (accessed March 5, 2026).

Serial No. 98097499
- 20 -
different meaning or connotation when applied to the identified goods and services in
the Application and Registration. Because of the shared first term, VELOCITY, “the
marks have similar sounds, appearances and connotations.” In re United States Shoe
Corp., No. 73446404, 1985 TTAB LEXIS 23, at *7.
In terms of overall commercial impression, we find, again, that the marks are
similar because of the shared term VELOCITY. This fundamental similarity in the
source-indicating commercial impression created by both marks is not altered by the
presence of the potentially suggestive term LOGIC. Even if purchasers, with their
imperfect recollections, notice and recall that one of the marks includes the term
LOGIC, they also will recall that both marks include the lead word VELOCITY.
Consumers familiar with the VELOCITY mark are likely to perceive VELOCITY
LOGIC as a product line of that brand. See, e.g., Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru
Dev. No. 92063808, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 347, at *23 (“ROAD WARRIOR looks, sounds,
and conveys the impression of being a line extension of WARRIOR.”); Gott Wines LLC
v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., No. 91197659, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 314, at *32 (“Purchasers
of opposer’s GOTT and JOEL GOTT wines are likely to assume that applicant’s goods,
sold under the mark GOTT LIGHT and design, are merely a line extension of goods
emanating from opposer.”).
Likelihood of confusion is not necessarily avoided between otherwise confusingly
similar marks merely by adding or deleting other matter. If a portion of both marks
is the same, then the marks may be confusingly similar notwithstanding some
differences. See e.g., In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, (Fed. Cir. 2004)

Serial No. 98097499
- 21 -
(GASPAR’S ALE and JOSE GASPAR GOLD confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling
Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556 (CCPA 1975) (BENGAL and
BENGAL LANCER and design). And even marks that share weak initial terms may
still be found confusingly similar. See, e.g., Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1060 (CASH
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT and THE CASH MANAGEMENT EXCHANGE
confusingly similar). “[S]imilarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree.” In
re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d at 752 (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340,
1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted).
When the marks are considered in their entireties, we find VELOCITY LOGIC
and VELOCITY to be similar.
II. Conclusion as to Likelihood of Confusion
As a final step, we “weigh the DuPont factors used in [our] analysis and explain
the results of that weighing.” In re Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
2023) (emphasis omitted). The similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the
goods and services weigh in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. The trade
channels, number and nature of marks on similar goods or services are neutral; the
conditions of sale slightly weighs against likelihood of confusion. Although the
conditions of sale slightly diminishes the likelihood of confusion, this factor
is outweighed by the similarity of the mark and relatedness of the goods and services.
We find confusion likely.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark VELOCITY LOGIC is affirmed
as to International Classes 9, 35 and 42.