Prim LLC

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: March 27, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Prim LLC
_____
Serial No. 98301711 (Consolidated)
98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 983018041
_____
Adedamola Fakunle and Renée L. Duff of Nolte Lackenbach Siegel,
for Prim LLC.
Kelly Ryan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
Chris Doninger, Managing Attorney.
_____
1 Applicant filed separate appeals for each application that was refused registration and
sought consolidation of all appeals on June 18, 2025 (request filed in all appeals at 6
TTABVUE in the separate appeal dockets) for purposes of final decision which the Board
granted. June 23, 2025 Board order, 8 TTABVUE, Serial No. 98301711, entered in all appeals
(at 8 or 9 TTABVUE, depending on appeal docket). Unless otherwise stated, references are
to the record and briefs in Application Serial No. 98301711. Although consolidated, we
determine whether the Examining Attorney has shown likelihood of confusion with each
application. Cf. N. Face Apparel Corp. v. Sanyang Indus. Co., No. 91187593, 2015 TTAB
LEXIS 328, at *32 (“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.”).
Page references to the application record are to the online database of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the briefs on appeal
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Applicant’s brief is at 9 TTABVUE; the
Examining Attorney’s brief is at 11 TTABVUE (Serial No. 98301711).

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 2 -
Before Goodman, Casagrande and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Prim LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the mark
HOUSE OF PRIM (in standard characters) for “Series of printed non-fiction books in
the field of home organization and design” in International Class 16; “Organizers,
namely household containers for organizing, and décor, namely decorative bowls and
decorative boxes of glass for household purposes” in International Class 21;
“Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, conferences, workshops
in the field of home organization and design and distribution of training material in
connection therewith; Educational and entertainment services, namely, a continuing
program about home organization and design accessible via radio, television,
satellite, audio, video, web-based applications, mobile phone applications, computer
networks in International Class 412; “Interior design services including space
planning, furniture selection, material and surface selection” in International Class
42; and “Organizational services for personal purposes, namely, organizing of homes”
in International Class 45.3
2 Application Serial No. 98301711 (Class 16), Serial No. 98301726 (Class 21), and Serial No.
98301752 (Class 41) were all filed on December 6, 2023, based upon Applicant’s assertion of
a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
3 Application Serial No. 98301773 (Class 42) and Serial No. 98301804 (Class 45) were filed
on December 6, 2023 under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based
upon Applicant’s assertion of March 15, 2022 as the first use and first use in commerce date.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 3 -
In all applications, the Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration
of Applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d),
based on a likelihood of confusion with the mark PRIM (in standard characters) for
the following International Class 45 services: “Home organization services, namely,
sorting and organizing household belongings.”4
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration in each application. After the Examining Attorney denied the
requests for reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We reverse the refusal to
register for all applications.
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.
4 Registration No. 6439850 issued August 3, 2021.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 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 i.am.symbolic, 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). We evaluate the evidence provided by
the Examining Attorney to determine if “consumers are accustomed to seeing a single
mark associated with a source that sells both [the cited registration’s goods or
services] as well as [the applicant’s goods or services].” (citation omitted). In re Detroit
Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Examining Attorney argues that Registrant’s services and Applicant’s goods
and services are “complimentary in use and function” and “routinely provide[d]” in
the “home organization industry.” 11 TTABVUE 15.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 5 -
Applicant argues that Applicant’s goods and services “differ materially in nature,
scope, and industry channel” from Registrant’s services and that the Examining
Attorney’s evidence “is too limited and heterogeneous to establish that consumers
ordinarily expect a single source for the distinct offerings identified here.” 9
TTABVUE 12, 15.
As indicated, Registrant’s services are “home organization services, namely,
sorting and organizing household belongings.”
Serial No. 98301711 Class 16
The Class 16 goods in application Serial No. 98301711 are a “series of printed non-
fiction books in the field of home organization and design.”
To show the relatedness of home organization books and the cited registration’s
home organization services, the Examining Attorney provided internet evidence. The
evidence reflects that three companies that offer home organization services also offer
home organization books under the same mark. The remainder of the website
evidence provided by the Examining Attorney shows either that home organization
services may offer books under different marks, or it does not show the offering of
home organization services and home organization books.5 Serial No. 98301711, July
11, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 4-14; Nov. 1, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 2-13.
5 Many more of the internet webpages show companies or individuals that do not offer both
goods and services together, or if the goods and services are offered, they are not offered under
the same mark.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 6 -
We cannot conclude from this limited evidence that it is common for home
organizers to offer home organization books under a single mark, especially in view
of the greater evidence to the contrary, also provided by the Examining Attorney.
In sum, this internet evidence is insufficient to provide a reasonable predicate to
support the Examining Attorney’s position that it is “routine” to offer Applicant’s
home organization and design books and Registrant’s identified home organization
services under the same mark. See e.g., In re Donnay Int’l, Societe Anonyme, No.
74160268, 1994 TTAB LEXIS 21, at *5 (two third-party registrations not sufficiently
persuasive to establish relatedness of racquets and bags for tennis, table tennis,
squash, badminton, and soccer balls).
Serial No. 98301726 Class 21
Turning next to application Serial No. 98301726, the Class 21 goods are identified
as “organizers, namely household containers for organizing, and décor, namely
decorative bowls and decorative boxes of glass for household purposes.”
The Examining Attorney provided internet evidence to show the relatedness of
home organization services and containers. Serial No. 98301726, July 11, 2024 Office
Action at TSDR 5-18; November 4, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 2-10; April 28, 2025
Denial of Reconsideration at TSDR 2-7. The evidence reflects that a few companies
offer home organization services and glass containers (bowls and/or boxes) for home
organizing; however, it is not clear from these webpages that the glass container

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 7 -
goods are offered under the same mark.6 For example, some webpages show the
offering of glass containers under other marks than those used for the home
organization services (e.g., Anchor Hocking and iDesign for the goods), or indicate the
glass container goods are from other sellers (artisans and small businesses), or do not
show the offering of Applicant’s identified goods—decorative glass boxes or bowls—
at all.
The evidence of relatedness is very limited, and the vast majority of the evidence
provided by the Examining Attorney shows the contrary. On this record, we do not
find that it is common to offer decorative glass bowls and glass boxes and home
organization services under a single mark.
In sum, the limited internet evidence is insufficient to provide a reasonable
predicate to support the Examining Attorney’s position that it is “routine” to offer
home organizing services and decorative glass bowls and glass boxes under the same
mark. See e.g., Donnay Int’l, 1994 TTAB LEXIS 21, at *5.
Serial No. 98301752, Class 41
Turning next to Serial No. 98301752, Applicant’s Class 41 services are identified
as “educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, conferences,
workshops in the field of home organization and design and distribution of training
material in connection therewith; educational and entertainment services, namely, a
6 Much of this evidence is not probative as it is not clear on some of the webpages whether
home organization services are offered, or glass containers are sold, or that containers and
home organization services are offered under the same mark. Also, for some webpages, if
glass containers are shown, they are glass jars or canisters, not decorative glass bowls or
glass boxes.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 8 -
continuing program about home organization and design accessible via radio,
television, satellite, audio, video, web-based applications, mobile phone applications,
computer networks.”
The Examining Attorney provided internet evidence to show the relatedness of
home organization services and educational services in the field of home
organization.7 Serial No. 98301752, July 11, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 4-22;
November 1, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 2-12; May 2, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration
at TSDR 2-6. The evidence shows at least six companies or individuals offer home
organization and educational services. In the context of this case, we find these
services related.
Serial No. 98301773 Class 42
Applicant’s Class 42 services are “interior design services including space
planning, furniture selection, material and surface selection.” The Examining
Attorney provided internet evidence to show the relatedness of home organization
services and interior design and/or space planning services.8 Serial No. 98301773,
July 13, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 4-17; November 1, 2024 Office Action at TSDR
2-9; April 21, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration at TSDR 2-5. The evidence shows at
least seven companies or individuals offering home organization and interior
7 Most of the internet evidence relates to educational services, although the Examining
Attorney provided a couple of webpages showing the offering of a home organizing television
program or home organizing podcast. Some of the website evidence provided does not appear
to show the offering of both educational services and home organizing services under the
same mark.
8 Some of the website evidence provided does not appear to show the offering of both interior
design or space planning services and home organizing services under the same mark.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 9 -
design/space planning services. In the context of this case, we find these services
related.
Serial No. 98301804 Class 45
Applicant’s Class 45 services are identified as “organizational services for personal
purposes, namely, organizing of homes.”
Registrant’s services of “sorting and organizing household belongings” are
encompassed by Applicant’s services of “organizing of homes.” 9 See S.W. Mgmt., Inc.
v. Ocinomled, Ltd., No. 94002242, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 176, at *60-61 (where the
services in an application or registration are broadly identified, they are presumed to
encompass all services of the type identified), aff’d mem., 652 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir.
2016). We find Applicant’s and Registrant’s Class 45 services are legally identical.
B. Third-Party Registration Pairs of Marks with Similar Word Components
Different from the Registered Mark
Applicant relies on pairs of third-party registrations owned by different entities
or individuals for marks which are separately registered for home organization
services, on one hand, and one of Applicant’s goods or services (in classes 16, 21, 41,
and 42) on the other.10
9 The Examining Attorney also provided some website evidence to show that Registrant’s and
Applicant’s home organization services overlap, but this was not necessary given the legal
identity of the services. Serial No. 98301804, November 1, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 2-10.
10 The pairs are SIMPLIFY HOME ORGANIZING and SIMPLIFY; NEATLY NIC and
NEATLY MADE; SPACE TO LOVE and SPACE TO THRIVE; POWERED BY STUDENT
ATHLETES and POWERED BY WE; ORGANIZING LIFE DESIGN and LIFE HOUSE; THE
SPACE DEFINED and METRO SPACE; THE SIMPLIFIED SPACE and LUXURY
SIMPLIFIED; CONCIERGE SOUTH and SOUTH SHORE; ORGANIZING SPACES BY KIM
and INTERIORS BY OSCAR; GOLDEN WEST ORGANIZING and WEST OF WEST; LABEL

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 10 -
Applicant argues that the third-party registration pairs for “identical or nearly
identical marks registered for the goods and services at issue by different owners”
show that “consumers in this industry are accustomed to encountering the same or
similar marks used by unrelated entities, which undermines any inference that they
would assume a single source,” citing to In re Thor Tech, Inc., No. 85667188, 2015
TTAB LEXIS 18. 9 TTABVUE 15. The Examining Attorney argues that these third-
party registrations are entitled to little weight and are dissimilar from Applicant’s
mark. 11 TTABVUE 17.
Although the paired marks have a component word in common, none of the third-
party registration pairs are the same or sufficiently similar to one another in
connotation and commercial impression to reflect the registration of similar marks in
connection with Registrant’s services and Applicant’s goods or services. Additionally,
the third-party registrations covering Class 16 books, and Class 41 educational
services are in fields different from home organization.
In Thor Tech, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 18, at *10-11, the Board found that
METHOD and NEAT METHOD; HONEY BEE and DÉCOR HONEY INTERIORS; ECO
MODERN CONCIERGE and CALIFORNIA MODERN; MOXIE SPACE and METRO SPACE
3D; NEXT LEVEL ORGANIZING and CP NEXT; CLEAN HEART MAIDS and TATTOOED
HEART; THE BAER MINIMALIST and REBECCA BAER; IN THE FOLD and SELVES IN
A BOX; CHRISTINE SHANNON PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZING and CHRISTINE BRAE;
LIVE IN YOUR RETREAT and FRIEND IN YOUR POCKET; LESS IS MORE and
MORELESS; HUZA HOME HARMONY and HARMONY DÉCOR; SACRED SPACE
ORGANIZING and SACRED LIVING; LIFESTYLE MANAGEMENT CO. and THE
LIFESTYLE COLLECTIVE; 123 ORGANIZE (and design) and 213 DESIGN (and design);
COMFORT ORGANIZING and COMFORT BLUE; DOWNSIZE 365 and 365). February 3,
2025 Request for Reconsideration TSDR 38-168. Applicant provided five sets for Class 16 and
Class 45, four sets for Class 21 and Class 45, one set for Class 41 and Class 45, and 17 sets
for Class 42 and Class 45.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 11 -
the existence of almost fifty pairs of substantially identical
marks for land motor vehicles and for towable recreational
vehicle trailers on the federal Trademark Register suggests
to us that businesses in these two industries believe that
their respective goods are distinct enough that confusion
between even identical marks is unlikely.
Here, however, the submitted third-party registrations do not support Applicant’s
contention because the registration pairs do not include marks that are the same or
similar. This case thus presents a different situation than that in Thor Tech. We find
that these third-party registrations are of limited probative value.
C. 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., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396
F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 12 -
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.,
Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The cited mark is PRIM and Applicant’s mark in all of the involved applications
is HOUSE OF PRIM.
Applicant argues that the marks differ “[v]isually and phonetically” as “[t]he
phrase HOUSE OF introduces and frames the mark in a way that significantly alters
both its visual and aural character.” 9 TTABVUE 9. Applicant points to HOUSE OF
PRIM being “a three-word phrase with a distinct cadence and structure, while PRIM
is a short, one-syllable standalone word.” 9 TTABVUE 9. As to connotation, Applicant
argues PRIM is “at least suggestive in the home-organization context, conveying
neatness, order, or propriety” while the phrase HOUSE OF suggests “a design house,
an established style authority or a boutique entity.” 9 TTABVUE 9-11. Applicant
argues that “[t]he commercial impression of PRIM as a proper, neat aesthetic is
meaningfully distinct from HOUSE OF PRIM, which conveys a curated brand entity
offering goods or services under a unified house name.” 9 TTABVUE 10.
The Examining Attorney argues that the dominant portion of Applicant’s mark is
PRIM because HOUSE OF is descriptive and PRIM is neither suggestive nor

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 13 -
descriptive.11 11 TTABVUE 4, 6, 7. The Examining argues that the marks are similar
in sound, appearance, and commercial impression. 11 TTABVUE 8.
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 PRIM is
subsumed within Applicant’s mark HOUSE OF PRIM is a significant point of
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).
The marks are similar in sound, appearance, and connotation in that Applicant’s
mark incorporates the entirety of the cited mark PRIM. See Bureau Nat’l
Interprofessionnel DU Cognac v. Cologne, 110 F.4th 1356, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
(“When one mark incorporates the entirety of another mark, it has been found to be
similar.”). As to connotation, the dictionary definition indicates PRIM is defined as
“neat or trim” and “stiffly proper.”12 The term HOUSE OF typically indicates a
11 Although the Examining Attorney argues that PRIM is the dominant term in Registrant’s
mark, it is a single word mark and as such, has no “dominant” portion.
12 Applicant requested in its brief that we take judicial notice of “prim” from MERRIAM-
WEBSTER dictionary but did not attach the definition to its brief. 9 TTABVUE 10. The
Examining Attorney requested we take judicial notice of “house” but did not attach the
definition to her brief. 11 TTABVUE 4. See In re Well Living Lab Inc., No. 86440401, 2017
TTAB LEXIS 156 at *9 n.9 (judicial notice taken of definition attached to an applicant’s
appeal brief). Nonetheless, the Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions in
print and online format. In re Red Bull GmbH, No. 75788830, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 136, at *8-
9. We take judicial notice of the dictionary definition for “prim” which means “stiffly formal
and proper : decorous” and “neat, trim.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prim, accessed March 26, 2026). We take
judicial notice of the dictionary definition of “house” which may mean “a family as including
kin, ancestors, and descendants, esp. a royal or noble family” or “a business firm; commercial
establishment” or “a building where people meet for a particular activity or pursuit.” COLLINS

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 14 -
connection to a specific family, lineage, surname, or fashion or design house. To that
extent, PRIM could be viewed as a familial name. But because PRIM connotes
propriety, neatness, or trim, HOUSE OF PRIM also could be viewed as meaning a
house that is proper, neat or trim.
The presence of HOUSE OF in the cited mark does lend a slightly different
connotation, connoting a neat or formal house, whereas the cited mark PRIM
connotes neat or formal. However, we find that the similarity in connotation resulting
from the presence of the word PRIM in each mark outweighs any difference in
connotation resulting from the presence of HOUSE OF in Applicant’s mark.
In terms of overall commercial impression, we find, again, that the marks are
similar because of the shared term PRIM. This fundamental similarity in the source-
indicating commercial impression created by both marks is not altered by the
addition of the terms HOUSE OF in Applicant’s mark. Even if purchasers with their
imperfect recollections notice and recall that one of the marks includes HOUSE OF,
they also will recall that both marks contain the term PRIM. Consumers familiar
with Registrant’s mark are likely to perceive HOUSE OF PRIM as another 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.”).
When considering the marks in their entireties, we find them similar.
DICTIONARY (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/house accessed March 26,
2026).

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 15 -
D. 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” under the third and fourth DuPont
factors. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361.
The Examining Attorney argues that the classes of consumers and trade channels
are the same, 11 TTABVUE 15, 18, while Applicant argues that Applicant’s and
Registrant’s trade channels are “mutually exclusive” since the identified goods and
services “serve distinct audiences with significantly different needs.” 9 TTABVUE
14. Applicant specifically argues that its goods and services are sold through “retail,
publishing, e-commerce, and design channels” while Registrant’s channels are “local
services channels” such as local consultation and personal referrals. 9 TTABVUE 13.
Looking to the applications and cited registration, there are no limitations as to
trade channels or classes of consumers. Absent an explicit restriction in the
applications or registration, the identified goods and services in Classes 16, 21, 41
and 42 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 goods
and services of that type. DeVivo v. Ortiz, No. 91242863, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 15, at
*40 (TTAB 2020). The classes of consumers for Applicant’s and Registrant’s services
would be those members of the general public interested in home organization,
interior design and space planning goods and services. For the legally identical home
organization services, (Class 45) the trade channels are presumed to overlap. In re

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 16 -
Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is well established that, absent
restrictions in the application and registration, [identical] goods and services are
presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
The webpage evidence provided by the Examining Attorney shows that home
organization and interior design services may be offered in person (at a person’s
home) or virtually (online) on specific websites for that particular service provider;
that educational services may be offered in person at a specific physical location or
virtually (online) on a specific website for that particular service provider; and that
the goods may be offered at brick and mortar retail stores or on specific websites.13
We find that that the trade channels and classes of customers for the Class 41, 42
and 45 services overlap to the extent that the services are promoted and delivered in
the same way, in person and online, but that there is insufficient information in the
record to support such overlap for the goods and home organization services.
Turning 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., 396 F.3d at 1376. We
must make our determination based on the least sophisticated consumer among the
relevant consumer group(s). Stone Lion Cap. Partners, L.P. v. Lion Cap. LLP, 746
13 It is unclear whether the goods are sold direct-to-consumer or are offered through affiliate
links. It is not clear from this evidence whether a consumer would go to a home organization
service provider expecting to purchase home organization goods.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 17 -
F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As indicated, the purchasers of Applicant’s and
Registrant’s goods and services are ordinary consumers.
Applicant argues “[t]he sophistication, purchase context, and intent of the
audiences differ” and purchasers of Applicant’s goods and services readily distinguish
between its “curated brand experience” and “a local in-home organizing provider.” 9
TTABVUE 13.
The Examining Attorney argues that “[t]here is no evidence in the record that the
consumers of applicant’s goods and services and the registrant’s services are
‘discerning’ or exercise anything other than an ordinary level care” and that
sophisticated consumers are “still susceptible to a likelihood of confusion.” 11
TTABVUE 15-16.
Although Applicant argues that purchasers of its goods and services are
sophisticated, there is no evidence in the record regarding purchasing conditions.
Because this is mere argument by Applicant unaccompanied by evidence, this factor
is neutral. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”).
E. Market Interface – Settlement Agreement
We address the tenth DuPont factor, the market interface between Applicant and
Registrant, which in this case involves an evaluation of a March 11, 2022, “Settlement
Agreement” between them. The settlement agreement states it is a “compromise
settlement of disputed claims,” and is supported by a declaration from Applicant’s
Managing Member, Principal, and Organizer. Applicant’s February 3, 2025 Request

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 18 -
for Reconsideration at TSDR 20-36; September 23, 2024 Response to Office Action at
TSDR 3-7.
The Examining Attorney argues that the settlement agreement does not function
as a consent to registration of the mark in the applications here because it was
executed before these applications were filed. 11 TTABVUE 19. Further, the
Examining Attorney argues that it does not contain provisions “fundamental to a
consent agreement,” referencing terms discussed in In re Four Seasons Hotels Ltd.,
987 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1993).14 11 TTABVUE 18 - 20.
Applicant argues that the “Examiner’s characterization of the Agreement as ‘a
settlement on a different matter’ overlooks its substance. The Agreement directly
resolves the parties’ prior dispute by identifying the marks Applicant will use moving
forward and by documenting both parties’ express assessment that THE HOUSE OF
PRIM and HOUSE OF PRIM are not confusingly similar to PRIM.” 9 TTABVUE 7.
Applicant argues that “[w]hat matters is the substance of the parties’ undertakings
and their reasoned marketplace assessment” and the agreement should be given
great weight. 9 TTABVUE 7, 8.
“[D]epending on the circumstances,” agreements between the involved parties
“may ... carry great weight” since the parties are in a “better position to know the real
14 Factors to be considered in weighing a consent agreement include the following: (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 (5) Whether the marks have been used for a period of time without
evidence of actual confusion. See generally Four Seasons Hotels, 987 F.2d at 1565; In re Mastic
Inc., 829 F.2d 1114, 1117-18 (Fed. Cir. 1987); DuPont, 467 F.2d at 1362-63.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 19 -
life situation than bureaucrats or judges.” Bongrain Int’l (Am.) Corp. v. Delice de
France Inc., 811 F.2d 1479, 1485 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also In re Bay State Brewing
Co., No. 85826258, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 46, at *32 (TTAB 2016) (“[W]e unmistakably
recognize the Federal Circuit’s instruction that consent agreements are frequently
entitled to great weight.”).
The relevant provisions of the parties’ settlement agreement include:
• A recitation that Applicant has been using the mark PRIM LIVING for
home organization services (i.e., the same services as in the cited
registration and in Applicant’s Class 45 services, (recitals));
• Applicant agrees to rebrand itself entirely from PRIM LIVING to THE
HOUSE OF PRIM and/or HOUSE OF PRIM; (paragraph 2d)
• The parties agree that THE HOUSE OF PRIM and HOUSE OF PRIM are
not confusingly similar to the PRIM mark for home organization services
(paragraph 2d);
• Applicant agrees that it will not apply to register or cause a third party to
register the PRIM mark, or any confusingly similar variant, including but
not limited to the PRIM LIVING mark in connection with home
organization services (paragraph 1);
• The parties “agree to continue to cooperate in taking reasonable actions to
avoid confusion and reasonable efforts to correct any instances or likelihood
of confusion that come to their attention arising from the subject matter of
this Agreement” (paragraph 4);
• Applicant agrees not to challenge or cause any third party to challenge or
cancel any PRIM registration owned by Registrant Lindsey Sanchez or
Prim Space Home Organizing (paragraph 1);
• Applicant agrees to remove all references to the PRIM mark, any
confusingly similar variant, including PRIM LIVING, on its website and
social media, destroy all physical and electronic promotional, marketing,
advertising, informational, sales and other materials, in connection with
the PRIM mark, any confusingly similar variant, including PRIM LIVING,
and cancel or modify all business registrations, domain registrations and

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 20 -
social media handles that contain PRIM or PRIM LIVING and any
confusingly similar variant (paragraph 2 a, b, c);
• The geographic scope of the agreement is limited to the United States
(paragraph 7).
As indicated, in addition to the settlement agreement, Applicant provided a
declaration from Meredith Goforth Triscott, Managing Member, Principal, and
Organizer of Applicant. February 3, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 25-
28. She explains that “Prim Living” identified in the settlement agreement is the dba
for Prim LLC and she signed the agreement as a representative and managing
member of Prim LLC. She indicates that the parties “considered their respective
interest in the marketplace, particularly concerning trademark rights and the issue
of likelihood of confusion,” and that Applicant agreed to “rebrand itself entirely as
THE HOUSE OF PRIM and/or HOUSE OF PRIM which the parties agreed is not
confusingly similar to the cited mark.”15 Triscott declaration, paragraphs 2-7. Thus,
this agreement reflects the parties’ mutual view that, for home organizing services—
i.e., identical services—confusion is unlikely as between the registered mark and
Applicant’s mark.
Although the settlement agreement is not technically an agreement consenting to
registration of any of these particular applications, the intent and effect are similar.
In connection with consent agreements, the Board in In re Dare Foods, Inc., No.
88758625, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 92, at *24, explained that “we are aware of no authority
15 As indicated in n.3, the Class 42 and 45 applications are based on use in commerce.
Applicant has alleged use shortly after the execution of the settlement agreement.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 21 -
requiring a consent agreement to discuss all of these factors [listed in Four Seasons
Hotels] in order to be probative.” And in In re Am. Cruise Lines, Inc., No. 87040022,
2018 TTAB LEXIS 363, at *19, the Board stated that provisions regarding efforts to
prevent confusion or to cooperate and take steps to avoid future confusion “may
render the agreement more probative, but it is not an essential provision for the
agreement to have probative value.” See also Mastic, 829 F.2d at 1117 (“If the
evidence of record establishes facts supporting an applicant’s argument that the two
uses can exist without confusion of the public, even a ‘naked’ consent to registration
is significant additional evidence in support of the applicant’s position.”).
In this case, the parties’ settlement agreement, while not technically a consent to
registration of a mark in any particular application, is an acknowledgment of a
broader settlement relating to PRIM LIVING and other confusingly similar variants,
and also addresses Applicant’s ability to rebrand with the mark that is the subject of
these applications. The circumstances in which Applicant and Registrant executed
the settlement indicate an agreement reached with serious consideration of the actual
possibility for confusion since Registrant objected to Applicant’s use of PRIM LIVING
as infringing but agreed to a rebrand to HOUSE OF PRIM which Registrant finds
not likely to cause confusion. While the settlement agreement does not include some
of the provisions we would typically see in a consent agreement, it was reached after
the parties had been seeking to resolve a dispute regarding marks Registrant
determined were confusingly similar (infringing) to her PRIM mark.

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 22 -
The settlement agreement makes Applicant’s ability to use HOUSE OF PRIM
clear. We also can infer from the settlement that Applicant and Registrant have an
agreed system to avoid confusion in regards to PRIM marks, and any confusingly
similar variant marks, in connection with home organization services. For example,
in agreeing to rebrand as THE HOUSE OF PRIM and HOUSE OF PRIM, Applicant
shall remove and avoid references to the PRIM mark, and any confusingly similar
variant, on its website, social media, business registrations, domain registrations and
social media handles and destroy all physical and electronic informational and
promotional/marketing materials that refer to PRIM or any confusingly similar
variant. We find that these provisions are substantively and essentially efforts to
avoid actual and future confusion under factor 4 of Four Seasons.
The agreement explicitly refers to Registrant’s PRIM registration. One would
expect that, if the agreement’s broad provision that Applicant rebrand as HOUSE OF
PRIM covered only the right to use that mark but not the right to register it for home
organization services, the agreement would have said so explicitly. The parties’
agreement that Applicant would rebrand to THE HOUSE OF PRIM and HOUSE OF
PRIM and that those marks are not confusingly similar to Registrant’s PRIM mark
are highly relevant here. So, too, are the parties’ promises to continue to cooperate in
taking reasonable actions to avoid confusion and to make reasonable efforts to correct
any instances of likelihood of confusion that come to their attention.
Any agreement, whether “naked” or “clothed,” is evidence that must be considered
in the likelihood of confusion analysis. Mastic, 829 F.2d at 1117. Given the nature of

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 23 -
Applicant’s and Registrant’s past dealings, it is reasonable to conclude that their
settlement agreement reflects their view that confusion is not likely between
Registrant’s PRIM mark and Applicant’s HOUSE OF PRIM mark. See In re N.A.D.
Inc., 754 F.2d 996, 998 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“While we are uninformed as to all the details
of the disputes and negotiations, these competitors clearly thought out their
commercial interests with care. We think it is highly unlikely that they would have
deliberately created a situation in which the sources of their respective products
would be confused by their customers.”) see also Four Seasons Hotels, 987 F.2d at
1566 (“Here the self-interests of applicant and registrant have caused them to enter
into a consent agreement determining for themselves that confusion of their marks
is unlikely.”); MarCon, Ltd. v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 91069736, 1987 TTAB LEXIS
29, at *14-15. (“Because the public policy encouraging the settlement of litigation and
of holding parties to the terms of their agreements … should not be
casually disregarded, we believe that … the agreement present[s] persuasive
evidence on the question of likelihood of confusion”).
The settlement agreement strongly supports Applicant’s position of no likelihood
of confusion based on the reasoned analysis of Applicant and Registrant who
understand the nature of their businesses.
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 LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1384 (Fed.
Cir. 2023) (emphasis omitted).

Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, 98301804
- 24 -
The marks in the applications are similar to Registrant’s mark; the services are
legally identical in Class 45 and related in Classes 41 and 42, and the trade channels
overlap for the services. All these factors weigh in favor of likelihood of confusion. On
the other hand, the Class 16 and 21 goods have not been shown on this record to be
related, weighing against likelihood of confusion; the factor addressing market
interface (settlement agreement) weighs strongly against confusion. The conditions
of sale are neutral.
The agreement between Applicant and Registrant is entitled to substantial
weight. This agreement represents the views of parties in the marketplace, and they
are in a better position than we to know the real-life situation relating to likelihood
of confusion. We should not substitute our views for theirs. Four Seasons Hotels, 987
F.2d at 1569; Amalgamated Bank of N.Y. v. Amalgamated Tr. & Sav. Bank, 842 F.2d
1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Bongrain Int’l, 811 F.2d at 1484-85.
We conclude that the parties’ settlement agreement outweighs the factors that
indicate confusion is likely in all five applications. We thus conclude that confusion
is unlikely in connection with Applicant’s applications identifying Class 16 and 21
goods and Class 41, 42, and 45 services.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal to register Applicant’s mark HOUSE OF PRIM
in Classes 16, 21, 41, 42, and 45 is reversed.16
16 Serial Nos. 98301711, 98301726, 98301752, 98301773, and 98301804.