Lasertec Corporation

Mailed: March 16, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Lasertec Corporation
————
Serial No. 79358845
————
George W. Lewis of WHDA, LLP,
for Lasertec Corporation.
Tasneem Hussain, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 118,
Michael Baird, Managing Attorney.
————
Before English, Stanley, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant Lasertec Corporation filed a request for extension of protection of an
international registration under Trademark Act Section 66(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1141f(a),
seeking registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark
GALOIS, for goods ultimately identified as “GaN semiconductor wafer optical
inspection apparatus which is comprised of a confocal optical device and a display
device, and which is used in manufacturing process of semiconductor wafer or
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 79358845
2
semiconductor devices and for research and development of semiconductor wafer,” in
International Class 9.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground of likelihood of
confusion, citing the standard character mark GALOIS, which is registered on the
Principal Register for “Cameras for photography; 3D smart camera; Scanners; Three-
dimensional scanners; Handheld 3D scanners; Digital graphic scanners; Viewfinders
for cameras; 3D virtual reality laser scanners; Multiple purpose cameras; Multiframe
view cameras; Digital video cameras,” in International Class 9.2
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and
requested reconsideration, which the Examining Attorney denied. Applicant was
subsequently granted two requests for remand concerning a proposed amendment to
the identification of goods. The Examining Attorney accepted the amendment, but
maintained the final refusal. Both Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.
For the reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Trademark Act Section 2(d), in relevant part, prohibits registration of a mark
that “so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office . . . as to be
1 Application Serial No. 79358845, a request for extension of protection under Section 66(a)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1141f(a), based on International Registration No. 1704255
and filed on October 27, 2022. In this opinion, we refer to the request for extension of
protection as “the application.”
2 Registration No. 6573026, issued on November 30, 2021. The registration includes a
statement that “[t]he wording ‘GALOIS’ has no meaning a foreign language.”

Serial No. 79358845
3
likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause
confusion.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). To determine whether confusion is likely, we analyze
all probative evidence relevant to the factors set out in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours
& Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”). See In re Majestic Distilling Co.,
315 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In every Section 2(d) case, two key DuPont factors are the similarity or
dissimilarity of the marks and respective goods, because the “fundamental inquiry
mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential
characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.” Federated Foods, Inc. v.
Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103 (CCPA 1976). Here, we have considered
each DuPont factor that is relevant and for which there is evidence and argument of
record. See In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Varying weight may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending on the evidence
presented. See Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2011); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[T]he various
evidentiary factors may play more or less weighty roles in any particular
determination.”). Ultimately, however, “each case must be decided on its own facts
and the differences are often subtle ones.” Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d
1197, 1199 (CCPA 1973).
A. Comparison of the Marks
We begin our analysis with the first DuPont factor, which focuses on the similarity
or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation,
and commercial impression. See Palm Bay Imps. Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

Serial No. 79358845
4
Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting DuPont, 476
F.2d at 1361). Similarity as to any one of these elements may be sufficient to support
a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. See Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co.,
390 F.2d 728, 732 (CCPA 1968) (“It is sufficient if the similarity in either form,
spelling or sound alone is likely to cause confusion.”); Inn at St. John’s, No. 87075988,
2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13.
Here, Applicant concedes that its standard-character mark GALOIS is identical
to the cited standard-character mark GALOIS.3 Applicant has not presented any
evidence or arguments that the marks, as applied to the parties’ respective goods,
somehow differ in terms of connotation or commercial impression, nor do we see any
reason to make such a finding. Thus, we find the respective marks identical in terms
of appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. See In re Embiid, No.
88202890, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 468, at *28-29. The first factor therefore weighs
strongly in favor of a conclusion that confusion as to source is likely. Id. at *29.
B. Comparison of the Goods
We now turn to the second DuPont factor, which concerns the similarity or
dissimilarity and nature of the respective goods, i.e., the relatedness of the goods.
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. In assessing relatedness, we must consider the goods as
3 Applicant’s Brief, 22 TTABVUE 4 (“On the first factor, the marks are identical.”).
The TTABVUE and Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) citations in this
opinion refer respectively to entries in the Board’s electronic docket and the electronic
application file. For TTABVUE citations, the number preceding the TTABVUE designation
is the docket entry number, and any numbers following indicate the relevant page numbers
within the docket entry.

Serial No. 79358845
5
they are identified in Applicant’s application and the cited registration. See Stone
Lion Cap. Partners, LP v. Lion Cap. LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(quoting Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous. Comput. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir.
1990)).
The parties’ respective goods need not be competitive, or even move in the same
channels of trade, to support a holding of likelihood of confusion. DeVivo v. Ortiz, No.
91242863, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 15, at *36. Rather, “[i]t is sufficient that the respective
goods . . . are related in some manner, or that the conditions and activities
surrounding the marketing of the goods . . . are such that they would or could be
encountered by the same persons under circumstances that could give rise to the
mistaken belief that they originate from the same source.” Id. (citing Coach Servs.
Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also 7-
Eleven, Inc. v. Wechsler, No. 91117739, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 28, at *18. And where, as
here, the respective marks are identical, the degree of similarity between the goods
required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See Shell, 992 F.2d
at 1207 (“[E]ven when goods or services are not competitive or intrinsically related,
the use of identical marks can lead to the assumption that there is a common
source.”); DeVivo, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 15, at *36 (“[B]ecause the marks are identical,
the degree of similarity between the goods or services required for confusion to be
likely declines.”).
Further, registration may be refused as to an entire class of goods if an applicant’s
mark as used in connection with any of its identified goods in that class is likely to

Serial No. 79358845
6
cause confusion with the registrant’s mark for any of the goods listed in the cited
registration. See SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(holding that a single good from among several may sustain a finding of likelihood of
confusion); Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336
(CCPA 1981) (indicating that likelihood of confusion must be found if there is likely
to be confusion with respect to any item that comes within the identification of goods
in the application).
Here, Applicant’s goods are identified as “GaN semiconductor wafer optical
inspection apparatus which is comprised of a confocal optical device and a display
device, and which is used in manufacturing process of semiconductor wafer or
semiconductor devices and for research and development of semiconductor wafer,” in
International Class 9.4
And the goods in the cited registration are “Cameras for photography; 3D smart
camera; Scanners; Three-dimensional scanners; Handheld 3D scanners; Digital
graphic scanners; Viewfinders for cameras; 3D virtual reality laser scanners;
Multiple purpose cameras; Multiframe view cameras; Digital video cameras,” in
International Class 9.
4 The term “GaN” in the identification appears to refer to gallium nitride, a compound of
gallium and nitrogen. See MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/element#table (accessed on March 11, 2026). The Board may take
judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries that exist in printed
form or regular fixed editions. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co.,
No. 91061847, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 146, at *7, aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Red
Bull GmbH, No. 75788830, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 136, at *7; TBMP § 1208.04.

Serial No. 79358845
7
The Examining Attorney submitted screenshots from Applicant’s own website,
describing its GALOIS Series system as follows:
The GALOIS series is a GaN wafer inspection and review system that
detects defects in wafer production processes. . . . The GALOIS series
uses confocal optics and differential interferometry optics, both
[Applicant’s] core technologies, together with machine-learning
algorithms, including deep learning, to enable the high-sensitivity
detection and highly accurate classification of various indeterminately
shaped defects.5
The Examining Attorney argues that Applicant’s “optical inspection goods and
registrant’s cameras/scanners are related because they are complementary goods,”
based on the following evidence:6
• An excerpt from Screen.co.jp (the website of Screen Semiconductor
Solutions Co., Ltd.), detailing the semiconductor manufacturing
process and indicating that, during the “exposure” portion of the
process, a substrate called a “wafer is exposed using short
wavelength deep ultraviolet radiation projected through a mask on
which a circuit pattern has been formed” and that there “are a
variety of exposure units” that could be used in this process,
including “scanners, which expose the wafer using a slit through
which light is projected onto the wafer”;7
• An excerpt from Nikon.com, describing Nikon’s semiconductor
lithography systems, which utilize an “ArF Immersion Scanner,”
developed for use in “high-volume semiconductor manufacturing”;8
• An excerpt from Global.canon (a website of Canon), explaining that
“[t]he most important step in semiconductor device fabrication is the
5 May 28, 2024 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 8.
6 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 24 TTABVUE
7 October 5, 2023 Final Office Action at TSDR 24-26 (emphasis added). We acknowledge this
excerpt appears on a foreign website originating in Japan. Nonetheless, we have considered
it because its text is in English, it is evidently accessible from the U.S., and it features subject
matter that the relevant U.S. consumers might encounter through an internet search. See In
re Well Living Lab Inc., No. 86440401, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 156, at *12 n.10.
8 October 5, 2023 Final Office Action at TSDR 38-41 (emphasis added).

Serial No. 79358845
8
lithography where a circuit pattern is transferred from a mask to a
wafer or panel by precision Semiconductor Lithography Equipment
commonly referred to as steppers or scanners”;9
• An excerpt from Xenics.com, stating that “[i]n the semiconductor
industry, SWIR [short-wave infrared] cameras can be used to
inspect the quality of pure semiconductor material (usually
silicon)”;10
• An excerpt from Adimec.com, advertising “cameras for wafer
inspection” and “cameras for semiconductor metrology and
inspection equipment,” and stating that Adimec’s “machine vision
cameras ensure predictable and stable operation for wafer
inspection and metrology equipment”;11
• An excerpt from Asphericon.com, discussing “wafer inspection” and
“camera systems for controlling microchip components,” and
explaining that “wafers are used in . . . the semiconductor industry”
and that “[w]ith the help of high-quality camera systems, it is
possible to inspect the surfaces of wafers and detect the smallest
deviations from the optimum surface”;12 and
• An excerpt from Ghopto.com, discussing “silicon wafer inspection
with [a] SWIR camera,” and explaining that a “wafer is an
extremely thin semiconductor substrate” and that “[d]ue to the
infrared properties of silicon, indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs)
cameras are suitable for imaging detection of silicon wafer.”13
We agree with the Examining Attorney that this evidence shows that Applicant’s
identified goods and at least some of the goods in the registration could be used for
complementary purposes. Specifically, the wording “scanners,” and “multiple purpose
cameras” in the registration’s identification is very broad and does not include any
9 Id. at 27 (emphasis added).
10 Id. at 46 (emphasis added).
11 May 28, 2024 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 23-24 (emphasis added).
12 Id. at 27 (emphasis added).
13 Id. at 31-32 (emphasis added).

Serial No. 79358845
9
restrictions that would exclude scanners and cameras that may be used in
semiconductor inspection and manufacturing processes, or in equipment used for
those processes. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., No. 87269041, 2018 TTAB
LEXIS 1, at *16 (noting that, where the goods in an application or registration are
broadly described, they are deemed to encompass all the goods of the nature and type
described therein). And the evidence shows that semiconductor inspection and
manufacturing processes involve equipment consisting of, or otherwise utilizing,
scanners and cameras. Thus, such scanners and cameras, on the one hand, and
Applicant’s identified semiconductor inspection apparatus for use in semiconductor
manufacturing, on the other, are complementary because they both may be used
together by the same parties for the same purposes. See In re Ox Paperboard, LLC,
No. 87847482, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 266, at *18 (noting that complementary use of
goods is a factor in finding relatedness); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., No. 79046106,
2009 TTAB LEXIS 447, at *17 (“MRI and ultrasound equipment can serve
complementary purposes, for they can be used by physicians and other medical
personnel in the treatment of the same patient for such diseases as prostate and
breast cancer or in the treatment of a patient with a fibroid tumor.”).
The evidence of record also supports the conclusion that equipment for
manufacturing or inspecting semiconductors, and various types of cameras, including
cameras for photography and digital video cameras, may emanate from the same
source under a single mark. For instance:
• The website Infratec-infrared.com advertises, under the Infratec
mark, equipment and systems featuring variable optics for testing

Serial No. 79358845
10
and analyzing semiconductor material during the manufacturing
process, as well as specialized infrared cameras, and “universal
cameras,” and “industrial thermal cameras.”14
• Nikon’s website advertises both “Semiconductor Lithography
Systems” used in the manufacturing of semiconductors, and digital
SLR cameras and mirrorless cameras, all offered under the Nikon
mark.15
• Canon’s website likewise advertises both “Semiconductor
Lithography Equipment” and various types of cameras, all offered
under the Canon mark.16
In addition, the Examining Attorney introduced seven active, use-based, third-
party registrations showing instances of a single mark being registered for
semiconductor testing/manufacturing devices or, more broadly, optical inspection
apparatus,17 as well as cameras, or scanners, or both.18 This evidence also suggests
that the listed goods are of a type that may commonly emanate from a single source
14 May 10, 2023 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 38-56. Some of the cameras displayed on the
website appear to be for use in connection with semiconductor testing/analysis equipment,
id. at 44-46, while other cameras appear to have other uses (e.g., visual/infrared cameras for
helicopters). Id. at 53.
15 October 5, 2023 Final Office Action at TSDR 38-43.
16 Id. at 27-37. We find other evidence provided by the Examining Attorney less probative as
to the relatedness of the goods. Specifically, it is not clear that the ThermoFisher Scientific
website shows goods that are the same as or similar to Applicant’s identified goods. See May
10, 2023 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 9-24. Likewise, the Hitachi website does not appear
to show goods that are similar to, or the same as, any of Registrant’s goods. See id. at 25-37.
17 We find the wording “optical inspection apparatus” to be broad enough to encompass
Applicant’s more specifically identified “GaN semiconductor wafer optical inspection
apparatus.”
18 See October 5, 2023 Final Office Action at TSDR 7-23. The Examining Attorney submitted
a total of eight third-party registrations (Registration Nos. 3541992, 5460593, 5813484,
6112833, 6212071, 6688366, 6946268, and 6981983) but one of them (Registration No.
5460593) is not relevant because it does not list goods that are similar to Applicant’s
identified goods. See id. at 15-16.

Serial No. 79358845
11
and thus may be perceived as related. In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., No. 74186695,
1993 TTAB LEXIS 36, at *7.
Lastly, the Examining Attorney points out that, based on Applicant’s own
website, “[A]pplicant itself offers goods that [consist of], work together with, and/or
incorporate cameras and scanners[,] which are the exact goods identified by
[R]egistrant.”19 See In re Accelerate s.a.l., No. 77522433, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 43, at *10
(relying on evidence from applicant’s website when considering the relatedness of the
goods). For instance, one of the webpages on the website describes Applicant’s new
“FPD photomask inspection system that incorporates a new optical system . . . [and]
also uses a new TDI camera to capture clearer images.”20 Another webpage describes
Applicant’s “Scanner,” which “employs a scanning exposure method moving both
stages of reticle and wafer.”21
Simply put, Registrant’s goods are identified broadly enough to include scanners
and cameras used in connection with semiconductor inspection and manufacturing
apparatus. Moreover, the evidence confirms that Applicant’s goods and at least some
of registrant’s goods may emanate from the same source under the same mark and
be offered to the same consumers. We therefore reject Applicant’s arguments that the
respective goods are not related because its “goods are industrial equipment used for
testing, inspecting and measuring semiconductors and semiconductor materials in
19 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 24 TTABVUE 6.
20 May 10, 2023 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 57.
21 Id. at 60.

Serial No. 79358845
12
the semiconductor manufacturing process,” and “[s]uch uses and functions are
different from those of the camera and scanner goods designated in the cited
registration.”22
In sum, considering the evidence as a whole, in connection with the goods as they
are identified in the application and the cited registration, we find that the respective
goods are related in terms of their purpose and complementary nature, specifically in
the context of semiconductor inspection and manufacturing. And the conditions and
activities surrounding the marketing and use of the goods are such that they could
be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that could give rise to the
mistaken belief that they originate from the same source when offered under identical
marks. See Coach Servs., 668 F.3d at 1396.
Accordingly, the second DuPont factor weighs in favor of a conclusion that
confusion is likely.
C. Trade Channels and Classes of Consumers
Next, we consider the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue
channels of trade, the third DuPont factor. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. Neither
Applicant’s identification of goods nor Registrant’s identification of goods has any
restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of consumers. Accordingly, we presume
that the identifications encompass all goods of the type described, that the goods
travel through all normal channels of trade for such goods, and that they are available
to all classes of purchasers of such goods. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie &
22 Applicant’s Brief, 22 TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 79358845
13
Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Univ. of Ky. v. 40-0, LLC,
No. 91224310, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *32-33 (“Because there are no limitations on
the channels of trade or classes of consumers of the . . . [goods] identified in the
application, the relevant consuming public comprises all potential purchasers of . . .
[such goods].”).
Applicant accepts this presumption, but argues that the Examining Attorney “has
not found that goods overlap in the absence of restrictions,” asserting that “the record
does not support a finding that the Registrant’s cameras and scanners are sold in the
same channels of trade as the Applicant’s ‘semiconductor wafer optical inspection
apparatus.’”23
We disagree. The Examining Attorney’s evidence, discussed above, establishes
that the goods at issue may, in fact, be offered through the same trade channels and
encountered by the same classes of consumers. We therefore find that the third
DuPont factor also weighs in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely.
D. Purchasing Conditions and Sophistication of Purchasers
Under the fourth DuPont factor, we consider “[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. Applicant argues that “the targeted purchaser for the
Applicant’s ‘semiconductor wafer optical inspection apparatus’ are expected to
23 Id.

Serial No. 79358845
14
exercise great care in the purchase of such goods which would be purchased after
careful and educated consideration by a sophisticated purchaser.”24
Applicant has not provided any evidence to support this argument. Nonetheless,
we agree that, based on their inherent nature alone, highly technical goods like
Applicant’s “GaN semiconductor wafer optical inspection apparatus” are unlikely to
be purchased on impulse, but instead with careful deliberation by informed
consumers. In re Info. Builders Inc., No. 87753964, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 20, at *4 (“[I]n
light of the inherent nature of the goods and services involved, some degree of
purchasing care may be exercised by Applicant’s potential or actual consumers.”).
Therefore, we find that the fourth DuPont factor weighs slightly against a
conclusion that confusion is likely.
II. Conclusion
Having considered all of the arguments and evidence of record pertaining to the
relevant DuPont factors, we find that the marks are identical in appearance, sound,
connotation, and overall commercial impression; that, as identified, Applicant’s goods
are related to Registrant’s goods; and that the respective goods may travel in
overlapping trade channels and be offered to the same classes of consumers. These
DuPont factors all weigh in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely, with the
identical nature of the marks weighing strongly in favor. The remaining factor
relating to purchasing conditions and purchaser sophistication weighs slightly
against a conclusion that confusion is likely.
24 Id. at 6.

Serial No. 79358845
15
On balance, the factors favoring a likelihood of confusion–similarity of the marks,
relatedness of the goods, and overlapping trade channels–outweigh the lone factor
against–purchaser sophistication. As we frequently point out, even sophisticated
purchasers are not immune from source confusion, especially where, as here, the
relevant goods are related and would be offered under identical marks. See Shell, 992
F.2d at 1208 (citing Weiss Assocs., Inc. v. HRL Assocs., Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 1548 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (affirming the Board’s reasoning that even sophisticated purchasers may
be confused by similar marks)).
Accordingly, we conclude that confusion as to source is likely.
Decision: The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) to register Applicant’s
mark GALOIS is affirmed.