ASP Global, LLC

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: June 11, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re ASP Global, LLC
_____
Serial No. 98391245
_____
Aaron S. Chaloner, Wesley M. Barbee and Carl M. Davis II of Baker, Donelson,
Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, for ASP Global, LLC.
Pauline Ha, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Lykos, English and Stanley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lykos, Administrative Trademark Judge:
ASP Global, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks to register on the Principal Register the
composite mark displayed below

Serial No. 98391245
- 2 -
for the following two hospital patient amenity kits in International Class 3:1
Hospital patient amenity kits comprised of non-medicated
personal care items in the nature of hair shampoos and
conditioners, body lotions, body washes, non-medicated
mouth washes, lip balms, personal deodorants,
toothpastes; Behavioral health hospital patient amenity
kits comprised of hair shampoos and conditioners, body
lotions, body washes, non-medicated mouth washes, lip
balms, personal deodorants, toothpastes, and also
including hair brushes, tooth brushes, dental flosses, nail
files, and playing cards.
Applicant appeals the Trademark Examining Attorney’s final refusal to register
on the ground that Applicant’s mark so resembles six different marks registered on
the Principal Register, each comprised of the term “A.S.P” or “ASP” that it is likely
to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1052(d).2 All six cited registrations are owned by the same entity,
1 Application Serial No. 98391245, filed February 5, 2024 under Section 1(b) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. “The mark
consists of a stylized globe with intersecting arcuate lines with dots at the intersections, all
to the left of the stylized wording ‘ASP’ with the stylized wording ‘GLOBAL’ below the letters
‘SP’ in ‘ASP’.” Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
Citations to the prosecution file refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system in Portable Document Format (“PDF”). Citations to the record
also include references to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system.
This opinion cites decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals by the pages on which they appear in the Federal
Reporter (e.g., F.2d, F.3d, or F.4th). For Board decisions, this opinion uses citations to the
Lexis® legal database, as well as the TTABVUE proceeding number, where available. See
TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 101.03(a)(2) (2025)
for acceptable citation options to cases.
2 Registration No. 4212268 for the mark A.S.P in stylized form; Registration No. 6279866 for
the mark A.S.P EDGE in standard characters; Registration No. 6669259 for the mark A.S.P
LUXURY HAIRCARE in stylized form; Registration No. 6774865 for the mark ASP SUPER-
SMOOTH STRAIGHTENING SYSTEM in standard characters; Registration No. 6855505
for the mark ASP ELIXIR in standard characters; and Registration No. 6855593 for the mark
ASP PURETONE in standard characters. Each cited mark identifies a variety of hair care
products, including shampoos and conditioners.

Serial No. 98391245
- 3 -
International Hair Cosmetics Limited (“Registrant”). We concentrate our analysis on
the registered stylized mark identified in Registration No. 4212268
for “cosmetics, hair lotions; hair care preparations; shampoos, hair conditioners; hair
styling preparations, hair spray, mousse and wax; hair oils; non-medicated
preparations all for the care and treatment of the hair and scalp; hair cosmetic
preparations for the hair and scalp” in International Class 3 (hereafter, the “Cited
Registration”).3 This is because the other cited marks contain “additional point[s] of
difference” from Applicant’s mark. See In re Max Cap. Grp. Ltd., No. 77186166, 2010
TTAB LEXIS 1, at *5. If a likelihood of confusion is found as to this registration, it is
unnecessary to consider the other cited registrations. Conversely, if likelihood of
confusion is not found, we would not find likelihood of confusion as to the marks in
the other cited registrations. See id.
The appeal is briefed. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal to
register.
I. Likelihood of Confusion
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark that:
[c]onsists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a
mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, … as
to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods
of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or
to deceive.
3 Registered on September 25, 2012 on the Principal Register. The registration was renewed
on April 4, 2023. The description of the mark is as follows: “The mark consists of the three
letters in the order of ‘A’, ‘S’ and ‘P’. The letters are capitalized and in a stylized font. There
are periods after the letters ‘A’ and ‘S’.” Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.

Serial No. 98391245
- 4 -
15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of
all of the probative evidence of record bearing on the likelihood of confusion. In re E.
I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”), cited in
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138, 144 (2015); see also In re
Charger Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023); In re Majestic Distilling
Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have considered each DuPont factor for
which there is evidence and argument. See In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). When analyzing these factors, the overriding concerns are not
only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but also to protect the
registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a
newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Varying weights may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending on the evidence
presented. See Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). “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). In
any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the first and second
DuPont factors, the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks and the goods. See In re
i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Herbko Int’l, Inc. v.
Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also In re Embiid,
No. 88202890, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 168, at *10 (“[T]he 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.”) (quoting Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort

Serial No. 98391245
- 5 -
Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103 (CCPA 1976)). These factors, as well as
others, are discussed below.
A. The Marks4
We commence with the first DuPont factor, the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression. See, e.g., Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1380 (citing DuPont, 476 F.2d at
1361); Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396
F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same). “Similarity in any one of these elements may
be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, No.
87075988, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13 (quoting In re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014
TTAB LEXIS 214, at *21-24), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
“[S]imilarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree.” In re St. Helena
Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d
1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The proper test regarding similarity “is not a side-by-
side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar
in terms of their commercial impression such that persons who encounter the marks
would be likely to assume a connection between [Registrant and Applicant].” Cai v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs. Inc.
v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)).
4 In its brief, Applicant does not address the first DuPont factor or challenge the similarity of
marks.

Serial No. 98391245
- 6 -
Our analysis cannot be predicated on dissecting the marks into their various
components; that is, the decision must be based on the entire marks, not just part of
the marks. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also
Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 1007 (CCPA 1981) (“It is
axiomatic that a mark should not be dissected and considered piecemeal; rather, it
must be considered as a whole in determining likelihood of confusion.”). “No element
of a mark is ignored simply because it is less dominant, or would not have trademark
significance if used alone.” In re Electrolyte Labs. Inc., 929 F.2d 645, 647 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (citing Spice Islands, Inc. v. Frank Tea & Spice Co., 505 F.2d 1293 (CCPA
1974)). That said, more or less weight may be given to a particular feature of a mark,
provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their
entireties. Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058; see also Sabhnani v. Mirage Brands,
LLC, No. 92068086, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *31.
We direct our attention first to Applicant’s composite mark
to ascertain its dominant element. For marks comprised of both wording and a design,
greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers
would use to refer to or request the goods or services. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671
F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“verbal portion of a word and design mark likely
will be the dominant portion”). In Applicant’s mark, the relatively larger sized term
ASP stands out as the dominant element. The horizontal crossbar of the letter “A”
extends to the right through the letter “S” and forms part of the letter “P”, drawing

Serial No. 98391245
- 7 -
the consumer’s attention to the letters “ASP.” As such, prospective consumers will be
naturally drawn to this prominently depicted, highly stylized initialism and begin
articulating the mark as the letter string “A-S-P” or pronouncing the mark as /æsp/.
The informational term GLOBAL is shown in much smaller sized lettering adjacent
to the right diagonal line of the letter “A” under the letters “S” and “P.” It plays a
subordinate role and merely reinforces the globe design to the left of ASP.
Having determined that ASP in Applicant’s composite mark is the dominant
element, it follows that the marks are highly similar in sound and appearance since
the letter string “A.S.P” is the sole element of the cited mark. “[W]e also keep in mind
the penchant of consumers to shorten marks,” In re Bay State Brewing Co., No.
85826258, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 46, at *9 (citation omitted), meaning that consumers
encountering the cited mark may assume that it is an abbreviated version of
Applicant’s composite mark. Although the font in the cited mark differs from
Applicant’s mark, consumers are unlikely to focus on such minutia. Consumers “have
but dim recollections from having previously seen or heard one or the other of the
involved marks.” Neutrogena Corp. v. Bristol-Myers Co., 410 F.2d 1391, 1393 (CCPA
1969). The punctuation in the cited mark is of minimal importance as well. Cf.
Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (finding SNAP!, with a broken exclamation point, merely descriptive of medical
syringes using snap-off plungers). The periods between the letters “A” and “S” do not
change the meaning or commercial impression other than suggesting that the letter
string “A-S-P” constitutes an initialism.

Serial No. 98391245
- 8 -
We do not have evidence in the record regarding the connotation or meaning of
ASP or A.S.P. But that is not necessary for us to determine that overall, the marks
are similar; each mark shares commonalities in appearance and sound. See Krim-Ko
Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling 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.”)
(citation omitted). The first DuPont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of
confusion.
B. The Goods
Next we consider the second DuPont factor, the similarity of the goods based on
the identifications in the application and Cited Registration. See In re Detroit Athletic
Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Stone Lion Cap. Partners, L.P. v. Lion Cap.
LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc.,
281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This DuPont factor “considers whether the
consuming public may perceive the respective goods [ ] of the parties as related
enough to cause confusion about the source or origin of the goods.” Naterra Int’l, Inc.
v. Bensalem, 92 F.4th 1113, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (internal citation omitted).
The goods do not have to 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)). The issue is not
whether the goods will be confused with each other, but rather whether consumers
would be confused as to their source. See Recot, 214 F.3d at 1329 (“[E]ven if the goods
in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same

Serial No. 98391245
- 9 -
goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.
It is this sense of relatedness that matters in the likelihood of confusion analysis.”).
In some cases, relatedness can be found based on the description of the goods in
the respective identifications. See Hewlett-Packard, 281 F.3d at 1267 (finding the
Board erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence of relatedness, because
“[w]hile additional evidence, such as whether a single company sells the goods and
services of both parties, if presented, is relevant to a relatedness analysis, [the Board]
did not consider the important evidence already before it, namely the ITU application
and [opposer’s] registrations.”). Such is the case here. Applicant’s goods consist of two
different amenity kits comprised of non-medicated personal care products, for
behavioral hospital and hospital patients. Each amenity kit includes hair shampoo
and hair conditioner, which are identical to two of the individual items listed in the
Cited Registration. Thus, based on the descriptions of the goods alone, the goods are
related because shampoo and hair conditioner are expressly included within the
amenity kits. Cf. In re Samsung Display Co., No. 90502617, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 258,
at *6 (Board found relatedness where the goods were used together and constituted
components incorporated into the same finished electronic products); In re Davey
Prods. Pty Ltd., No. 77029776, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 524, at *13-14 (Board found that
“applicant’s goods identified as ‘electric motors for machines’ are related to
registrant’s goods identified as ‘air compressors and parts therefor,’ because the
record shows that an electric motor is or can be an essential component and/or
replacement part of an air compressor.”); Teledyne Techs., Inc. v. W. Skyways, Inc.,

Serial No. 98391245
- 10 -
No. 92041265, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 55, at *13-14 (finding that ignition harnesses for
piston aircraft engines and aircraft engines were “commercially related” because
harnesses were a component part of aircraft engines). “[T]he test is not whether
purchasers would confuse [hair shampoos and conditioners, items included in
Applicant’s amenity kits with the amenity kit itself,] but rather whether purchasers
would be confused as to the source of these goods.” Teledyne Techs., 2006 TTAB
LEXIS 55, at *14. The remaining items in the kits are the type of routine personal
care products such as deodorant and toothpaste commonly offered together with
shampoo and conditioner in a kit. This is borne out by the record evidence showing
that Positive Promotions offers “Basic Hygiene Amenity Kits” comprised of products
from different brands such as Pert shampoo, Colgate toothpaste, and Dial deodorant.5
It even offers inscription on the kits of the name of the hospital that purchases the
kit.6 Likewise, NonProfitMedicalSupply.org offers a customized amenity kit for
Northside Hospital bundling personal care items such as shampoo, body wash, body
lotion and toothpaste.7
As further evidence of relatedness, the Examining Attorney’s submitted third-
party marketplace uses from Medline and Cardinal Health showing consumer
exposure to “Hospital patient amenity kits comprised of non-medicated personal care
items in the nature of hair shampoos and conditioners, body lotions, body washes,
5 April 7, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 10.
6 Id.
7 September 6, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 22 (printout from
https://nonprofitmedicalsupply.org accessed on 9/6/2024).

Serial No. 98391245
- 11 -
non-medicated mouth washes, lip balms, personal deodorants, toothpastes” on the
one hand and shampoo and conditioner on the other from a common source under the
same trademark.8 “This evidence suggests that consumers are accustomed to seeing
a single mark associated with a source that sells both.” Detroit Athletic. Co., 903 F.3d
at 1307 (crediting third-party website evidence that retailers use the same mark for
the goods at issue).
The goods are related,9 meaning that the second DuPont factor weighs in favor of
finding a likelihood of confusion.
C. The Established, Likely-to-Continue Channels of Trade
This brings us to the third DuPont factor, “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity of
established, likely-to-continue trade channels.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. This
8 April 7, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 61-75 (printout from Medline www.medline.com
accessed on 4/7/2025 showing the Medline Premium Amenity Kit comprised of conditioner,
hand/body lotion, shampoo and body bath, soap complexion bar, lotion soap and other items
each bearing the Medline mark as well as shampoo, baby shampoo, “rinse free” shampoo and
conditioner manufactured by Medline and sold under the Medline mark) and (printout from
www.cardinalhealth.com offering for sale patient hygiene and personal care products under
the Cardinal mark); see also September 6, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 25-29 (printout from
Serfinity https://serfinitymedicalproducts.com offering for sale in bulk the Medline Premium
Amenity Kit featuring personal care items such as shampoo, conditioner, body lotion,
toothpaste accessed on 9/6/2024) and (printout from Cardinal Health
www.cardinalhealth.com showing “Admission and Amenities kits”).
9 Applicant mistakenly argues that “something more” is required to establish relatedness of
goods here. See Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 14 (arguing that the “something more”
requirement discussed in In re Giovanni Food Co., No. 77796257, 2011 TTAB LEXIS 38,
concerning the relatedness of barbeque sauce on the one hand and coffee-house services and
catering services on the other, “is particularly instructive”). When the relatedness of the
goods and services is not evident, well known, or generally recognized, “something more” than
the mere fact that the goods and services are used together must be shown. In re St. Helena
Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 754 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that the “something more” rule “has
application whenever the relatedness of the goods and services is not evident, well-known or
generally recognized”). Here, there the comparison is not between goods and services; rather
Applicant’s application and the Cited Registration both identify goods. Thus, the “something
more” requirement is not applicable.

Serial No. 98391245
- 12 -
DuPont factor addresses the question of whether the goods move from producer to
consumer in the same commercial pathways (e.g., brick-and-mortar retail stores,
online specialty retailers, or wholesale distributorships). As with the second DuPont
factor, we are guided by the language in the identification of the application and Cited
Registration. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1307; Stone Lion, 746 F.3d at
1323; Hewlett-Packard, 281 F.3d at 1267.
Applicant argues that the wording “hospital patient amenity kits” in its
identification of goods limits the applied-for goods to products marketed for hospital
settings. Applicant further asserts that, as shown in printouts it submitted from its
website www.aspglobal.com/aboutasp, the applied-for goods are provided to “health
care providers and distributors.”10 By contrast, Applicant contends that there is no
evidence that Registrant’s goods are marketed to, or otherwise available through,
hospitals. Rather, Applicant points to printouts from Registrant’s online retail
website https://asphair.com to argue that Registrant’s hair care products are
primarily offered to “Hair Care Professionals.”11 Applicant emphasizes that
Registrant’s website prominently states, “HAIR CARE PROFESSIONAL?
REGISTER HERE TO ACCESS ALL AREAS,” and further indicates that at least 105
10 March 6, 2025 Response to the Office Action at TSDR 61-73 (accessed on 3/6/2025).
Applicant’s March 6, 2025 submission was divided into two entries. The better practice is to
upload the actual written response and exhibits in a single entry.
11 March 6, 2025 Response to the Office Action at TSDR 6-60 (accessed on 3/6/2025).

Serial No. 98391245
- 13 -
products are accessible only to professionals.12
Applicant’s assertions tell only part of the story. While the application contains
limitations on the channels of trade, and classes of purchasers, the Cited Registration
does not. Applicant cannot limit the trade channels and classes of consumers in the
Cited Registration through extrinsic evidence. See Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous.
Comput. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“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 regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular
nature of an applicant’s goods, the particular channels of trade or the class of
purchasers to which sales of the goods are directed ….” (internal citations omitted)).
As such, Registrant’s goods presumptively move in all normal trade channels and to
consumers that purchase such goods. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
The prospective consumers overlap because the identified kits are specifically
directed to hospital patients, who are among the same ultimate consumers that
encounter hair shampoo and conditioner. See In re Artic Elecs. Co., No. 337354, 1983
TTAB LEXIS 29, at *5-6 (“[I]n addition to source confusion among buyers, source
confusion among ultimate users of the goods … is both likely and encompassed within
the confusion proscriptions of Section 2(d).”); In re Revillon, 1967 TTAB LEXIS 111,
at *2 (“whether sold at retail or at wholesale, the goods of the parties reach the
ultimate purchasers bearing their respective trademarks.”) (proceeding number not
12 See id.

Serial No. 98391245
- 14 -
available). Hospital patients are ordinary purchasers or recipients of personal care
products used for hygiene and grooming, and shampoo and conditioner are routine
toiletries commonly provided to or used by such consumers. The trade channels and
consumers also overlap to the extent that the record demonstrates that the normal
trade channels for Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods includes the direct-to-consumer
retail websites discussed above under the second DuPont factor directed towards
hospitals and their purchasing agents. Thus, the goods may be encountered by the
same class of consumers, hospital patients and those purchasing personal care
products for them.
For these reasons, the third DuPont factor also favors a likelihood of confusion.
D. Purchasing Conditions
Lastly, we consider the fourth DuPont factor which evaluates “[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. A heightened degree of care
when making a purchasing decision may tend to minimize likelihood of confusion.
See, e.g., In re N.A.D., Inc., 754 F.2d 996, 999-1000 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (because only
sophisticated purchasers exercising great care would purchase the relevant goods,
there would be no likelihood of confusion merely because of the similarity between
the marks NARCO and NARKOMED). Conversely, impulse purchases of inexpensive
goods may tend to have the opposite effect. Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1376.

Serial No. 98391245
- 15 -
Applicant contends that “each of Registrant’s and Applicant’s respective goods are
offered to discriminating purchasers who utilize a high degree of care in making
purchasing decisions.”13 Elaborating further, Applicant contends that
neither patient amenity kits purchased by a hospital for
use by patients nor hair care products purchased by salon
owners/hair care professionals for use on its clients are
impulse purchases. A hospital undoubtably considers the
products that it provides to its patients via amenity kits to
be important in providing for the needs of its patients and
ensuring its patient’s comfort and satisfaction. Likewise,
hair care professionals have a vested interest in ensuring
that the products they use on, or sells to, their clients are
high quality and provide the client with an experience and
overall look that reflects well on the associated salon
business.14
Again, Applicant’s argument reflects only one side of the inquiry. The purchasers of
Applicant’s “hospital patient amenity kits” and “behavioral hospital patient amenity
kits” are procurement specialists for such entities. This type of buyer exercises an
elevated degree of care. The problem with Applicant’s position is that the Cited
Registration is unrestricted as to classes of purchasers and price. See Cunningham,
222 F.3d at 948 (affirming Board finding that where the identification is unrestricted,
“we must deem the goods to travel in all appropriate trade channels to all potential
purchasers of such goods”). We must therefore assume that Registrant’s hair
shampoos and conditioners may be sold not only to hospital purchasing departments
who possess a high degree of knowledge about the products and make careful,
deliberate buying decisions but also the general public, including ordinary consumers
13 Applicant’s Brief, p. 14; 4 TTABVUE 19.
14 Applicant’s Brief, p. 15; 4 TTABVUE 20.

Serial No. 98391245
- 16 -
of personal care products (including hospital patients), at all price points. While some
of these consumers such as hair care professionals might be highly sophisticated,
knowledgeable and discriminating about purchases, others may not. Where the
purchasers consist of both professionals and the public, the standard of care that
applies is that of “the least sophisticated potential purchasers.” Stone Lion, 746 F.3d
at 1325. This DuPont factor is neutral.
II. Conclusion – Weighing and Balancing the DuPont factors
The final step in analyzing likelihood of confusion is to assess our findings under
the DuPont factors discussed above and determine whether, on balance, confusion is
likely. See Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1379.
We have carefully considered all of the evidence made of record, as well as all
arguments. The first DuPont factor weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion
because overall, the marks are similar in sound and appearance. The second and third
factors also tip the scale in favor of a likelihood of confusion because the goods are
related, marketed in overlapping trade channels to the same classes of consumers.
The fourth, DuPont factor is neutral. With no factors weighing against a likelihood of
confusion, we conclude that confusion is likely.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal is affirmed.