Alpha Link Trading Ltd.

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: January 27, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Alpha Link Trading Ltd.
_____
Serial No. 97525822
_____
Stephen J. Driscoll of FisherBroyles LLP
for Alpha Link Trading Ltd.
Daniel Wood1, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 128,
Colleen Cassidy, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, English and Stanley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Alpha Link Trading Ltd. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark BIOVANISH (in standard characters) for “Dietary supplements”
in International Class 5.2
1 Different Examining Attorneys handled the examination of the application. We refer to all
such Examining Attorneys as “the Examining Attorney.”
2 Application Serial No. 97525822, filed July 29, 2022, based on an assertion of a bona fide
intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
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

Serial No. 97525822
- 2 -
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 VANISH for “dietary and nutritional supplements” in
International Class 5.3
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration.4 After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal resumed. We affirm the refusal to register.
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. 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.
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Applicant’s brief is at 6 TTABVUE; the
Examining Attorney’s brief is at 8 TTABVUE.
3 Registration No. 4609866, issued September 23, 2014, renewed.
4 The case was suspended for a period due to the pending renewal of the cited registration.

Serial No. 97525822
- 3 -
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
The second DuPont factor considers “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity and nature
of the goods as described in an application or registration.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361.
See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1327; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press
Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Comp. Servs.
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant’s goods are dietary supplements and the cited registration’s goods are
dietary and nutritional supplements. The goods are identical in part.5
It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established
for any goods encompassed by the identification of goods within a particular class in
the application or registration. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648
F.2d 1335, 1336 (CCPA 1981).
5 Applicant has not addressed this issue in its brief. See In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki
Kaisha, No. 86338392, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 448, at *3 (consider DuPont factors not addressed
in the brief as conceded).

Serial No. 97525822
- 4 -
This factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
B. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
Under the first DuPont factor, we consider the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression. Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en
1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361).
Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks
confusingly similar. In re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, at *4.
The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks is determined based on the marks in
their entireties; the analysis cannot be predicated on dissecting the marks into their
various components. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985). On
the other hand, different features may be analyzed to determine whether the marks
are similar. Id. There is nothing improper in giving more or less weight to a particular
feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the
marks in their entireties. Id.
The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a
general, rather than specific, impression of trademarks. See Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v.
Akea, LLC, No. 91196527, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 166, at *17; Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott
Paper Co., No. 91055167, 1975 TTAB LEXIS 236, at *6. The test under the first
DuPont factor is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a
side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in
terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the

Serial No. 97525822
- 5 -
goods or services offered under the respective marks is likely to result. Coach Servs.
v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Where, as here, the
marks identify identical goods, in part, “the degree of similarity [of the marks]
necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion declines.” Century 21 Real Estate
Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant’s mark is BIOVANISH and the cited mark is VANISH.
Applicant argues that the Examining Attorney has ignored “clear differences in
the marks.” 6 TTABVUE 3. Applicant points to the first syllable of the marks as
“generally the most important” and that “[h]ere, the first syllables of the marks are
totally different –i.e., BIO vs. VAN.” 6 TTABVUE 4.
While it is true that the first term of a mark is most likely to make an impression
on consumers, this is only one aspect in analyzing the marks as a whole. In this case,
the term VANISH, which comprises the whole of the cited registration’s mark, is
encompassed within Applicant’s mark, which increases the similarity between them.
See, e.g., In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applicant’s
mark ML is similar to registrant’s mark ML MARK LEES); DowntownDC Bus.
Improvement Dist. v. Clarke, No. 91275100, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *67-68
(DOWNTOWNDC DISTRICT OF FASHION similar to DISTRICT OF FASHION).
Applicant argues that the marks are different in view of the additional term in its
mark, along with its mark being a three-syllable word while the registered mark is a
two-syllable word, resulting in a different pronunciation. 6 TTABVUE 4.

Serial No. 97525822
- 6 -
Comparing the marks in terms of appearance and sound, we find that they are
differentiated only by the presence of the word BIO in Applicant’s mark. However, a
determination of likelihood of confusion is not made on a purely mechanical basis,
counting the number of words, syllables or even letters that are similar or different.
See In re John Scarne Games, Inc., 1959 TTAB LEXIS 31, at *1 (no proceeding
number available) (“Purchasers of game boards do not engage in trademark syllable
counting[;] they are governed by general impressions made by appearance or sound,
or both.”). Thus, although the marks are not identical in terms of appearance and
sound, due to the addition of BIO in Applicant’s mark, we find that they are similar
due to the presence of the word VANISH in both of them.
As to connotation, the Examining Attorney provided a dictionary definition for
BIO which means “life, living organism: biome.” January 17, 2023 Office Action at
TSDR 4. AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (ahdictionary.com). We take judicial notice
of the dictionary definition for the term VANISH which means “cease to be visible.”
MERRIAM-WEBSTER (merriam-webster dictionary.com accessed January 13, 2026).6 In
connection with the identified goods in the application, BIO may imply the use of
natural ingredients from living sources, while VANISH may suggest in connection
with the goods identified in both the application and cited registration that the
nutritional or dietary supplement makes an undesirable condition (e.g., fatigue, pain,
or excess fat) disappear quickly or effectively.
6 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.

Serial No. 97525822
- 7 -
We find that the presence of the BIO prefix in Applicant’s mark lends a slightly
different connotation to the cited registered mark, in that it suggests natural
ingredients used in connection with a dietary supplement that makes an undesirable
condition disappear quickly or effectively. However, we find that the similarity in
connotation resulting from the presence of the word VANISH in each mark outweighs
any difference in connotation resulting from the presence of the suggestive word BIO
in Applicant’s mark. Both marks connote that the dietary supplements will work
quickly and effectively in addressing an undesirable condition.
In terms of overall commercial impression, we find, again, that the marks are
similar because of the shared term VANISH. This fundamental similarity in the
source-indicating commercial impression created by both marks is not altered by the
presence of the suggestive term BIO. Even if purchasers, with their imperfect
recollections, notice and recall that one of the marks includes the prefix BIO as a
modifier of VANISH, they will recall that both marks include the word VANISH.
Consumers familiar with the cited VANISH mark are likely to perceive BIOVANISH
as an extension 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.”).
For all of these reasons, we find that Applicant’s mark BIOVANISH and the cited
registered mark VANISH are similar when viewed in their entireties. As noted above,
in cases where the goods are identical, in part, the degree of similarity between the

Serial No. 97525822
- 8 -
marks which is required to support a finding that the marks are similar under the
first DuPont factor declines.
Applicant’s mark and the cited registered mark, when applied to identical in part
goods, are sufficiently similar.
This factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
C. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Trade Channels
The third DuPont factor concerns “the similarity or dissimilarity of established,
likely-to-continue trade channels.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. There are no
restrictions in Applicant’s identification or the cited registration as to trade
channels.7
Given the in part legal identity between Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods, we
must presume that Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods will move in some of the same
trade channels to some of the same class of purchasers. See In re Viterra Inc., 671
F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (even though there was no evidence regarding
channels of trade and classes of consumers, the Board was entitled to rely on this
legal presumption that legally identical goods move in the same trade channels to the
same class of purchasers in determining likelihood of confusion). Additionally, the
Examining Attorney provided internet evidence to show that dietary supplements
may be purchased online in the same retail stores as nutritional supplements,
7 Neither Applicant nor the Examining Attorney argued trade channels on appeal, although
the Examining Attorney submitted evidence and made argument during prosecution
regarding trade channel overlap.

Serial No. 97525822
- 9 -
showing some overlap in the trade channels. July 20, 2023 Office Action at TSDR 2-
10.
This factor favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
II. Conclusion as to Likelihood of Confusion
As a final step, we “weigh the DuPont factors used in [our] analysis and explain
the results of that weighing.” In re Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
2023) (emphasis omitted). Here, the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the
goods and trade channels all weigh in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. We
find confusion likely.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal to register Applicant’s mark BIOVANISH is
affirmed.