Corning Incorporated

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: October 14, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Corning Incorporated
_____
Serial No. 99215362
_____
Andrew Roppel, M. Ginger Eastman and Larry Tronco of Holland & Hart LLP,
for Corning Incorporated.
Isabel Innes, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 135,1
Kathy Wang, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Lykos, Goodman and Casagrande,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lykos, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Corning Incorporated (“Applicant”) seeks to register on the Principal Register the
standard character mark ENLIGHTEN for, as amended, “Building glass for
distribution to commercial and wholesale glass suppliers; Window glass for building,
excluding sidelites for doors; Insulating glass for building purposes; Insulating glass
1 The application was originally assigned to Trademark Examining Attorney Marc Davis in
Law Office 122.

Serial No. 99215362
- 2 -
for windows for building purposes; Laminated flat glass for building purposes; Safety
glass for building purposes” in International Class 19.2
Applicant appeals the Trademark Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the
mark on the ground that Applicant’s mark so resembles the registered standard
character mark ENLITEN on the Principal Register for “Flush glazed glass lites and
sidelites for doors” in International Class 19, 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).3
The appeal is fully briefed.4 For the reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal
to register.
2 Application Serial No. 99215362, filed June 3, 2025, 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
USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) database now reflects the above
as the operative identification.
Citations to the prosecution file refer to the TSDR database 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) (2026)
for acceptable citation options to cases.
3 Registration No. 5792748, registered on July 2, 2019 and is owned by Therma-Tru
Corporation (“Registrant”). Registrant’s combined declaration of use and incontestability
under Trademark Act Sections 8 and 15 was accepted on October 17, 2025.
4 Applicant’s main, supplemental, and reply briefs may be found, respectively, at entry nos.
6, 12 and 15 in TTABVUE; the Examining Attorney’s brief is located at entry no. 14.
Applicant submitted new evidence with its supplemental brief consisting of (1) the dictionary
definition of “enlighten” from the online version of THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY; and
(2) printouts from Registrant’s ThermaTru.com website advertising its “EnLiten” branded
flush glazed door lite and side lite designs. 12 TTABVUE 7-34. Normally, the Board would
deem Applicant’s submissions untimely. See Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d).
However, in this case, the Examining Attorney did not object, and each piece of Internet

Serial No. 99215362
- 3 -
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.
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
evidence includes the URL and access date. See TBMP §§ 1207.03, 1208.03 and cases cited
therein. In addition, the Examining Attorney addressed the dictionary definition in her brief,
and the printouts from Registrant’s website are more complete versions of the same website
previously submitted by the Examining Attorney during prosecution. See In re Chestek PLLC,
No. 88938938, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 100, at *6 n.14 (the Board considered materials attached
to the applicant’s and examining attorney’s briefs because there were no objections to
consideration of the materials and because the non-offering parties addressed the materials),
aff’d, 92 F.4th 1105 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Chestek v. Vidal, 145 S. Ct. 151 (2024)
and TBMP § 1207.01 (“if the applicant or the examining attorney submits excerpts from
articles during examination, the nonoffering party may submit the complete article, even if
such submission is made after the appeal is filed. … [I]f the article is submitted with an
appeal brief, the Board need not remand the application and may instead consider the article
as part of the record.”). For these reasons, we have considered the evidence submitted with
Applicant’s supplemental brief.

Serial No. 99215362
- 4 -
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
Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103 (CCPA 1976)). These factors, as well as
others, are discussed below.
A. The Marks
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.

Serial No. 99215362
- 5 -
87075988, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, at *13 (quoting In re Davia, No. 85497617, 2014
TTAB LEXIS 214, at *21-24), aff’d mem., 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)).
We now compare Applicant’s mark ENLIGHTEN with the cited mark ENLITEN,
both in standard characters. Applicant acknowledges that the marks share phonetic
similarities but argues that they differ in connotation and commercial impression.
Applicant points to the dictionary definition of “enlighten” from THE MERRIAM-
WEBSTER DICTIONARY as meaning “to illuminate” or “to provide knowledge or
insight.”5 Based on this evidence, Applicant argues that its mark suggests “both the
literal illumination provided by light transmission and the metaphorical
‘enlightenment’ of the innovative glass technology incorporated into Applicant’s glass
5 Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 7; Applicant’s Supplemental Brief, 12 TTABVUE 7 (entry
for “enlighten” from the online version of THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY accessed
4/2/2026).

Serial No. 99215362
- 6 -
that enhances its performance.”6 Applicant contrasts its correctly spelled mark
ENLIGHTEN with the spelling of the cited mark ENLITEN. Applicant argues that
the misspelling of the cited mark incorporates the architectural term “lite,” referring
to an individual pane of glass that is framed within a door (lite) or next to a door (a
sidelite). Applicant therefore maintains that ENLITEN alludes to the cited
registration’s identified goods of “flush glazed glass lites and sidelites for doors,” while
ENLIGHTEN carries a connotation of innovation and illumination. As support,
Applicant cites to case law where the Board found that identical marks projected
different meanings and commercial impressions when considered in relation to the
identified goods. See, e.g., In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 73502919, 1987 TTAB
LEXIS 84, at *8 (holding CROSS-OVER for bras and CROSSOVER for ladies’
sportswear not likely to cause confusion, noting that the term CROSS-OVER was
suggestive of the construction of applicant’s bras, whereas CROSSOVER, as applied
to registrant’s goods, was “likely to be perceived by purchasers either as an entirely
arbitrary designation, or as being suggestive of sportswear which ‘crosses over’ the
line between informal and more formal wear . . . or the line between two seasons”);
In re British Bulldog, Ltd., No. 73354851, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 15, at *7-8 (PLAYERS
for men’s underwear and PLAYERS for shoes not likely to cause confusion because
the term “players” implies a fit, style, color, and durability suitable for outdoor
activities when applied to shoes, but “implies something else, primarily indoors in
nature” when applied to men’s underwear); In re Sydel Lingerie Co., No. 73009188,
6 Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 7-8.

Serial No. 99215362
- 7 -
1977 TTAB LEXIS 189, at *4-5 (no likelihood of confusion found between BOTTOMS
UP for ladies’ and children’s underwear and BOTTOMS UP for men’s suits, coats and
trousers).
We find that the marks are not only similar in sight and sound but also in
connotation and commercial impression. First, Applicant’s mark ENLIGHTEN and
the cited mark ENLITEN are phonetic equivalents. Both marks share the same
cadence and are likely to be pronounced in three syllables as “in-ˈlī-tᵊn.”7 Similarity
in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of confusing similarity. 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). Applicant does not argue that the marks do not sound
alike.
Structurally, the marks are nearly identical in appearance. Both begin with the
letter string E-N-L-I and end with T-E-N. The only difference is that Applicant’s mark
contains the silent digraph “GH”. That difference reflects the conventional spelling of
the word “enlighten,” while the cited mark may be viewed as a misspelling of the
same word. Consumers are unlikely to focus on or remember this distinction when
the marks sound nearly identical, if not exactly the same. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc.,
671 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (substantial evidence supports the Board’s
determination that “any minor differences in the sound of [XCEED and X-SEED] may
7 Applicant’s Supplemental Brief, 12 TTABVUE 7 (entry for “enlighten” from the online
version of THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY accessed 4/2/2026).

Serial No. 99215362
- 8 -
go undetected by consumers and, therefore, would not be sufficient to distinguish the
marks.”).
In terms of connotation and commercial impression, the Examining Attorney
submitted evidence that the alternate spellings of “light” and “lite” are
interchangeable in the context of architectural glass, meaning that the marks
ENLIGHTEN and ENLITEN project a highly similar, if not identical, connotation
and commercial impression. We find the following examples most probative:
The Window & Door Manufacturers Association glossary
showing the terms LIGHT and LITE both used to refer to
glass panes for window and doors.8
Evidence that one of Registrant’s products, “sidelites for
doors” can be spelled as “sidelight” or “sidelite.”9
A blog entitled “Window Lite and Window Light: How is
Your Grammar?” posted on WindowRepair.com discussing
the interchangeability of the terms “window light” and
“window lite.”10
Consumers are therefore likely to attribute the same meanings to each mark and
view the cited mark as a clever play on the verb “enlighten” defined as “to
illuminate.”11 Lites and sidelites for doors admit natural light into an interior, and
building glass may do the same.
8 February 2, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 51 (defining “Lite(light)” as “a
panel of glass on an insulating glass (IG) window, door, TDD, roof window, SSP, or unit
skylight. Frequently spelled ‘lite’ in industry literature to avoid confusion with visible light.”).
9 Applicant’s July 29, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 6 (entry for “sidelight” from
WIKIPEDIA).
10 February 2, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 41-42.
11 Applicant’s Supplemental Brief, 12 TTABVUE 7 (entry for “enlighten” from THE MERRIAM-
WEBSTER DICTIONARY accessed 4/2/2026).

Serial No. 99215362
- 9 -
Furthermore, as will become evident in our discussion about the goods, this is not
a situation where the same marks are used to identify goods so dissimilar as to
engender different connotations or commercial impressions. For this reason,
Applicant’s reliance on Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sydel Lingerie, and British Bulldog is
misplaced.
Overall, the marks are nearly identical in appearance and identical in sound,
connotation and commercial impression, particularly when we keep in mind that
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 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 [ ] 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). Because the marks are
almost identical, a lesser degree of similarity between the goods is necessary to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion. L’Oréal S.A. v. Marcon, No. 91184456,

Serial No. 99215362
- 10 -
2012 TTAB LEXIS 77, at *19 (“the greater the degree of similarity in the marks, the
lesser the degree of similarity that is required of the products or services on which
they are being used in order to support a holding of likelihood of confusion”) (citation
omitted); see also Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d at 1207.
Applicant argues that its goods are “raw building materials designed for
incorporation into various architectural glazing systems” that are “targeted primarily
to architects, glazing contractors, window manufacturers, and building professionals
who require high-performance glazing solutions for commercial and residential
construction projects.”12 Applicant contrasts its goods with Registrant’s “flush glazed
glass lites and sidelites for doors,” which it characterizes as “consumer-facing, pre-
manufactured lites and sidelites for doors.”13 Applicant explains that a “lite” is a glass
component incorporated into a door and that “sidelites” are narrow vertical glazed
windows positioned along one or both sides of a door. Applicant takes the position
that the terminology “flush glazed” in the cited registration signifies that the lites are
built directly into the door during the manufacturing process.14 On that basis,
Applicant argues that Registrant’s goods are properly viewed as door parts or
accessories rather than as building material.
Applicant’s characterization of Registrant’s goods is inaccurate. Nothing in the
cited identification limits Registrant’s “lites” and “sidelites” to consumer-facing, pre-
12 Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 9.
13 Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 10.
14 Applicant’s Supplemental Brief, 12 TTABVUE 3.

Serial No. 99215362
- 11 -
manufactured goods, or goods sold only as door accessories. According to “The
Window Glossary” published by the Window & Door Manufacturers Association, a
“side lite” is defined as
an operable or non-operable product that is designed to be
a companion product installed on one or both sides of an
operable door or fixed door. Side lites often have their own
separate frame or are contained within the frame of a
composite assembly.15
This definition makes clear that while side lites are companion products to doors,
they are not “door parts” as Applicant contends. Lites and side lites can be
incorporated into a composite door assembly but they may also be separately framed
and installed adjacent to a door. Furthermore, “flush glazed” refers to lites installed
level with the surrounding sash, frame, or door surface, rather than being
prominently recessed or projecting outward. It does not, by itself, limit the identified
goods to components installed in a door solely during the manufacturing process.
Indeed, Registrant’s identification is devoid of language to indicate that the lites and
sidelites are “sold as a unit” with doors or sold solely as accessories. See TMEP
§ 1401.05(a). And if the cited registration were for doors sold with lites and sidelites
as integral components, as per the requirements of the USPTO’s ACCEPTABLE
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES MANUAL (“ID Manual”), the registration
would have had to indicate the material composition of the door because that impacts
15 February 2, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 54 (www.wsdma.com accessed
2/2/2026).

Serial No. 99215362
- 12 -
the classification.16
This leads us to another point. Although the Examining Attorney’s arguments
focus on the assertion that the respective goods are related, the language of the
identifications shows that they are also identical in part. In this regard, we
acknowledge the limitation that Applicant added to “window glass for building” to
exclude “sidelights for doors.” But the exclusion applies only to these particular goods
and not the other items listed in the application. Applicant’s identification also
includes “Building glass for distribution to commercial and wholesale glass
suppliers,” and the cited registration identifies “Flush glazed glass lites and sidelites
for doors.” “Building glass” broadly refers to glass used in construction and
architectural applications and is broad enough to include glass used for doors lites
and sidelites. The record supports this interpretation. Applicant’s Corning®
Enlighten™ Glass Product Information Sheet describes Applicant’s glass as
an enabling technology for high-performance windows,
doors, and skylights that can significantly enhance the
thermal performance, comfort, and aesthetics of built
environments.17
This evidence confirms that building glass may be used not only for windows or wall
components but also in connection with doors. In other words, Registrant’s “flush
glazed glass lites and sidelites for doors” are a subtype of architectural or building
16 By way of illustration, “metal doors” fall under International Class 6 while “wooden doors”
are classified in International Class 19. See ID Manual at uspto.gov accessed 10/8/2026.
17 February 2, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 91 (www.corning.com accessed
2/2/2026).

Serial No. 99215362
- 13 -
glass.
Because the application contains no limitation as to the nature, purpose, or
intended use of “building glass” we must construe it broadly to encompass all types
of “building glass” including “flush glazed glass lites and sidelites” designed
specifically for doors. See Paula Payne Prods. Co. v. Johnson Publ’g Co., 473 F.2d 901,
902 (CCPA 1973) (Board must “give full sweep” to an identification of goods
regardless of registrant’s actual business). The qualifying language “for distribution
to commercial and wholesale glass suppliers” does not differentiate or change the
nature of Applicant’s goods. Rather, it identifies the trade channels and classes of
consumers, not a different kind of “building glass.” And as discussed below,
Registrant’s identification contains no limitation excluding distribution of its door
lites and sidelites through commercial or wholesale glass suppliers. Accordingly,
Registrant’s goods are encompassed within the broader category of “building glass”
making the goods legally identical in part. See In re Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc.,
No. 85627379, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *10 (holding that applicant’s broadly worded
identification of “furniture” encompassed registrant’s more narrowly identified
“residential and commercial furniture”).
The second DuPont factor therefore weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of
confusion.
C. The Established, Likely-to-Continue Channels of Trade and Classes of
Customers
DuPont also tells us to consider “the similarity or dissimilarity of established,
likely-to-continue trade channels,” and the “buyers to whom sales are made.” DuPont,

Serial No. 99215362
- 14 -
476 F.2d at 1361. These factors address 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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1307; Stone Lion, 746 F.3d
at 1323; Hewlett-Packard, 281 F.3d at 1267.
Applicant contends that the amendment made during prosecution to limit
“building glass” as distributed solely to “commercial and wholesale glass suppliers,”
“creates a clear business-to-business distribution model targeting architects, glazing
contractors, window manufacturers, and building professionals.”18 Applicant
maintains that, in contrast, Registrant’s goods are consumer products sold through
retail channels that are typical of door components and door accessories with the
general public serving as the ultimate end users.
Applicant’s arguments are unavailing. While “building glass” as identified in the
application contains a limitation on the channels of trade and classes of purchasers,
conversely the registration does not. As such, Registrant’s “flush glazed glass lites
and sidelites for doors” presumptively move in all normal trade channels, including
distribution through commercial and wholesale glass suppliers. See Levi Strauss &
Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Likewise, the classes of consumers for the cited registration encompasses not only
commercial and wholesale glass suppliers but also the same downstream purchasers
18 Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 12.

Serial No. 99215362
- 15 -
of Applicant’s goods (architects, glazing contractors, window manufacturers, building
professionals, and homeowners). Indeed, Registrant’s Therma-Tru website
advertising its “EnLiten” branded “Flush Glazed Designs” shows that the ultimate
consumers of its lites and sidelites for doors include not only homeowners but also
residential and building contractors as well as glass installers.19
These factors also weigh in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion because the
trade channels and classes of consumer include some overlap.
D. Purchasing Conditions
Finally, we evaluate “[t]he conditions under which … 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 (anesthesia apparatus), 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. But in evaluating this factor, we also keep
in mind that even if the class of buyers of the goods in question exercise elevated care
19 Applicant’s Supplemental Brief, 12 TTABVUE 20 (printout from www.thermatru.com
accessed on 4/2/2026) (“For Construction & Installation [Therma-Tru] [p]rovides protection
in case of accidental glass breakage during residential and multi-family construction or
installation. Therma-Tru will replace the flush-glazed fiberglass door or sidelite. For
Homeowners [Therma-Tru] [p]rovides protection in case of glass-related failures due to
manufacturer defect. Therma-Tru will furnish $300 toward installation and replace the
flush-glazed fiberglass door or sidelite.”)

Serial No. 99215362
- 16 -
in selecting the goods, that “does not necessarily impose on that class the
responsibility of distinguishing between similar trademarks for similar goods.” In re
Rsch. and Trading Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In evaluating this factor, we focus on the goods which we found to be legally
identical with overlapping trade channels and consumers. Applicant argues that
prospective purchasers of Applicant’s building glass are “sophisticated professionals
who make specification-driven purchasing decisions based on technical requirements
such as thermal performance, weight, durability, energy efficiency, acoustics, and
safety.”20 It likewise argues that purchasers of Registrant’s goods are also careful in
their decision-making, “as home/business improvements represent a significant
financial investment and involve careful consideration of design aesthetics, security
features, long-term performance expectations, and other factors.”21 Such consumers,
Applicant contends, “typically spend considerable time researching options,
comparing features, and consulting with professionals before making a final
decision.”22 Thus, as Applicant asserts, neither set of goods are impulse purchases.
The record supports a finding that such purchases are deliberate and well thought
out. For example, Applicant’s Product Information Sheet touts the “greater design
freedom” for architectural applications due to enhanced thermal performance.23
20 Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 15.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 February 2, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 91 (www.corning.com accessed
2/2/2026).

Serial No. 99215362
- 17 -
Construction professionals and architects are likely to take note of these properties
when making such purchases from wholesalers. And although Registrant’s
identification is not limited to commercial or residential buyers, both categories are
likely to exercise an elevated level of care due to the inherent nature of the goods.
As a result, even the least sophisticated consumer is likely to exercise at least an
above average degree of care. See Stone Lion, 746 F.3d at 1325 (Board properly
considered all potential investors for recited services, which included sophisticated
investors, but that Board precedent requires basing finding “on the least
sophisticated potential purchasers”); see also, In re Jimenez, No. 97551823, 2025
TTAB LEXIS 441, at *14 (Board found that both commercial and residential
purchasers of roofing services likely to exercise “an elevated level of care based on
evidence that applicant’s website invites consumers to schedule a consultation and
advertises that applicant offers financing options). This DuPont factor weighs against
a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
II. Conclusion – Weighing and Balancing the DuPont factors
The final step in analyzing likelihood of confusion is to weigh the DuPont factors
for which there is evidence and argument, “explain the results of that weighing,” and
address “the weight [we] assigned to the relevant factors.” Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th
at 1384. “No mechanical rule determines likelihood of confusion, and each case
requires weighing of the facts and circumstances of the particular mark.” In re Mighty
Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Naterra Int’l, 92 F.4th at

Serial No. 99215362
- 18 -
1116-17 (“Only the DuPont factors of significance to the particular mark need be
considered in the likelihood of confusion analysis.”).
We have carefully considered all of the evidence made of record, as well as all of
the arguments. The marks are nearly identical, meaning that this DuPont factor
weighs heavily in favor of likelihood of confusion. Additional factors that also weigh
heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion are the in-part identity of the goods which
may travel in the same trade channel of distribution to commercial and wholesale
glass suppliers and consumer class. The level of care in making purchasing decisions
weighs somewhat against a likelihood of confusion. However, with nearly identical
marks and legally identical goods traveling in an overlapping trade channel to the
same consumers, even a sophisticated purchaser with specialized expertise is
unlikely to understand that the goods emanate from different sources. See, e.g., Shell
Oil Co., 992 F.2d at 1208 (“even sophisticated purchasers can be confused by very
similar marks”); Weiss Assocs. v. HRL Assocs., 902 F.2d 1546, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(similarities of goods and marks outweighed sophisticated purchasers, careful
purchasing decision, and expensive goods); In re Johns-Manville Corp., 1973 TTAB
LEXIS 252, at *4 (“While the average purchaser of [building doors and asphalt
shingles] may be skilled craftsmen, it does not necessarily follow therefrom that they
are equally informed as to the source of the products that they use and are, unlike
customers for other products, immune from the likelihood of confusion or deception
that the statute is attempting to preclude.”).

Serial No. 99215362
- 19 -
We conclude that the critical first and second DuPont factors, coupled with the
partial overlap in trade channels and class of consumers, outweigh the fact that
consumers are likely to exercise and elevated degree of care in selecting the respective
goods, and therefore confusion is likely. See i.am.symbolic, 866 F.3d at 1322 (the first
and second DuPont factors are “key considerations”) (quoting Herbko, 308 F.3d at
1164-65).
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal is affirmed.