IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Cancellation of TRIFOX for bicycle parts granted to owner of FOX marks for identical goods, (Nov 14, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The mark TRIFOX was likely to be confused with the earlier-registered mark FOX because the marks were similar and the goods either legally identical or highly related.

A seller of bicycle parts under the mark FOX was entitled to cancellation of a competitor’s registered mark TRIFOX, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held. The seller’s registration had priority and the marks were likely to be confused because they were similar and used with similar goods, (Fox Factory, Inc. v. Yongqiang, No. 92081730, (T.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2025)).

Dong Yongqiang (Yongqiang) was the owner of a registration on the Principal Register for the standard character mark TRIFOX for bicycles and a variety of bicycle parts. Fox Factory, Inc. (Fox) sought cancellation of Yongqiang’s registration on the ground of likelihood of confusion with its own registrations, including the standard character mark FOX and a related logo for vehicle parts including bicycle shock absorbers and forks, among other bicycle parts. After briefly noting that Fox’s pleaded registrations established its entitlement to a statutory cause of action as well as its priority, the Board considered the DuPont factors for which there was evidence of record.

Relatedness of goods, channels of trade, and classes of consumers. The Board found that both parties registrations contained “bicycle forks” and to that extent the goods were legally identical. The parties disputed the relatedness of Fox’s “bicycle parts, namely, shock absorbers” and Yongqiang’s “bicycle parts, namely, forks,” and the Board found that they were highly related because they were both components of bicycles and shared a purpose. The Board further found that the goods in question were offered to the same class of consumers, namely bike enthusiasts, and were found in the same retail environments. All three of these factors weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Strength of the petitioner’s marks. Yongqiang argued that the Fox’s marks were weak, citing Fox’s choice of a Squirt survey methodology that prior courts had found was chiefly used by holders of weak marks and several other FOX-containing registrations. The Board found that the choice of survey methodology did not amount to an admission and that the third-party registrations cited were almost entirely pending, cancelled, or for unrelated goods and were therefore not probative. Fox showed extensive evidence of advertising and exposure in the market for bicycle parts, so this factor weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Similarity of the marks. The Board found the marks were quite similar, noting that the recognizable and arbitrary word FOX was the sole element of Fox’s marks and was only preceded by the prefix TRI in Yongqiang’s mark. Any minor differences were outweighed by the commonality. This weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Actual confusion and concurrent use. Fox relied on a survey using the Squirt methodology, which consisted of showing both marks to the survey respondents, as opposed to an Ever-Ready type survey which would rely on the respondent’s existing knowledge of the Fox marks. The Board found that this methodology had limited probative value, and noted that there was no evidence of actual confusion. However, the record did not show a meaningful opportunity for confusion to have occurred. These factors were neutral.

Purchaser care. The Board found that neither registration limited itself to products at any particular price point, and bicycle parts including forks were sold at a variety of prices which may be impulse purchases or may require serious consideration. This factor was neutral.

Finding that the remaining factors were neutral, the Board balanced the factors and held that there was a likelihood of confusion. The petition to cancel was granted.

The Case is Cancellation No. 92081730.

Judge: Wellington, T.

Attorneys: William B. Patterson (Patterson + Sheridan, LLP) for Fox Factory, Inc. Timothy T. Wang (Ni Wang & Massand PLLC) for Dong Yongqiang.

Companies: Fox Factory, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO