IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Confusion likely between DUO mark for personal mobility devices and registered mark DUOPOWER for land vehicles, (Nov 12, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The TTAB found that the marks DUO and DUOPOWER are likely to be confused because they are similar, legally identical in part, and the trade channels overlapped.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed a trademark examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s mark DUO for personal mobility transportation devices, citing a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark, DUOPOWER for electric land vehicles. The TTAB found that the similarity of the marks, the fact that the goods are legally identical in part, and the overlap in the trade channels weighed in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely (In re DEKA Research & Development Corp., No. 98740807 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2025)).

Background. DEKA Research & Development Corp. (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the standard-character mark DUO for goods identified as “motorized, electric-powered, self-propelled, self-balancing, wheeled personal mobility, transportation device,” in International Class 12. The examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark DUOPOWER in standard characters, registered for “electric vehicles, namely, buses; buses and land vehicles; engines and motors for buses and land vehicles; drive trains for use in land vehicles and power trains for use in land vehicles; vehicle power train mechanism comprised of clutch, transmission, drive shaft, and differential,” in International Class 12. After the refusal was made final and the applicant’s request for reconsideration were denied, the applicant appealed.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating a likelihood of confusion, found that confusion was likely. The TTAB found that the applicant’s motorized, electric-powered, self-propelled, self-balancing, wheeled personal mobility, transportation device is fully encompassed within the registrant’s “land vehicles.” Thus, the goods are legally identical in part. The TTAB noted that the channels of trade and consumers for these legally identical goods are presumed to be the same. Thus, the second and third DuPont factors weighed heavily in favor of likelihood of confusion.

In assessing the similarity of the marks, the TTAB observed that the marks are obviously not identical, but shared the term DUO, the registered mark following it with the term POWER. Further, the common element DUO was the leading term in each mark, rendering it dominant in position, and most likely to be noticed and remembered by consumers.

According to applicant, the registered mark DUOPOWER is a compound mark signifying dual power—a reference to hybrid propulsion systems (e.g., gas and electric) which evokes technological complexity and energy functionality and is commonly used in the automotive industry to describe dual-fuel or hybrid drive systems. In contrast, the applicant’s mark DUO is a minimalist brand, possibly implying dual use (seated/standing), partnership, or simplicity, which, unlike the registered mark, does not suggest powertrain features or hybrid technology. However, the TTAB rejected the applicant’s argument that the commercial impressions of the marks “diverge meaningfully” based on a purported association of DUOPOWER with hybrid vehicles because there was no evidence that the addition of POWER changes the meaning of DUO in DUOPOWER.

The TTAB noted that POWER has some descriptive or suggestive meaning when used with the registrant’s goods, including “buses and land vehicles,” which must have a power source to operate. It is also descriptive to the extent it is laudatory in nature. The TTAB opined that the descriptive component of a mark may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the TTAB noted that with the applicant’s arguments regarding DUO, there was no evidence that POWER conveyed a distinct meaning that obviates confusion or introduces a functional, product-specific element not present in the applicant’s mark. Thus, the trailing word POWER did not meaningfully distinguish the marks DUO and DUOPOWER when used with the involved goods.

The TTAB also noted that consumers may perceive DUO, the more source-identifying part of the mark, as a brand extension of the senior DUOPOWER mark, with both marks indicating a single source for the goods. Noting that when the goods are legally identical the degree of similarity of the marks needed for confusion to be likely is lower, the TTAB found that DUO and DUOPOWER are similar. Therefore, the first DuPont factor weighed in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.

The applicant argued that the fourth DuPont factor, the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing, weighed against likelihood of confusion. However, the applicant submitted no evidence that either its consumers or those of registrant would be sophisticated. The TTAB found that the applicant’s mark and the registered mark identify goods that are not restricted by target consumer, price, or in any other manner that might suggest higher than normal consumer sophistication. The TTAB inferred from the nature of the involved goods that they are not the subject of routine purchases, such that consumers may exercise some care in purchasing, but even careful or sophisticated consumers are not immune from source confusion. Based on the nature of the goods, the fourth DuPont factor weighed slightly against likelihood of confusion.

The applicant argued that consumers are accustomed to distinguishing among DUO-formative marks for vehicles, identifying four registered marks: DUOLEVER, for motorcycles and parts therefor; DUO-SKID, for street sweeper vehicles; DUO LIFT, for agricultural implements; REV FLEX DUO, for ambulances. However, the TTAB found only three relevant, because one of the marks, DUO LIFT, is for agricultural implements, which is not similar to land vehicles. Moreover, the TTAB found that the evidence fell short of the quantity and quality of evidence needed to demonstrate conceptual weakness. Additionally, DUO as used in both marks is either arbitrary or suggestive, and the registered mark DUOPOWER is entitled to the level of protection accorded inherently distinctive marks. Thus, the TTAB found the sixth DuPont factor to be neutral.

Regarding lack of actual confusion, the applicant argument pointed that the record contained no evidence that actual consumers have been confused, despite the presumed overlap in goods and trade channels. Therefore, the seventh and eighth DuPont factors were neutral.

Balancing the factors, the TTAB concluded that confusion is likely between the applicant’s mark and the registrant’s mark for their respective identified goods. Accordingly, the refusal to register the applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 98740807.

Judge: O’Connor, C.

Attorneys: Mark E. Tetreault, Esq. for DEKA Research & Development Corp. Andrea K. Nadelman for the USPTO.

Companies: DEKA Research & Development Corp.

Cases: Trademark USPTO