IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘CREATIVE HOME IDEAS’ mark for home décor and textile products cleared for registration, (Jun 5, 2024)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Board rules out likely confusion with existing marks for similar goods.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reversed a Trademark Examining Attorney's refusal to register YMF Carpets, Inc.'s mark CREATIVE HOME IDEAS. The Board concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion with cited registrations despite the identical and closely related goods due to conceptual weakness of existing marks, distinct commercial impression of the applicant's mark, and no evidence of actual confusion (In re YMF Carpets, Inc., No. 90822795 (TTAB June 4, 2024)).

Background. YMF Carpets applied to register the mark CREATIVE HOME IDEAS (standard characters, “HOME” disclaimed) for various home goods, including chair pads, shower curtains, pillows, towels, rugs, and bath mats on the Principal Register under International Classes 20, 24 and 27. The Trademark Examining Attorney initially rejected the application under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, citing a likelihood of confusion with existing marks, including CREATIVE HOME and HOMEIDEAS, both registered for similar home goods. When the refusal was made final, the applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request, the appeal resumed.

Likelihood of confusion. For the likelihood of confusion analysis, as always, the Board applied the factors outlined in the seminal case of In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).

Weakness of cited marks. The Board first examined the distinctiveness of the cited marks. YMF Carpets did not present evidence of third-party use, limiting the argument to conceptual weakness. During prosecution, YMF Carpets highlighted several third-party registrations featuring combinations of the terms “CREATIVE,” “HOME,” and “IDEAS.” The Board found that the terms were descriptive or suggestive of home goods, thus conceptually weak. This weakness reduced the scope of protection for the cited marks, supporting the argument against likely confusion. The Board referenced Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2015) to emphasize that a high number of similar third-party registrations can indicate a weak mark.

Goods and trade channels. The TTAB acknowledged that YMF Carpets’ goods and those of the cited registrations shared identical or closely related goods, such as soap dispensers, curtains, and towels. Evidence showed these goods traveled in the same trade channels and were marketed to the same class of consumers. However, the Board noted the weakness of the cited marks and the relatively low cost of the goods, suggesting that even ordinary consumers could distinguish between the marks based on the context of their purchase. The Board cited Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) to highlight that public confusion might arise about the source of goods, even if the goods themselves are different.

Similarity of marks. Referencing In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Board highlighted the importance of analyzing the overall impression of marks and assessed the marks' appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. It found that while CREATIVE HOME IDEAS, CREATIVE HOME, and HOMEIDEAS all contained the term “HOME,” this commonality was insufficient to cause confusion. The terms “CREATIVE” and “IDEAS” were highly suggestive and did not significantly affect the commercial impression. The Board concluded that the combination of terms in YMF Carpets’ mark created a distinct commercial impression, differentiating it from the cited marks.

Lack of actual confusion. YMF Carpets provided evidence of concurrent use of the marks in the marketplace without instances of actual confusion. This included a declaration from YMF Carpets’ CEO and screenshots of Amazon storefronts showing long-term use of the marks. However, the Board found this evidence limited and insufficient to demonstrate a significant overlap in market conditions that would reveal actual confusion. The Board deemed this factor neutral in its analysis.

Conclusion. Despite the identical and closely related goods, the Board determined that the distinctiveness of YMF Carpets’ mark CREATIVE HOME IDEAS was sufficient to avoid likely confusion. The Board, therefore, reversed the refusal to register.

The Case is Serial No. 90822795.

Judge: Kuhlke, K.

Attorneys: Stephen F. Roth (Lerner David LLP) for YMF Carpets, Inc. Andrew Leaser for the USPTO.

Companies: YMF Carpets, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO