IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Likelihood of confusion exists between FORTE marks of bank and payment processing company, (Aug 22, 2025)

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

The TTAB found that FORTE BANK and FORTE are likely to be confused because they are very similar in connotation, commercial impression, appearance, and sound.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s mark FORTE BANK, citing a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark, FORTE. The TTAB found that the similarity of the marks, the fact that the services are identical in part and otherwise closely related, and the overlap in the trade channels weighed in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely (In re The First National Bank of Hartford, No. 88579433 (T.T.A.B. July 23, 2025)).

Background. The First National Bank of Hartford (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the standard-character mark FORTE BANK for consumer and commercial banking services, mobile banking services, online banking services, private banking services, checking account services, savings account services; issuance of debit cards and credit cards; financing and loan services, namely, providing personal and consumer loans and lines of credit; home mortgage lending services; home equity loan services; financing and loan services, namely, providing commercial lines of credit; commercial mortgage lending and loan services; financing of term loans; individual retirement account services; employee retirement account services; personalized financial planning services; automated teller machine services; checking account services, savings account services; financial administration of retirement plans; administration of health savings accounts; issuance of cashier’s checks and money order services; safety deposit box services, none of the foregoing to include payment processing services relating to ACH payments and credit and debit card payment processing, non-sufficient funds re-presentments, namely, re-submission of checks and ACH debits returned as non-sufficient fund item, providing electronic processing of electronic check payments, check verification or check recovery, in International Class 36. The applicant disclaimed BANK in its mark.

The examining attorney refused registration, citing likelihood of confusion with two registered marks, “FORTE” (in standard characters) and “{forte}” (stylized mark), both for services that include payment processing services relating to ACH payments and credit and debit card payment processing; non-sufficient funds re-presentments, namely, re-submission of checks and ACH debits returned as non-sufficient fund items; providing electronic processing of electronic check payments; check verification; and check recovery, in International Class 36; and software as a service services featuring payment processing application programming interfaces, virtual payment processing terminals, mobile point of sale applications, applications for processing secure payments via the Internet, applications for electronic bill payments, hosted interactive voice response systems, and virtual point of sale terminals; bank and credit account verification for information security purposes; identity verification for information security purposes; secure payment transaction services, namely, tokenization of payment data, in Class 42. After the refusal was made final and the applicant’s requests for reconsideration were denied, the applicant appealed.

Likelihood of confusion. In assessing likelihood of confusion, the TTAB focused on their analysis on the registrant’s standard character mark FORTE (Registration No. 4746699 or the ’699 Reg.) because it covers the same services as the other cited mark and is most similar to the applicant’s mark. If the TTAB finds a likelihood of confusion as to the mark of the ’699 Registration, they need not address the refusal with respect to the other cited mark.

Similarity of the marks. In assessing the similarity of the marks, the TTAB found that the applicant’s mark, FORTE BANK, is extremely similar to the registered mark, FORTE. The applicant has merely incorporated the registered mark and added the word “BANK,” which it has disclaimed. FORTE is clearly the predominant element in the applicant’s mark because it appears first, and the highly descriptive or generic word, BANK, does not make any significant impact in the minds of consumers for purposes of distinguishing the marks from others. As to connotation or commercial impression, the word “forte” is defined “one’s strong point.” It has no special meaning or significance in connection with the involved services, but may suggest that the applicant and the registrant excel in rendering their services. The TTAB noted that there is no evidence of weakness of the registrant’s mark. It is registered mark on the Principal Register without a claim of acquired distinctiveness or disclaimer, and thus carries a presumption that it is inherently distinctive in connection with the services. Taken in their entireties, the TTAB concluded that the marks are very similar in connotation and commercial impression, as well as appearance and sound. Therefore, the first DuPont factor strongly weighed in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.

Relatedness of the services and trade channels. The applicant asserted that its banking services are related to holding, managing, and lending money, whereas the registrant’s services include payment processing services, which are a sequence of actions to securely transfer funds between a payer and payee. Further, the applicant contended that consumers for the relevant services can and do distinguish between highly similar marks used by different entities, even when the only differentiators is/are disclaimed terms. The applicant submitted Internet evidence to show that banking and payment processing services are unrelated; however, some of the evidence the applicant submitted actually confirmed that banks will also offer payment processing services. Accordingly, the TTAB found that banking services, like those described in the application, are related to payment processing services, like those listed in the cited registration. Additionally, the examining attorney’s Internet evidence demonstrated that consumers may encounter these two types of services on the same website, offered by the same entity. Accordingly, the second and third DuPont factors also weighed in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.

Thus, the TTAB found that the first, second, and third DuPont factors all weigh in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion and there are no DuPont factors for which there is evidence and argument that weigh to the contrary. Therefore, the TTAB concluded that the applicant’s mark, FORTE BANK, as used in connection with the banking services identified in the application, is likely to be confused with the registered mark, FORTE, as used in connection with the payment processing services recited in the cited registration.

Accordingly, the refusal to register the applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 88579433.

Judge: Wellington, T.

Attorneys: Daniel E. Kattman and Heidi R. Thole (Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.) for The First National Bank of Hartford. Andrea K. Nadelman for the USPTO.

Companies: The First National Bank of Hartford

Cases: Trademark USPTO