IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register ‘spinflow‘ mark for industrial heat exchangers reversed, (Feb 12, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The Applicant’s industrial heat exchangers and the registered household vacuum cleaners were so different in kind that purchasers were not likely to believe that the goods emanated from a single source.

The refusal of the application of a Chinese manufacturer to register the mark “spinflow” for its industrial heat exchangers for being so similar to the registered mark “SPINFLOW” for robotic vacuum cleaners as to likely cause consumer confusion was improper, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has determined in a nonprecedential order. While the wording in two marks was identical, the respective goods were clearly dissimilar and differing purchasers would consider the goods given their different nature, which lessened any likelihood of confusion. Thus, the refusal to register with respect to the application was reversed (In re Zhenhai Petrochemical Jianan Engineering Co., Ltd., No. 79381020 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2026)).

Zhenhai Petrochemical Jianan Engineering Co., Ltd., a manufacturer of spiral tube heat exchangers located in China, sought to register on the Principal Register the mark “spinflow” for “heat exchangers, other than parts of machines, for industrial use” in International Class 11. The mark consisted of the stylized wording “spinflow” under a circle with bands. The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that the Applicant’s mark, as used in connection with those goods, so resembles the registered mark “SPINFLOW” in standard characters for “vacuum cleaners, robotic vacuum cleaners and parts thereof; robotic appliances for household purposes and maintenance and parts thereof, namely, robotic vacuum cleaners and parts thereof” in International Class 7 as to likely to cause confusion. After the refusal was final, the Applicant appealed the refusal to register to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Likelihood of confusion. When considering the similarity or dissimilarity of the Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks in their entireties in terms of their appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, although the wording of the respective marks, “spinflow” and “SPINFLOW,” was identical, the goods were manifestly dissimilar, the Board determined. Regarding the similarity of the marks, the Applicant’s design elements did not suffice to distinguish the marks as purchasers would use the wording to request or refer to the goods.

However, there was insufficient evidence that customers would seek out both types of goods for the same purpose. The cited Registration identified vacuum cleaners used to clean homes or buildings, while the Application identified free-standing industrial heat exchanges used for temperature regulation. To demonstrate that consumers would perceive the two types of goods to be related, the examining attorney relied on seven third-party websites purporting to offer both kinds of goods and argued that the Applicant’s heat exchangers and Registrant’s vacuum cleaners were “often sold by the same entity.” This evidence consisted of retailer websites showing both categories available through the same large distributors, and mere retailer overlap did not establish relatedness. Thus, the respective goods were so different in kind that purchasers were unlikely to believe that they emanated from a single source, the Board noted.

Regarding a comparison of the channels of trade, the evidence showed that vacuum cleaners and heat exchangers are available through a very broad channel of trade – being offered by large distributors and retailers. These distributors and retailers offer vacuum cleaners and heat exchangers under different categories online and presumably display them in different aisles of brick-and-mortar stores as they serve distinctly different purposes. Considering the class of customers for the respective goods, the Applicant’s heat exchangers were limited to industrial use. The Registrant’s vacuum cleaners were partially limited to household purposes and available to companies as well as residential customers, and due to a potential overlap, both sorts of goods could conceivably be offered to industrial companies. However, given the disparity in the respective goods, their classes of purchasers could not be presumed to be the same.

Finally, as for the care and sophistication of the respective purchasers, in light of the inherent nature of the goods involved, some degree of purchasing care would be exercised by the Applicant’s potential and actual consumers. Purchasers buying the Registrant’s vacuum cleaners would not be expected to exercise as great a degree of case and presumably would not be purchasing the Applicant’s products. Thus, the factors that the respective goods could be offered through the same broad channels of trade but not displayed in proximity of one another given their different purposes, would not be encountered by the same purchasers, and the inherent nature of the Applicant’s goods necessitating lengthy evaluation before purchase lessened any likelihood of confusion, the Board concluded.

The Case is Serial No. 79381020.

Judge: Heasley, D.

Attorneys: Andrew T. Rissler and Alex D. Patel (Patel IP, PC) for Zhenhai Petrochemical Jianan Engineering Co., Ltd. Valerie Kaplan for the USPTO.

Companies: Zhenhai Petrochemical Jianan Engineering Co., Ltd.

Cases: Trademark USPTO