IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Registration of TESCCO mark allowed despite existing registration for identical mark, (Dec 12, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

An opposition to registration was dismissed despite the marks being identical because the goods and services, trade channels, and customers were all dissimilar.

The applied-for mark TESSCO for use with household goods was not likely to be confused with an identical registered mark used for communications and telecommunications goods and services, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held. Even though the marks were identical, the remaining DuPont factors weighed against a likelihood of confusion or were neutral, (TESSCO Communications Incorporated v. Hefei Gejin Information Technology Co., Ltd., No. 91286208, (T.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2025)).

Hefei Gejin Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Hefei) sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark TESSCO for use with “combs; cutting boards; double wall cups with lids and straws; make-up brushes; strainers for household purposes; training cups for infants; wood chopping boards for kitchen use” in International Class 21. TESSCO Communications Incorporated (TESSCO) opposed registration, citing priority and likelihood of confusion with its own previously registered marks and common law rights for the mark with a wide range of wireless products, distributorship services, and catalogs and newsletters all in the communications industry. After briefly noting that TESSCO’s registrations showed it was entitled to a statutory cause of action and excluding evidence submitted at trial which exceeded the scope of the pleadings, the Board considered the issue of priority.

Priority. TESSCO’s registrations clearly showed priority. As to TESSCO’s common law rights, however, TESSCO’s evidence showed only that it had used the mark “for many years” and that it had purchased, but not sold or placed in commerce, items using the mark prior to Hefei’s priority date. The Board held that this was insufficient to establish when TESSCO began using the mark, so priority was not established as to those common law claims.

Likelihood of confusion. After finding that only TESSCO’s registrations, and not common law rights, remained at issue, the Board considered the DuPont factors for which there was evidence of record.

Strength of TESSCO’s mark. The mark was inherently distinctive, as evidenced by its registration without a claim of acquired distinctiveness. Evidence of third-party use was for less similar marks or for different goods and services, so it was not probative. The Board considered evidence of sales and advertising expenditures and found that the mark had average commercial strength and was entitled to a normal scope of protection.

Similarity of the marks. The marks were identical, which weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

Similarity of the goods and services. The Board determined that TESSCO failed to establish the relatedness of the goods and services, noting that the evidence of the goods or services being offered by the same source under the same mark extended only to those promotional items covered by TESSCO’s common law rights, which were no longer at issue, and did not cover the goods and services of TESSCO’s registrations.

Channels of trade, classes of consumers, and purchaser care. The Board found that there was no evidence of record to show that the household goods identified in the application had any overlap with the communications and telecommunications goods and services of TESSCO’s registrations. These factors weighed against a likelihood of confusion.

Actual confusion. There was no evidence of actual confusion, but also no evidence that there was a reasonable opportunity for confusion to have occurred. This factor was neutral.

Potential confusion. The Board found the extent of any potential confusion was de minimis and therefore this factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion.

Balancing the factors, the Board concluded there was not a likelihood of confusion and dismissed the opposition.

The Case is Opposition No. 91286208.

Judge: Bradley, J.

Attorneys: James E. Shlesinger (Fresh IP PLC) for Tessco Communications Inc. Adam D. Mandell (Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, PC) for Hefei Gejin Information Technology Co., Ltd.

Companies: Tessco Communications Inc.; Hefei Gejin Information Technology Co., Ltd.

Cases: Trademark USPTO