IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: TTAB reverses course to allow ‘Aspire Bank’ marks, (Jul 21, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.

The decision reverses a 2023 final decision due to a flawed analysis of the sixth DuPont factor.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reversed course on a 2023 final decision that sustained opposition to Tennessee bank Apex’s application for three Aspire Bank marks. In the interim, a 2025 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling found an error in that ruling and opened the door for a reconsideration of the analysis of the sixth DuPont factor. In that reconsideration, the TTAB found that the Opposer’s Aspire mark was “commercially and conceptually quite weak” as a consideration of over two dozen different marks “shows it is common for third parties to adopt and use marks comprised of the first term ASPIRE coupled with a generic word.” Accordingly, the TTAB found “that consumers are likely to notice and rely on the minor differences between the marks to distinguish them” with no likelihood of confusion indicated and a dismissal of the opposition (CC Serve Corp. v. Apex Bank, No. 91254295 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2026)).

Background. Apex Bank is a Tennessee-chartered retail bank with 18 branch locations. It offers deposit accounts, mortgages, and consumer and business loans, but does not issue credit cards. The opposer, CC Serve Corporation, operates in the credit card services sector and through partnerships with banks, it manages ASPIRE-branded credit cards and accounts.

Apex filed intent-to-use applications in 2019 to register the word and design marks “ASPIRE BANK” for “banking and financing services.” After Apex’s marks were published for opposition, CC Serve filed a notice of opposition in February 2020, alleging likelihood of confusion under § 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), with its word mark ASPIRE registered in 1998 with a priority date of October 17, 1996. The TTAB initially sustained the opposition, concluding that consumers would likely confuse Apex’s ASPIRE BANK marks with CC Serve’s ASPIRE mark. Apex appealed.

2025 Appeal. On that appeal, the Federal court considered 13 DuPont factors and vacated the TTAB’s analysis of the sixth DuPont factor, which considers the number and nature of similar marks in use on related goods. Apex introduced evidence of more than 40 “Aspire”-formative marks across the financial industry. The TTAB limited its analysis to marks used solely for credit card services, concluding that nine such uses did not demonstrate widespread weakness.

The court emphasized that similarity under the sixth factor does not require identical goods. On remand, the TTAB was required to consider ASPIRE marks used in all closely related financial services, not just credit cards (see Mixed appellate ruling over TTAB decision sustaining opposition to ‘ASPIRE BANK’ marks, (Sept. 25, 2025)).

TTAB review. In accordance with the appellate direction, the TTAB reviewed over two dozen third-party marks in use for credit card services, banking services, and financing services, as well as registrations for some of those marks. While Opposer noted a lack of evidence of scope of third-party use or advertising, the TTAB found that “evidence of widespread third-party use may be powerful on its face to demonstrate 'that consumers have been educated to distinguish between different marks on the bases of minute distinctions.'”

Accordingly, the Board found that Opposer’s Aspire mark was “quite weak” as evidence “shows it is common for third parties to adopt and use marks comprised of the first term ASPIRE coupled with a generic word, e.g. ASPIRE CHECKING, ASPIRE SAVINGS, ASPIRE LENDING."

In considering the similarities of the marks, the TTAB found “the parties’ marks in their entireties are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.” That said, in light of the “significant weakness of the shared term ASPIRE” the TTAB found that “consumers are likely to notice and rely on the minor differences between the marks to distinguish them.”

The Board was not freshly reviewing all DuPont grounds, and freely admitted, “The second and third DuPont factors weigh heavily in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion because the goods, trade channels and consumers are in part identical.” However, the Board noted, “the heavy weight of the sixth factor is the dominant consideration in this case and “affect[s] the overall commercial impression” of the parties’ marks under the first factor. “That is, although the parties’ marks are similar under the first factor, consumers are likely to rely on the minor differences between the parties’ marks (i.e. the addition of the generic word BANK and mountain peak design in Applicant’s marks) to distinguish them in the crowded field of ASPIRE marks,” the Board determined.

Therefore, the TTAB found “no likelihood of confusion between Opposer’s mark ASPIRE for ‘credit card services’ and Applicant’s marks for ‘banking and financing services.’ Accordingly, the opposition was dismissed under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

The Case is Opposition No. 91254295.

Attorneys: Austin Padgett (Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP) for CC Serve Corp. L. Clint Crosby Baker Donelson (Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC) for Apex Bank.

Companies: CC Serve Corp.; Apex Bank

Cases: Trademark USPTO