IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ZEROLIQUID mark for water filters succumbs to cancellation challenge, (Jul 31, 2025)

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

ZEROLIQUID and ZEROWATER are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, and the similarities weigh in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

In a nonprecedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) granted the petition for cancellation of Hangzhou Yilin Technology Research Co., Ltd.’s registration of the mark ZEROLIQUID under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Applying the DuPont factors, the TTAB found that a likelihood of confusion exists between the mark ZEROLIQUID used for filters for drinking water and related goods with Zero Technologies’ registered mark ZEROWATER for water filtering units for household use (Zero Technologies, LLC v. Hangzhou Yilin Technology Research Co., Ltd., No. 92081980 (T.T.A.B. July 14, 2025)).

Background. Hangzhou Yilin Technology Research Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou) owns a Principal Register registration for the standard character mark ZEROLIQUID for filters for drinking water and related goods in International Class 11. Zero Technologies, LLC (Zero Technologies) sought cancellation of Hangzhou’s registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) on the ground that Hangzhou’s mark resembles its mark ZEROWATER (in standard characters), registered on the Principal Register for “water filtering units for household use” in International Class 11, and that it is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive. Zero Technologies’ registration includes a disclaimer of the word “WATER.”

Priority. The TTAB found that Zero Technologies’ pleaded registration was filed on February 25, 1999, and precedes both the September 9, 2021, filing date of the application underlying Hangzhou’s registration and the asserted first use dates of June 11, 2021. Further, Hangzhou neither alleged nor proved an earlier priority date. Accordingly, Zero Technologies established its priority in the ZEROWATER mark for the goods identified in its pleaded registration.

Likelihood of confusion. In determining whether confusion is likely, the TTAB considered all relevant DuPont factors. The TTAB noted that Hangzhou’s “water treatment equipment, namely, water filtration units” are legally equivalent to “water filtering units” and broad enough to encompass Zero Technologies’ “water filtering units for household use.” Thus, the goods are in-part legally identical and to this extent are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade and to be offered to the same classes of consumers. Moreover, the TTAB found evidence that the involved goods of both parties sold on Amazon.com, supporting a finding that the goods are sold in this overlapping trade channel. Therefore, the second and third DuPont factors weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion. The TTAB found that consumers may exercise some care in purchasing the goods, but the goods are relatively inexpensive and there is no evidence that consumers are particularly sophisticated. Thus, the fourth DuPont factor was neutral.

Zero Technologies argued that its ZEROWATER mark is very well known as a result of its mass retail activities, public exposure, and sales success over the past two decades. However, the TTAB concluded that Zero Technologies’ failed to show that its pleaded ZEROWATER mark is famous or has achieved significant recognition among relevant consumers to warrant the greater protection accorded to commercially strong marks under the fifth DuPont factor.

Hangzhou submitted evidence of 22 third-party registrations to show that the word ZERO is commonly used and thus is a weak term in the industry. The TTAB noted that ZEROWATER is registered on the Principal Register without a claim of acquired distinctiveness, and carries a presumption under Trademark Act Section 7(b), that it is inherently distinctive. However, based on Hangzhou’s third-party registration evidence and the nature of the mark itself, including the disclaimer of “WATER,” the TTAB found that ZEROWATER is highly suggestive of “water filtering units for household use” and entitled to a narrower scope of protection under the sixth DuPont factor.

The TTAB found that on their face, ZEROWATER and ZEROLIQUID bear certain similarities in appearance and sound. Both marks begin with the word ZERO as the prefix. Considered in their entireties, the marks are very similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, with the first DuPont factor weighing heavily in favor of likelihood of confusion.

Lastly, invoking the seventh DuPont factor, the nature and extent of any actual confusion, Zero Technologies argued that there has been actual confusion among consumers as to the source of the parties’ goods. Zero Technologies submitted of an email it received regarding an item purchased on Amazon, but Hangzhou argued that the email was hearsay. In the email, the customer stated, “I purchased a new zero water pitcher and a two pack of zero water filters on March 24, 2023 from Amazon.” Further, Zero Technologies’ investigation revealed that the replacement “two pack of zero water filters” that the customer purchased actually was made and sold by Hangzhou under its ZEROLIQUID mark, though the customer believed that it came from Zero Technologies. The TTAB noted that although Hangzhou argued that this single instance is not persuasive and should be discounted as de minimis, the accompanying testimony suggested that it was not an isolated occurrence. Thus, the TTAB concluded that Zero Technologies’ evidence of actual confusion, although limited, lends some support to a finding of likelihood of confusion under the seventh DuPont factor. No other factor weighed against the likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB considered all relevant DuPont factors and concluded that that Zero Technologies’ has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that confusion is likely when Zero Technologies’ and Hangzhou’s marks are used with their respectively identified goods, notwithstanding any conceptual weakness of ZEROWATER mark. Accordingly, the petition for cancellation of the registration of the mark ZEROLIQUID was granted.

The Case is Cancellation No. 92081980.

Judge: O’Connor, C.

Attorneys: Lisa A. Dunner (Dunner Law PLLC) for Zero Technologies, LLC. Xionghui Murong (YK Law LLP) for Hangzhou Yilin Technology Research Co., Ltd.

Companies: Zero Technologies, LLC; Hangzhou Yilin Technology Research Co., Ltd.

Cases: Trademark USPTO