Non-precedential opinion of TTAB for proceeding No. 97344289 in 2025
A copy of the opinion (downloadable at https://ttab-reading-room-aws.uspto.gov/cms/rest/legal-proceeding/97344289/decision/EXA_10.pdf) should be appended to the motion or brief. TBMP §101.03(a)(2).
Holding
The board affirmed the disclaimer requirement and preemptively reversed the likelihood of confusion.
Mark
EquipKeyCo, LLC (“Applicant”) sought to register 
Procedural history
Examiner required a disclaimer of the wording “EQUIP KEY CO” within the mark, arguing that it is merely descriptive of the Applicant’s goods because “EQUIP” is a recognized abbreviation for “equipment”, “KEY” directly refers to the goods (keys), and “CO” is a common abbreviation for “company”.
Examiner also refused the registration based on the likelihood of confusion because the applied-for mark’s wording, which is a dominant feature, consists of only the entire wording of the cited mark plus a descriptive wording.
Issues
- Is
- Is
for “metal, brass and aluminum key blanks; metal and aluminum key chains; metal and brass locks, lock cylinders, pad locks and door locks” in Class 6?
Rationales
- Finding the wording Equip Key Co is descriptive, the board noted that the composite mark did not create a unitary mark with a non-descriptive meaning because of the capitalization and coloring. The design elements were deemed irrelevant to the descriptiveness of the wording itself.
- The Board found similarity in goods and shared channels, and it doubted the equipment purchasers, however sophisticated, would exercise the same degree of care for small, inexpensive items like keys. Nevertheless, the board found that the words Key and Co were conceptually weak and highly suggestive in connection with keys and key-related goods so as to the difference in design portions was sufficient to avoid confusion. See In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 159 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Hartz Hotel Servs., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1150, 1154 (TTAB 2011).
Leave a Reply