Decisions · 77983232
In re C. H. Hanson Company
Serial No. 77983232 · Decided 2015-09-23 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal affirmed — the Board found that C.H. HANSON for hand tools (pliers, snips, squares, chalk line reels and sharpening tools) is too similar to the already-registered mark HANSON for wrenches and tap-and-die sets, because shoppers would think both names point to the same person, so the application was blocked from registration.
The marks
Applicant
C.H. HANSON
Hand tools, namely, chalk line reels; squares; hand-operated sharpening tools and instruments; hand-operated tin snips; pliers; snips (Class 8)
Cited registration
HANSON
Die taps and die sets, taps and tap sets for use with machine tools (Class 7); and hand tools, namely, wrenches, and accessories for wrenches, namely, die taps and die sets, taps and tap sets (Class 8) -- Reg. No. 3593636
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | Adding the spoken initials C.H. to HANSON left the marks sounding highly alike. |
| appearance | Similar | The marks differ only by the added initials C.H. before the shared surname HANSON. |
| meaning | Similar | Both marks read as a reference to the same individual named Hanson, so they share the same meaning. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The Board found the marks make highly similar overall commercial impressions. |
The Board held the marks are similar in appearance, sound, and meaning and make highly similar commercial impressions, so the mark-similarity factor weighed strongly toward confusion.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | Adding the initials C.H. to the registered surname HANSON did not avoid confusion because consumers would think both marks refer to the same person. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | The registered ‘wrenches’ identification was read to include ordinary wrenches, and internet listings plus third-party registrations showed the same brands sell both sides' tools, so the goods are related. |
| 6 | Number and nature of similar marks in use | Favored Refusal | The Board rejected the argument that HANSON is a weak, common surname because there was no evidence of other HANSON tool brands actually in use for similar goods. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential Federal-level TTAB decision frequently useful for two recurring points: that adding personal initials to a registered surname does not avoid confusion, and that an unambiguous, non-technical identification of goods is construed by its terms (presumed to encompass all goods of the type described) and may not be narrowed by punctuation or extrinsic use evidence, with ambiguity resolved for the registrant.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
Refusal affirmed
In re Lasertec Corporation
Because Lasertec’s GALOIS mark for semiconductor wafer inspection machines is identical to the registered GALOIS mark for cameras and scanners, and the evidence showed those products work…
79358845 · 2026-03-16 · GALOIS v. GALOIS
Refusal affirmed
In re Coventya
The Board found that FINIGARD for metal anti-corrosion and electroplating chemicals is too similar to the registered mark INFINIGUARD for anti-corrosion coatings, so FINIGARD cannot be…
79319649 · 2025-08-08 · FINIGARD v. INFINIGUARD
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN vodka mark identical to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines, and because vodka and wine are related drinks sold through overlapping channels…
79375327 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN v. BLACK SWAN
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN VODKA label (castle, mountains, and swan design) confusingly similar to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines; the swan picture just reinforces…
79375609 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN VODKA & design v. BLACK SWAN
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Written from the opinion; research-significance tier confirmed.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.