Decisions · 79319649
In re Coventya
Serial No. 79319649 · Decided 2025-08-08 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal affirmed — 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 registered even though its application expressly excluded HVAC products.
The marks
Applicant
FINIGARD
Chemical products for corrosion protection and surface treatment of metals, plating and electroplating compositions, and rust-preventive coatings (Classes 1 and 2), expressly excluding HVAC-related metal parts and surfaces
Cited registration
INFINIGUARD
Anti-corrosion coating for HVAC equipment and other metal surfaces (Class 2)
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | The Board rejected the syllable-count distinction, noting purchasers are governed by general impressions rather than trademark syllable counting. |
| appearance | Similar | The extra IN- prefix and three-letter length difference were found insignificant, particularly given the overlapping goods. |
| meaning | Somewhat Similar | With no consumer evidence of the claimed ‘finishing’ versus ‘infinite’ meanings, the Board said the FINI-/INFINI- pairing could just as easily read as finite and infinite sister products from one source. |
| commercial impression | Similar | Overall commercial impressions were found similar; the -GARD/-GUARD spelling difference did not detract from the similarities. |
Similar
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Significant | FINIGARD and INFINIGUARD were found similar in overall impression, weighing in favor of confusion. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Significant | The goods overlap and are legally identical in part because the cited registration covers coatings for ‘other metal surfaces,’ not just HVAC equipment; this factor weighed heavily toward confusion. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Significant | Because the goods are legally identical in part with no limitations, the Board presumed the same trade channels and customers; this factor weighed heavily toward confusion. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Neutral | The sophisticated-buyer argument failed for lack of evidence, and sophistication would not prevent confusion of overlapping goods under similar marks. |
| 7 | Nature and extent of actual confusion | Neutral | The claim of 25 years without confusion carried no weight because there was no evidence of U.S. use and the registrant could not be heard in this one-sided proceeding. |
| 8 | Length of concurrent use without actual confusion | Neutral | No evidence showed how long or under what conditions the two marks actually coexisted in the U.S. market. |
Why this decision is significant
Clean template for a recurring trap: an applicant’s express carve-out of the registrant’s field cannot avoid refusal when the cited identification contains catch-all wording (‘and other metal surfaces’) that gets full sweep. Also a good illustration of prefix-pair marks being read as sister product lines.
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 C. H. Hanson Company
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…
77983232 · 2015-09-23 · C.H. HANSON v. HANSON
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; tier never 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.