Decisions · 79331774
In re WeGrow Germany GmbH
Serial No. 79331774 · Decided 2025-03-12 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal upheld for the Class 31 plants — WeGrow for living trees is too similar to the registered WeGrow for fertilizers because the goods are complementary and sold in the same nurseries, though the Class 44 horticulture services were allowed to move forward.
The marks
Applicant
WeGrow (stylized with leaf design)
Agricultural and aquacultural crops, namely, living trees, living plantlets, living seedlings, living tree seeds; horticulture and forestry products, namely, living trees (Class 31); agriculture, horticulture and forestry services (Class 44)
Cited registration
WeGrow (stylized with W design)
Growing media for plants, fertilizers and chemical fertilizers for use in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; fertilizers, and chemical fertilizers (Class 1)
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | Both marks are articulated as ‘we grow.’ |
| appearance | Somewhat Similar | The wording is identical though the design elements differ. |
| meaning | Similar | Both convey growth or fostering growth. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The shared WEGROW wording dominates the overall impression of each mark. |
The Board found the marks similar overall because the identical wording WEGROW dominates both composite marks despite their different design elements.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Favored Refusal | The identical wording WEGROW dominates both composite marks, which sound alike and share the same growth connotation. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | Living trees and plants are complementary to fertilizers, which promote plant growth, and nurseries sell both. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | Neither identification is limited, and the goods travel through the same nurseries, big-box stores, plant stores, and the internet. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Neutral | The goods include a homeowner’s single-tree purchase, so the least sophisticated purchaser standard applied. |
| 5 | Fame of the prior mark | Neutral | No fame evidence, as is typical in ex parte examination. |
| 6 | Number and nature of similar marks in use | Neutral | Four third-party WE GROW registrations were too few and too different to show the cited mark is weak. |
| 7 | Nature and extent of actual confusion | Neutral | No actual-confusion evidence, but none is required. |
| 8 | Length of concurrent use without actual confusion | Neutral | The narrowness of the registrant’s goods did not weigh against confusion. |
| 10 | Market interface between applicant and owner of a prior mark | Neutral | No evidence of any market interface between the parties. |
Why this decision is significant
Non-precedential Section 2(d) affirmance applying the standard DuPont analysis to marks sharing the identical wording WEGROW, with complementary goods (living plants and fertilizers) sold through the same nurseries; no novel holding.
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 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
Refusal reversed
In re Jason Jimenez
The Board found GASPER ROOFING for roofing services is not likely to be confused with the registered mark JASPER CONTRACTORS for identical roofing services, because the marks differ in…
97551823 · 2025-11-05 · GASPER ROOFING (standard characters; ROOFING disclaimed; registration sought under Section 2(f) as to the entirety of the mark) v. JASPER CONTRACTORS (standard characters; CONTRACTORS disclaimed)
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 — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.