Decisions · 79358845
In re Lasertec Corporation
Serial No. 79358845 · Decided 2026-03-16 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal affirmed — 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 together in chip manufacturing, the Board found confusion likely and denied registration.
The marks
Applicant
GALOIS
GaN semiconductor wafer optical inspection apparatus (Class 9)
Cited registration
GALOIS
Cameras for photography, 3D smart cameras, scanners, 3D scanners, viewfinders, and digital video cameras (Class 9)
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | The marks are identical, as Lasertec conceded. |
| appearance | Similar | Both are the identical standard-character word GALOIS. |
| meaning | Similar | No evidence suggested any difference in connotation between the identical words. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The Board found the marks identical in overall commercial impression. |
Similar
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Significant | The identical marks weighed strongly in favor of finding confusion likely. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Significant | Wafer inspection equipment and cameras/scanners were found complementary — used together in semiconductor manufacturing — with Lasertec’s own website showing its systems incorporate cameras and scanners. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Significant | With no limits in either registration, the Board presumed and the evidence showed overlapping channels and customers. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Favored Applicant | The Board agreed these highly technical machines are bought carefully by informed buyers, but that alone could not overcome identical marks on related goods. |
Why this decision is significant
Strong template for complementary-goods relatedness: identical marks plus broad ‘scanners/cameras’ wording swept specialized semiconductor equipment into the registration’s scope, and the applicant’s own website proved the overlap. Also notable for crediting purchaser sophistication from the inherent nature of the goods without evidence — and still affirming.
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 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
In re Solid State Design Inc.
The Board upheld the refusal to register a stylized “populace” mark with a person-silhouette design for map-based, real-time popularity-visualization software, finding it too similar to an…
87269041 · 2018-01-03 · populace (stylized, with silhouette of a person's head centered within the letter "o") v. populace (orb or ball-shaped design in alternating red/white bands, with the word "populace" below in small black letters)
In re Integrated Embedded (d/b/a Barr Group)
The USPTO’s refusal to register the name BARR GROUP for IT training, engineering, and expert witness services was upheld because (1) BARR GROUP is perceived primarily as a surname (the…
86140341 · 2016-09-27 · BARR GROUP (standard characters; GROUP disclaimed) v. BARR
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
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.