Decisions · 85627379
In re Hughes Furniture Industries, Inc.
Serial No. 85627379 · Decided 2015-03-27 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal upheld — the HUGHES FURNITURE logo is too similar to the registered BRADLEY HUGHES for identical furniture goods, with the shared surname HUGHES dominating both marks.
The marks
Applicant
HUGHES FURNITURE (and design with H logo and MOTION EAZE RECLINERS)
Furniture
Cited registration
BRADLEY HUGHES
Residential and commercial furniture
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | The shared surname HUGHES drives the sound of both marks. |
| appearance | Similar | HUGHES appears in larger, bolder font as the visually dominant element of the applicant’s composite mark. |
| meaning | Similar | Both marks convey the HUGHES surname. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The disclaimed and descriptive additions contribute little to the overall impression. |
The marks were found similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression, with the surname HUGHES dominating both.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Favored Refusal | HUGHES is the dominant element of both marks; the design and descriptive wording add little. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Favored Refusal | The applicant’s unrestricted ‘furniture’ necessarily encompasses the registrant’s residential and commercial furniture. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Favored Refusal | Identical unrestricted goods are presumed to travel in the same channels, and the record confirmed both use the same online and showroom channels. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Neutral | Unrestricted identifications must include furniture at all price points, so heightened care could not be assumed. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision on surname dominance in composite word-and-design marks — HUGHES dominated despite the H-logo and added wording — with a useful procedural ruling on the scope of remand after reconsideration.
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.