Decisions · 85650654
In re FCA US LLC
Serial No. 85650654 · Decided 2018-04-10 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal upheld — Jeep-maker FCA’s MOAB for vehicles and parts is too similar to the registered MOAB INDUSTRIES for automotive conversion services, and an earlier court win by FCA involving the different JEEP WRANGLER MOAB mark did not bind the Board.
The marks
Applicant
MOAB
Motor vehicles, namely, passenger automobiles, their structural parts, trim and badges
Cited registration
MOAB INDUSTRIES
Automotive conversion services, namely, installing specialty automotive equipment
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| commercial impression | Similar | MOAB is the identical dominant portion of both marks and drives their shared commercial impression. |
The Board found the marks similar overall because the shared term MOAB dominates both, with the disclaimed INDUSTRIES adding little.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Favored Refusal | The dominant portion MOAB is identical in both marks; the descriptive, disclaimed INDUSTRIES contributes little. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Favored Refusal | Motor vehicles and parts are related to automotive conversion services, which sell specialty parts and install them. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Favored Refusal | Conversion businesses serve as a conduit through which automotive parts and equipment reach consumers. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Neutral | Conversion customers are relatively sophisticated enthusiasts, but the unrestricted automobile identification includes ordinary buyers. |
| 5 | Fame of the prior mark | Favored Applicant | MOAB is somewhat conceptually weak as a reference to the Moab, Utah off-roading destination, but its commercial weakness was limited. |
| 7 | Nature and extent of actual confusion | Neutral | The applicant’s survey received little weight for testing the wrong mark and the wrong consumer universe. |
| 13 | Any other established fact probative of the effect of use | Neutral | The district court’s no-confusion finding in earlier litigation involved a different mark and was neither preclusive nor persuasive here. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential 2(d) affirmance most cited for its treatment of a prior district-court no-confusion judgment: the court case involved a different mark (JEEP WRANGLER MOAB) and different issues, so it neither precluded nor persuaded — also a careful survey-methodology critique.
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 reversed
In re Thor Tech, Inc.
Even though the marks are identical, TERRAIN for towable RV trailers may register over TERRAIN for trucks because the two kinds of vehicles are fundamentally different products that careful…
85667188 · 2015-01-26 · TERRAIN (standard characters) v. TERRAIN (standard characters)
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
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.