Decisions · 85667188
In re Thor Tech, Inc.
Serial No. 85667188 · Decided 2015-01-26 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal reversed — 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 buyers do not attribute to one source.
The marks
Applicant
TERRAIN (standard characters)
recreational vehicles, namely, towable trailers (Class 12)
Cited registration
TERRAIN (standard characters)
motor land vehicles, namely, trucks (Class 12)
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | The marks are identical. |
| appearance | Similar | The marks are identical standard-character marks. |
| meaning | Similar | The marks are identical. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The marks are identical. |
The marks are identical, but identity alone could not establish confusion where the goods were shown to be unrelated.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Favored Refusal | Both marks are TERRAIN in standard characters — identical — though identity alone is not sufficient. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Dispositive — Favored Applicant | Trucks and towable RV trailers are noncompetitive, differ completely in utility, and share nothing essential. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Favored Applicant | Only three of nine websites offered both products; the channels were not sufficiently similar. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Favored Applicant | Both products are expensive purchases made with a high degree of care. |
Why this decision is significant
Frequently cited precedential reversal: identical TERRAIN marks may coexist because trucks and towable RV trailers are fundamentally different Class 12 goods — mark identity alone cannot supply the missing proof that goods are related.
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 upheld
In re FCA US LLC
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…
85650654 · 2018-04-10 · MOAB v. MOAB INDUSTRIES
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.