Decisions · 86802467, 86802618, and 86802733
In re I-Coat Company, LLC
Serial Nos. 86802467, 86802618, and 86802733 · Decided 2018-06-07 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal upheld — I-Coat’s INDIGO marks (word and two design versions) for corrective lenses were found too similar to the registered INDIGOSNOW and INDIGO marks for eyewear, blocking all three applications.
The marks
Applicant
INDIGO (and variants)
optical lenses, namely corrective lenses sold through eye care professionals
Cited registration
INDIGOSNOW / INDIGO
spectacles, spectacle cases, spectacle lenses, spectacle settings, spectacle frames, glasses for sport, ski glasses, ski goggles, sunglasses
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | INDIGO is the dominant element in all marks; SNOW is a weak addition |
| appearance | Similar | INDIGO dominates visual impression despite design elements in applicant’s marks |
| commercial impression | Similar | INDIGO is the dominant commercial impression across all marks |
Similar — INDIGO is the dominant element in both applicant’s and registrant’s marks for related optical goods.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | Marks are identical or more similar than dissimilar. INDIGO in standard characters is identical to INDIGO in cited mark. Applicant’s design variants (AR design and color design) are more similar than dissimilar to… |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | Both applicant’s optical corrective lenses and cited goods (spectacles, frames, lenses, glasses for sport, ski glasses, sunglasses) are in Class 9 optical goods. Goods are related and complement each other. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication corrected from 3. Trade Channels and Conditions of Purchase | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | Although applicant limited goods to “through eye care professionals,” cited marks are registered without such limitations. Internet evidence shows both corrective lenses and sunglasses sold on same websites. Must… |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication corrected from 3. Trade Channels and Conditions of Purchase | Neutral | Both goods target consumers seeking vision correction or enhancement/protection. Customers are same or overlapping demographic. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication corrected from 3. Trade Channels and Conditions of Purchase | Neutral | No evidence of purchaser sophistication beyond goods nature. Even careful, sophisticated consumers likely to believe identical/similar marks point to common source when goods are related. |
| 7 | Nature and extent of actual confusion corrected from 6. Actual Confusion | Neutral | No discussion of actual confusion evidence in decision. |
| 7 | Nature and extent of actual confusion corrected from 6. Actual Confusion | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | Totality of circumstances including identical marks, related goods, and common trade channels leads to finding of likelihood of confusion. |
5 factor labels were renumbered to match the canonical du Pont list. The extraction's original label is shown beneath.
Why this decision is significant
Precedential consolidated 2(d) affirmance refusing INDIGO in standard-character and two design forms over INDIGOSNOW and INDIGO for related optical goods. Also the decision announcing that internet evidence must include the URL and access date to be considered — a procedural rule of ongoing significance.
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.