Decisions · 87269041
In re Solid State Design Inc.
Serial No. 87269041 · Decided 2018-01-03 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
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 already-registered “populace” mark with a globe design because both marks share the same dominant word and the registered mark’s software description was broad enough to legally cover the applicant’s software.
The marks
Applicant
populace (stylized, with silhouette of a person's head centered within the letter "o")
"Computer application software for mobile phones and desktop computers, namely, software for visualizing the popularity of places in real time, that uses an underlying map capability for navigation, sold as 'business to consumer' (B2C) software, and not as 'business to business' (B2B) software," in International Class 9
Cited registration
populace (orb or ball-shaped design in alternating red/white bands, with the word "populace" below in small black letters)
"Downloadable mobile applications for mobile phones and mobile electronic devices, primarily software for travel and destination marketing organizations and travel marketing professionals," in International Class 9
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | Both marks are verbalized identically as “populace.” |
| appearance | Similar | Both display “populace” in bolded all-lowercase, substantially similar stylization, though the accompanying designs (silhouette vs. globe) differ. |
| meaning | Similar | Both convey the dictionary meaning of “populace” (the people who live in a country or area); the Board rejected the argument that the differing designs create different connotations. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The Board found the marks make highly similar overall commercial impressions because the shared dominant word outweighs the differing design elements. |
Highly similar overall; the shared dominant word “populace” controls despite differing design elements.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | The shared bolded lowercase ‘populace’ wording strongly supported confusion despite the different design elements. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Dispositive — Favored Refusal | The software identifications are legally identical in part. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Favored Refusal | Legally identical goods are presumed to travel in identical channels. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Favored Refusal | The overlapping classes of customers supported confusion. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision providing detailed guidance on distinguishing “namely” from “primarily” in software identifications and reinforcing that unrestricted mobile-app identifications will be construed broadly against the applicant in Section 2(d) analysis.
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
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 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.