Decisions · 97551823
In re Jason Jimenez
Serial No. 97551823 · Decided 2025-11-05 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
Refusal reversed — 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 sound, appearance and meaning (GASPER reads as a surname or ‘one who gasps’ while JASPER is a place name or gemstone) and roofing customers exercise careful, deliberate purchasing decisions.
The marks
Applicant
GASPER ROOFING (standard characters; ROOFING disclaimed; registration sought under Section 2(f) as to the entirety of the mark)
"Roofing consultation; Roofing contracting; Roofing installation; Roofing maintenance; Roofing maintenance services; Roofing repair; Roofing services; Maintenance of roofing; Repair of roofing" in International Class 37
Cited registration
JASPER CONTRACTORS (standard characters; CONTRACTORS disclaimed)
"Roofing services" in International Class 37
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Dissimilar | Despite the shared -ASPER string, the Board found the marks' initial consonants and disclaimed second words produce different overall pronunciations. |
| appearance | Dissimilar | GASPER ROOFING and JASPER CONTRACTORS share only the letter string -ASPER; the different first letters and different second words create distinct visual impressions. |
| meaning | Dissimilar | GASPER would be perceived as a surname or as referring to one who gasps, while JASPER connotes the gemstone or a place name, giving the marks different connotations. |
| commercial impression | Dissimilar | The differences in sound, appearance and connotation combine to create distinct overall commercial impressions despite identical services. |
The Board found the marks dissimilar overall — the first du Pont factor and careful purchasing conditions outweighed the identity of the services.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Dispositive — Favored Applicant | The Examining Attorney argued GASPER ROOFING and JASPER CONTRACTORS are similar because GASPER and JASPER are dominant, nearly identical, phonetic equivalents, relying on the no-correct-pronunciation line of cases (Viterra, Interlego). |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Favored Applicant | The sole service identified in the cited registration, “roofing services,” is identical to the “roofing services” identified in the application and encompasses each specific roofing service listed in the application (roofing consultation, contracting, installation, maintenance, repair, etc.). |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Favored Applicant | Because the services are identical and unrestricted as to trade channels and consumer classes, the Board presumed the services travel in the same ordinary trade and distribution channels and are marketed to the same potential consumers, relying on Viterra and Yawata Iron & Steel. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Dispositive — Favored Applicant | Neither identification limited roofing services to a particular type or consumer, encompassing both commercial and residential purchasers. |
| 7 | Nature and extent of actual confusion corrected from 6. Nature and Extent of Actual Confusion | Neutral | Applicant argued the Examining Attorney’s failure to present evidence of actual confusion indicated the marks are dissimilar. |
| 8 | Length of concurrent use without actual confusion corrected from 7. Length of Concurrent Use Without Evidence of Actual Confusion | Neutral | Considered jointly with the actual-confusion factor above in response to Applicant’s argument; the Board deemed this factor neutral for the same reasons, since the Examining Attorney bears no burden to adduce evidence of an absence of confusion during concurrent use in an ex parte appeal.. |
2 factor labels were renumbered to match the canonical du Pont list. The extraction's original label is shown beneath.
Why this decision is significant
Recent precedential reversal showing mark dissimilarity plus sophisticated/deliberate purchasing (factor 4) overcoming legally identical services — a useful modern template for arguing that expensive, carefully purchased services reduce confusion even where identifications overlap completely.
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 affirmed
In re Coventya
The Board found that FINIGARD for metal anti-corrosion and electroplating chemicals is too similar to the registered mark INFINIGUARD for anti-corrosion coatings, so FINIGARD cannot be…
79319649 · 2025-08-08 · FINIGARD v. INFINIGUARD
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 — Written from the opinion; research-significance tier confirmed.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.