Decisions · du Pont factor
Factor 8: Length of concurrent use without actual confusion
5 of the 38 records in this library that code du Pont factors carry a finding on this factor. A finding may be neutral, weigh for or against confusion, or drive the result; each row shows the coded weight and what the Board found. Read the guide to this factor →
All 28 industries
Industrial & Manufacturing 10Cosmetics & Personal Care 9Professional Services 9Sports & Recreation 9Construction & Real Estate 6Financial Services 5Hospitality & Travel 5Education 4Agriculture 3Automotive 3Automotive Parts & Retail 1Cloud Computing & Technology 1Data Storage & Infrastructure 1Dietary Supplements & Pharmaceuticals 1Failure to Function / Service Mark 1Fashion & Apparel 1Food & Condiments 1Health & Breast Cancer Awareness 1Jewelry & Accessories 1Managed IT Services 1Nonprofit & Charitable Services 1
By du Pont factor
1. Similarity of the marks 382. Relatedness of the goods or services 373. Similarity of trade channels 274. Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication 235. Fame of the prior mark 96. Number and nature of similar marks in use 147. Nature and extent of actual confusion 108. Length of concurrent use without actual confusion 510. Market interface between applicant and owner of a prior mark 412. Extent of potential confusion 313. Any other established fact probative of the effect of use 8
| Decision | Result | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| In re Jason Jimenez 2025 · GASPER ROOFING (standard characters; ROOFING disclaimed; registration sought under Section 2(f) as to the entirety of the mark) | Refusal reversed | 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.. |
| In re Coventya 2025 · FINIGARD | Refusal affirmed | Neutral | No evidence showed how long or under what conditions the two marks actually coexisted in the U.S. market. |
| In re WeGrow Germany GmbH 2025 · WeGrow (stylized with leaf design) | Refusal upheld for the Class 31 plants | Neutral | The narrowness of the registrant's goods did not weigh against confusion. |
| In re Guild Mortgage Company 2020 · GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY and design (three lines above IL) | Refusal upheld | Neutral | More than forty years of concurrent use 126 miles apart was not backed by evidence of meaningful marketplace overlap, so the absence of reported confusion carried little weight in this ex parte posture. |
| In re Integrated Embedded (d/b/a Barr Group) 2016 · BARR GROUP (standard characters; GROUP disclaimed) | The USPTO's refusal to register the name BARR GROUP for IT training, engineering, and… | Neutral | Client-sophistication evidence made this factor neutral or only slightly helpful to the applicant. |
Counts describe this curated library as of its coding date, not all TTAB decisions. Consolidated proceedings can appear once per application.
Who checked this
Drafted with automated assistance. Not yet reviewed by an attorney, and this page says so until it is.