BASIC SEARCH (extracted from https://beta-tmsearch.uspto.gov/help)

1. Search by all (default) [Type in the term that you want to search in the blank field]

[Drop down] Wordmark (Search for the words used in the trademark)

Goods and services (Search for trademarks that are used on specific goods or in connection with specific services)

Owner (Search by owner name or address)

Serial number (Search for a specific trademark if you know the serial number)

Mark description (Search by logos, imagery, or words)

2. Refine search (enter specific goods or services by name or classification number).

3. View your results in a grid, list, or compressed list               

4. Status filter Live marks or Dead marks. (An application is live if the USPTO is still examining it, and a registration is live if the owner is still maintaining it.)  

5. Configure Allows selection or deselection of Show image and Expert Mode

6. Need to reset or start over or have an error? Click on the Home button in the upper left corner.

Try it out!

[USPTO] Seven-step federal trademark search strategy

From https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trademark-7step.pdf

1. Describe the products or services being sold with the mark.

2. Identify specific terms for your product or service using the online ID Manual. Begin with this alphabetical

listing of acceptable terms for the identification of goods and services. The ID Manual is searchable on the

USPTO website at [https://idm-tmng.uspto.gov/id-master-list-public.html]. Locate terms that describe your good     or service. For example, "flying discs" is the acceptable term for a flying saucer-type toy.

3. Determine international class. The entry for your product or service in the online ID Manual will also list the

appropriate international class for that product or service. While providing the class for your goods or services

is not a requirement for an application (an exception is a TEAS Plus application), knowing your international

class can aid in focusing your search.

4. Determine related goods or services and their classes. Identify terms for related goods and/or services that

are used, advertised, or sold with your product. For instance, peanut butter is sold and used with jellies and

jams in the ID Manual. Also scan the International Classification of Goods and Services for classes that are

related to your product or service. (http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/notices/international.jsp)

5. Develop a basic search strategy. Brainstorm several alternatives to your mark in case your first choice is

taken. Are there reasons why the USPTO might reject your mark? (See common refusals at

http://tess2.uspto.gov/webaka/html/Likelihood/Likelihood_of_Confusion.html). If your mark includes a

phrase, what are the most important keywords? Don’t forget to use truncation devices (*) or wildcards (?) to

look for marks with word stems similar to yours.

6. Broaden your search strategy. Consider searching with alternative spellings and homonyms to your mark.

Use words that have the same or similar meanings to your mark. Also, try words that have similar sounds or

appearances or even phonetic equivalents. If necessary, the strategy can be narrowed later by limiting your

search results with the goods/services you found in Step 2 or the international class you found in Step 3.

7. Conduct the search. Search on TESS—the USPTO’s web-based Trademark Electronic Search System—at        your local Patent and Trademark Resource Center (www.uspto.gov/ptrc) or at home if you have internet access.

NOTE: Search logos and designs if needed. Use the Design Search Code Manual

(http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/dscm/index.htm) to determine the correct design search code(s) for your

mark’s graphic design components (if it has any). Use these design codes in a search on TESS to see if there are

other marks with a similar design element for similar products/services as yours.

[Note that TESS is no longer the name of the search engine at the USPTO after November 2023 but the same principles apply.]

__________________________________________________________________________________

The goal of trademark searching is usually to avoid a likelihood of confusion with a prior application or registration. Here are the du Pont factors that the USPTO considers when deciding if there is a likelihood of confusion.

TBMP 309.03(c)(2)(B)    Likelihood of Confusion

The evidentiary factors the [TTAB] considers in determining likelihood of confusion are set out in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).

These factors include

• the similarity of the marks,
• the relatedness of the goods and/or services,
• the channels of trade and classes of purchasers for the goods and/or services,
• the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods,
• the nature and extent of any actual confusion, and
• the fame of the prior mark.

The relevance and weight to be given the various factors may differ from case to case and a single du Pont factor may be dispositive in certain cases.

*WHAT IS THE DOMINANT PART OF A TRADEMARK? The part that potential consumers remember.

Lead words  are often dominant and identical lead words can lead to confusion. See Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Fondee En 1772, 396  F.3d  1369,  73  USPQ2d  1689,  1692  (Fed.  Cir.  2005)  (“Veuve”  is  the  most  prominent  part  of  the  mark  VEUVE  CLICQUOT  because  “veuve”  is  the  first  word  in the mark and the first word to appear on the label); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v.  Century  Life  of  America,  970  F.2d  874,  23  USPQ2d  1698,  1700  (Fed.  Cir.  1992)(upon encountering the marks, consumers will first notice the identical lead word); Presto Products Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it  is  often  the  first  part  of  a  mark  which  is  most  likely  to  be  impressed  upon  the  mind of a purchaser and remembered”).

WHY IDENTIFY THE DOMINANT PART OF A TRADEMARK?

The dominant part of a trademark can be the most important part to search! If two trademarks have the same or very similar dominant elements and those elements are similar in terms of appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, a very important du Point likelihood of confusion factor would weigh heavily toward confusion.

Identifying  a  specific  element  of  a  mark  as  the  dominant  term  is  helpful  in  analyzing  the  similarity  or  dissimilarity  of  marks  because the dominant element of a mark attracts attention and consumers are more likely to remember it; however, the marks must be considered as they are perceived. “[T]he weight given to the respective words is not entirely free of subjectivity.” In re Hearst Corp., 982 F.2d 493, 25 USPQ2d 1238, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (VARGA GIRL and  VARGAS  both  for  calendars  are  sufficiently  different  and  not  likely  to  cause  confusion).  The  fact-dependency  of  such  determinations  are  illustrated  by  the  following cases: compare Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Products , 866 F.2d 1386, 9 USPQ2d 1736 (Fed.Cir. 1989) (PECAN SANDIES not confusingly similar to PECAN SHORTERS); Land-O-Nod    Co.    v.    Paulison,    220    USPQ    61    (TTAB    1983)    (CHIROPRACTIC  AND  CHIRO-MATIC  not  confusingly  similar);  In  re  Bed  and  Breakfast  Registry,  791  F.2d  157,  229  USPQ  818  (Fed.Cir.  1986)  (BED  AND  BREAKFAST  REGISTRY  and  BED  AND  BREAKFAST  INTERNATIONAL  not  confusingly  similar);  and  Wooster  Brush  Co.  v.  Prager  Brush  Co.,  231  USPQ  316  (TTAB 1986) (POLY PRO and POLY FLO not confusingly similar); with Squirtco v. Tomy  Corp.,  697  F.2d  1038,  216  USPQ  937  (Fed.Cir.  1983)  (SQUIRT  SQUAD  confusingly  similar  to  SQUIRT);  In  re  Clorox  Co.,  578  F.2d  305,  198  USPQ  337  (CCPA 1978) (ERASE confusingly similar to STAIN ERASER); and Geo A. Hormel & Co. v. Hereford Heaven Brands, Inc., 341 F.2d 158, 144 USPQ 493 (CCPA 1965) (SIZZLE  confusingly  similar  to  LITTLE  SIZZLERS).

Some General Rules About Likelihood of Confusion

Please note that every trademark application is decided on its own merits and general rules may or may not apply! These General Rules are extracted from actual trademark refusals. The facts pertinent to the particular refusals have been deleted.

Similar in Appearance

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

Goods and Services Need Not Be Identical or Directly Competitive

The goods and services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 First Word, Prefix or Syllable May Be More Important

Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mattel Inc. v. Funline Merch. Co., 81 USPQ2d 1372, 1374-75 (TTAB 2006); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).

 

Foreign Equivalents of English Words May Cause Marks to Be Similar

Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a foreign language and a mark that is its English equivalent may be held to be confusingly similar.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi); see, e.g., In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983).  Therefore, marks comprised of foreign words are translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and connotation with English word marks.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Equivalence in meaning and connotation can be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar.  See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.

 

The doctrine is applicable when it is likely that an ordinary American purchaser would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent.  Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696; TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A).  The ordinary American purchaser refers to “all American purchasers, including those proficient in a non-English language who would ordinarily be expected to translate words into English.”  In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024 (citing J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §23:26 (4th ed. 2006), which states “[t]he test is whether, to those American buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would denote its English equivalent.”).

 

Generally, the doctrine is applied when the English translation is a literal and exact translation of the foreign wording.  See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1021 (holding MARCHE NOIR for jewelry likely to be confused with the cited mark BLACK MARKET MINERALS for retail jewelry and mineral store services where evidence showed that MARCHE NOIR is the exact French equivalent of the English idiom “Black Market,” and the addition of MINERALS did not serve to distinguish the marks); In re Ithaca Indus., Inc., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986) (holding applicant’s mark LUPO for men’s and boys’ underwear likely to be confused with the cited registration for WOLF and design for various clothing items, where LUPO is the Italian equivalent of the English word “wolf”); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ at 284 (holding the Spanish wording EL SOL for clothing likely to be confused with its English language equivalent SUN for footwear where it was determined that EL SOL was the “direct foreign language equivalent” of the term SUN).

 

Common, modern languages include Spanish, French, Italian, German, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Serbian and Yiddish.  See, e.g., Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel & Specialty Co., 290 F.2d 845, 129 USPQ 411 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (Hungarian); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2006) (Russian); In re Perez, 21 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1991) (Spanish); In re Oriental Daily News, Ltd., 230 USPQ 637 (TTAB 1986) (Chinese); In re Ithaca Indus., Inc., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986) (Italian); In re Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 223 USPQ 45 (TTAB 1983) (German); In re Westbrae Natural Foods, Inc., 211 USPQ 642 (TTAB 1981) (Japanese); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977) (French); In re Bagel Nosh, Inc., 193 USPQ 316 (TTAB 1976) (Yiddish); In re Hag Aktiengesellschaft, 155 USPQ 598 (TTAB 1967) (Serbian); In re New Yorker Cheese Co., 130 USPQ 120 (TTAB 1961) (Polish).

 

Font Changes Do NOT Avoid a Likelihood of Confusion

A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element itself and not in any particular display.  TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii); see 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters or otherwise in special form generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988).

 

When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods and/or services.  Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729, 735 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Marks are Compared in Their Entireties

Although a disclaimed portion of a mark certainly cannot be ignored, and the marks must be compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1060, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  

 

Overall Impression is More Important Than A Side-by-Side Comparison

The question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods and/or services they identify come from the same source.  In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 201, 175 USPQ 558, 558-59 (C.C.P.A. 1972); TMEP §1207.01(b).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  See Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329-30, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Info. Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179, 189 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537, 540-41 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

Why is TESS (the USPTO Trademark Electronic Search System) being obsolesced and removed? TESS relied on a search language that is obsolete and is no longer being supported. The new USPTO search system uses REGEX (regular expression) and has a lot more capabilities than TESS.

TESS was a very literal search engine that required knowledge of how it worked in order to do a thorough search. The new trademark search system’s basic search is easier to use and has great capabilities, but, for thorough searches using the new EXPERT mode or advanced searching also requires some  knowledge of how  the new trademark search engine works.

Phonetic equivalents are still important to search. See the chart at trademark.us.com for some examples of ways to use the new search system to search for phonetic equivalents.

The best way to learn is to try it!