Trademark Similarity: A Pictorial-Mark Case

2011 Heo 446 Trademark registration invalidation

Both marks consist solely of stylized anchor devices, which do not readily suggest a name or concept other than an anchor. However, the evidence in Exhibits 10–93, including sub-exhibits, showed that by the filing date, September 5, 2006, many anchor designs were already used on clothing with wording or other devices, and as repeated decorative patterns. Their shared anchor motif alone therefore did not establish that consumers would call or perceive both clothing marks simply as “anchor”. Their similarity should be assessed by appearance rather than pronunciation or concept.

The earlier anchor device has a crossbar and a mostly black rope that starts on the right, curves like a reversed “S” and hangs to the right. The registered device lacks the crossbar and uses a rope alternating black and white, starting on the left, looping once and hanging to the left. These differences create distinct overall appearances.

The devices are dissimilar, so the registered mark is not similar to the earlier mark.