This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Hearing: January 11, 2018 Mailed: January 19, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Trek Bicycle Corporation
v.
Celestron Acquisition LLC
_____

Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962
_____

Catherine Merz and Jennifer A. Widmer of Merz & Associates, P.C.,
for Trek Bicycle Corporation.

Michael K. Grace of Grace+Grace LLP,
For Celestron Acquisition LLP.

_____

Before Bergsman, Wolfson and Lynch,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Celestron Acquisition LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal

Register of the marks listed below:
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

TREKGUIDE (standard characters) for “barometer;
magnetic compasses; thermometers,” in International
Class 9;1

THERMOTREK (standard characters) for “electric hand
warmers,” in International Class 11;2 and

TREKCEL (standard characters) for “transformers;
portable electrical power chargers for cell phones, smart
phones, tablet computers, MP3 players and wireless
headsets,” in International Class 9.3

Trek Bicycle Corporation (“Opposer”) filed Notices of Opposition against the

registration of Applicant’s marks on the ground of likelihood of confusion under

Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Opposer alleges first and

continuous use of its TREK trademarks in connection with bicycles and bicycle parts

and accessories and ownership of numerous TREK trademark registrations including

the registrations listed below:

• Registration No. 2060274 for the mark TREK (typed drawing) for, inter alia,

“bicycles” and “lighting systems for bicycles,” in Class 12, and “cycling computers,” in

Class 9;4

1 Application Serial No. 86042283 (Opposition No. 91213696) was filed on August 19, 2013,
under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based upon Applicant’s claim
of first use anywhere and use in commerce since at least as early as January 1, 2011.

2 Application Serial No. 86022350 (Opposition No. 91213957) was filed on July 29, 2013,
under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based upon Applicant’s claim
of bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.

3 Application Serial No. 86013814 (Opposition No. 91213962) was filed on July 18, 2013,
under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based upon Applicant’s claim
of bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
4 Registered May 13, 1997; second renewal.

-2-
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

• Registration No. 2745442 for the mark TREK for “bicycling apparel, namely,

bicycling jersey; form fitting and reinforced seat elastic shorts; ankle length socks;

wind resistant jackets with enhanced visibility fabric, extra sleeve length, high collar

and extended length back panel; vests with enhanced visibility fabric, high collar and

extended length back panel,” in Class 25, and “padded and reinforced fingerless

bicycling gloves,” in Class 28;5 and

• Registration No. 4077999 for the mark PRO TREK (standard characters) for

“electric wrist watches,” in Class 14.6

Applicant, in its Answers, denied the salient allegations in the Notices of

Opposition.

Proceedings were consolidated in the Board’s November 14, 2014 Order.7

I. Preliminary Issues

A. Numerous evidentiary objections.

The parties have lodged numerous objections. None of the evidence sought to be

excluded is outcome determinative. Moreover, the Board is capable of weighing the

relevance and strength or weakness of the objected-to testimony and evidence,

including any inherent limitations. As necessary and appropriate, we will point out

any limitations in the evidence or otherwise note that the evidence cannot be relied

5 Registered August 23, 2003; renewed.
6 Registered December 27, 2011; Sections 8 and 15 affidavits accepted and acknowledged.
79 TTABVUE. Citations to the prosecution history entries in TTABVUE are to Opp. No.
91213696 unless otherwise indicated.

-3-
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

upon in the manner sought. We have considered all of the testimony and evidence

introduced into the record. In doing so, we have kept in mind the various objections

raised by the parties and we have accorded whatever probative value the subject

testimony and evidence merit.

B. Illegible exhibits.

Numerous evidentiary exhibits are illegible.8 It is the responsibility of the party

making submissions to the Board via the electronic database to ensure that the

testimony or evidence has, in fact, been properly made of record. See Weider Publ’ns,

LLC v. D&D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1350-51 (TTAB 2014); Alcatraz

Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc. dba Watermark Cruises, 107 USPQ2d

170, 1758 n.16 (TTAB 2013) (“the onus is on the party making the submissions to

ensure that, at a minimum, all materials are clearly readable by the adverse party

and the Board”); Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Elsea, 48 USPQ2d 1400, 1404

(TTAB 1998) (“It is reasonable to assume that it is opposer’s responsibility to review

the documents it submits as evidence to ensure that such submissions meet certain

basic requirements, such as that they are legible and identified as to source and

date.”). We have given illegible evidence probative value to the extent that we can

read and understand what it says.

8See e.g., Opposer’s fourth notice of reliance (26 TTABVUE), Opposer’s amended fourth notice
of reliance (29 TTABVUE), Opposer’s sixth notice of reliance (30 TTABVUE), Opposer’s
seventh notice of reliance (31 TTABVUE), and Opposer’s twelfth notice of reliance
(36 TTABVUE).

-4-
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

C. Improper designation of testimony and evidence as confidential.

Because, as in these proceedings,9 parties routinely improperly designate

testimony and evidence as confidential, the rules were amended to permit the Board

to disregard the confidential designation when appropriate. Pursuant to Trademark

Rule 2.116(g), 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(g), “[t]he Board may treat as not confidential that

material which cannot reasonably be considered confidential, notwithstanding a

designation as such by a party.”

D. Applicant’s objection to Opposer’s notice of reliance on webpages retrieved
from the WAYBACK MACHINE website.

During its case-in-chief, Opposer filed a notice of reliance on excerpts from

websites explaining how the WAYBACK MACHINE search and retrieval function

operates and from Applicant’s website advertising its TREKGUIDE products

retrieved from the WAYBACK MACHINE search and retrieval engine.10

Applicant filed an objection to Opposer’s notice of reliance on the evidence

retrieved from the WAYBACK MACHINE search and retrieval engine on the ground

that that “there is no foundation to establish that such content is reliable evidence of

the past appearance of webpages at specific times in the past. The proffered evidence

9See e.g., Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s interrogatories (25 TTABVUE), Opposer’s Brief,
p. 15 (81 TTABVUE 21) (redacting the name of a sporting goods store that sells Opposer’s
products).
10 42 TTABVUE.

-5-
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

is not reliable, especially when the best evidence is a screenshot or printout taken

directly from the actual live website on that given day.”11

Applicant, during its testimony period, filed a notice of reliance on excerpts from

the Bontrager.com, the Trekbikes.com, and the Celestron.com websites printed from

the WAYBACK MACHINE search and retrieval engine.12

Applicant waived its objection to Opposer’s notice of reliance on evidence retrieved

from the WAYBACK MACHINE search and retrieval engine by introducing its own

notice of reliance on evidence retrieved from the WAYBACK MACHINE search and

retrieval engine. Cf. Miss Am. Pageant v. Petite Prod. Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1067, 1069

(TTAB 1990) (“a party ordinarily will not be heard to contend that a request for

discovery is proper when propounded by the party itself but improper when

propounded by its adversary.”); Sentrol, Inc. v. Sentex Sys., Inc., 231 USPQ 666, 667

(TTAB 1986) (parties who served identical discovery requests on each other in effect

waived their right to object and must answer each request completely); Textronix, Inc.

v. Tek Assoc., Inc., 183 USPQ 623, 623 (TTAB 1974) (each party was estopped from

objecting to interrogatory requests served upon them by the opposing party which

were essentially the same requests); Gastown Inc. of Del. v. Gas City, Ltd., 180 USPQ

477, 477 (TTAB 1974) (opposer must answer applicant’s interrogatories which are

similar to those which were served by opposer upon applicant).

11 49 TTBVUE 3.
12 73 TTABVUE 2-21, 27-38.

-6-
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

II. The Record.

The record includes the pleadings and, by operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b),

37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b), Applicant’s application files.13 The record also includes the

following testimony and evidence:

A. Opposer’s testimony and evidence.14

1. Notice of reliance on copies of Opposer’s pleaded registrations showing their

current status and title;15

2. Notice of reliance on excerpts from printed publications in general

circulation;16

3. Notice of reliance on Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s interrogatories;17

13Accordingly, it was redundant and unnecessary for Applicant to introduce its trademark
applications in its first notice of reliance (57 TTABVUE 4-24) and its fifteenth notice of
reliance (58 TTABVUE 15-19).
14 We give no consideration to Opposer’s First Rebuttal Notice of Reliance (74 TTABVUE)
because it is product packaging and product packaging is not matter that may be introduced
into evidence through a notice of reliance. The types of evidence admissible by notice of
reliance are identified in in Trademark Rules 2.122(d)(2) (registration owned by a party to a
proceeding), 2.122(e)(1) (printed publications and official records), 2.122(e)(2) (Internet
materials) and 2.120(k) (discovery depositions, initial disclosures, and answers to
interrogatories and requests for admission). See Trademark Rule 2.122(g), 37 C.F.R.
§ 2.122(g).
Likewise, we give no consideration to Applicant’s notices of reliance on the BONTRAGER
Trip 100 Bicycle Computer packaging posted at 57 TTABVUE 107-109 and 60 TTABVUE 42-
49.
15 22 TTABVUE.
16 23 TTABVUE.
17 24 TTABVUE. Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s interrogatories designated as
confidential are posted on 25 TTABVUE. As noted above, Applicant improperly designated
its responses as confidential (e.g., the products that have been sold in connection with
Applicant’s mark and the general sale price and suggested list price for each products at 25
TTABVUE 6-7).

-7-
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

4. Notice of reliance on excerpts from shopcasio.com;18

5. Notice of reliance on Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s requests for

admissions;19

6. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly to

show advertising of Opposer’s TREK gloves;20

7. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly to

show advertising of Opposer’s TREK arm, knee and leg warmers;21

8. Notice of reliance on excerpts from Opposer’s websites and third-party

websites purportedly to show advertising of Opposer’s TREK computers;22

1826 TTABVUE. The excerpts are partially illegible and difficult to read. Opposer filed an
amended notice of reliance at 29 TTABVUE, but the excerpts remain partially illegible. As
noted in the “Preliminary Issues,” we will give such partially illegible documents
consideration to the extent that we can read them.
1927 TTABVUE. Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s requests for admission designated as
confidential are posted on 28 TTABVUE.
2030 TTABVUE. As noted above, these excerpts while generally illegible may be clear enough
to have limited probative value.
21 31 TTABVUE. As noted above, these excerpts are also partially illegible. Also, these
excerpts were printed on November 13, 2015 or January 29, 2016, after the filing date of
Applicant’s applications, and therefore do not support Opposer’s assertion of priority. Dean
Gore’s testimony that Opposer has been selling arm warmers “for years” is not sufficient to
prove Opposer’s priority. Gore Testimony Dep., p. 65 (55 TTABVUE 69). See Syngenta Crop
Prot. Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1119 (TTAB 2009) (while the clear implication
of opposer’s testimony was that it was using its mark prior to applicant’s constructive use
date, the testimony did not clearly state when opposer began using its mark and, therefore,
opposer failed to prove priority); H.D. Lee Co. v. Maidenform Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1715, 1722-23
(TTAB 2008) (testimony was not specific enough to establish priority). Because there is no
testimony or evidence that Opposer used the TREK mark to identify these products prior to
the filing date of Applicant’s applications, on the record before us, Opposer does not have
priority for these goods.
2232 TTABVUE. While these excerpts are generally illegible, they may be clear enough to
have limited probative value.

-8-
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

9. Notice of reliance on excerpts from Applicant’s website and third-party

websites purportedly to show advertising of Applicant’s TREKGUIDE

digital compasses which include a barometer and thermometer, and the

sale of bicycle accessories by these same retailers;23

10. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly to

show advertising of Applicant’s TREKCEL power packs, as well as

advertising for bicycle products;24

11. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly to

show advertising of Applicant’s THERMOTREK hand warmers, as well as

advertising for bicycle products;25

12. Notice of reliance on excerpts from Amazon.com purportedly to show

advertising for Applicant’s TREKGUIDE, TREKCEL and THERMOTREK

products, as well as bicycles and bicycle accessories;26

2333 TTABVUE. While these excerpts are generally illegible, they may be clear enough to
have limited probative value.
24 34 TTABVUE. These excerpts are partially illegible.
2535 TTABVUE. While these excerpts are generally illegible, they may be clear enough to
have limited probative value.
2636 TTABVUE. These excerpts are totally illegible and, therefore, have no probative value.
In any event, because Amazon.com sells numerous unrelated products, even if the excerpts
were legible, the evidence would have little probative value regarding whether the goods are
related and whether the products are offered in the same channels of trade. See Recot, Inc. v.
Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899-100 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (absent some evidence
that the products are sold in close proximity to one another, the fact that the products at
issue are sold in supermarkets did not weigh in favor of confusion being likely); Morgan Creek
Prods. Inc. v. Foria Int’l Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1134, 1142 (TTAB 2009) (“It has long been held
that the mere fact that two different items can be found in a supermarket, department store,
drugstore or mass merchandiser store is not a sufficient basis for a finding that the goods are
related.”).

-9-
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

13. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly to

show the strength of Opposer’s TREK trademark;27

14. Notice of reliance on three non-precedential Board decisions purportedly

to show the strength of Opposer’s TREK trademarks;28

15. Notice of reliance on excerpts from Opposer’s website and third-party

websites purportedly to show the breadth of goods identified by the TREK

mark, channels of trade and the similarity of the goods of the parties;29

16. Notice of reliance on excerpts from two third-party websites purportedly to

show the channels of trade for Applicant’s products;30

17. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly to

show Opposer’s TREK mark used in connection with headlights;31

18. Notice of reliance on Internet website excerpts purportedly to explain the

WAYBACK MACHINE search and retrieval engine and excerpts from

Applicant’s website purportedly to show how Applicant’s TREKGUIDE

product has been marketed;32

27 37 TTABVUE. Opposer filed an amended notice of reliance posted on 45 TTABVUE.
28 38 TTABVUE. Opposer filed an amended notice of reliance posted on 46 TTABVUE.
29 39 TTABVUE. These excerpts are partially illegible.
30 40 TTABVUE.
3141 TTABVUE. The evidence in this notice of reliance displays BONTRAGER branded
products, not TREK brand products. On the other hand, the websites appear to show that
the online retailers sell other TREK branded products or are independent TREK dealers.
32 42 TTABVUE.

– 10 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

19. Notice of reliance on excerpts from two third-party websites purportedly to

show the channels of trade for Opposer’s products;33

20. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly to

show information about the data compiling services provided by Datalogix,

Inc.;34

21. Notice of reliance on the discovery deposition of Michelle Meskill,

Applicant’s Marketing Manager;35

22. Testimony deposition of Lisa Farina, a paralegal for Opposer’s counsel’s

law firm;36

23. Testimony deposition of Chad Brown, Opposer’s Chief Financial Officer;37

24. Testimony deposition of Dean Gore, Opposer’s Vice President of

Marketing;38

33 43 TTABVUE.
34 44 TTABVUE.
3547 TTABVUE. The portions of the Meskill deposition designated confidential are posted on
48 TTABVUE.
36 51 TTABVUE.
3753 TTABVUE. The portions of the Brown deposition designated confidential are posted on
54 TTABVUE.
3855 TTABVUE. The portions of the Brown deposition designated confidential are posted on
56 TTABVUE.

– 11 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

25. Notice of reliance on excerpts from the discovery deposition of Dean Gore

which Opposer asserts that “in fairness be considered so as to make not

misleading what was offered by” Applicant;39 and

26. Excerpts from websites purportedly showing the TREK BONTRAGER Trip

200 Computer being offered for sale and listing its functions.40

B. Applicant’s testimony and evidence.

1. Notice of reliance on excerpt from the Bontrager.com website purportedly

depicting bicycle computer accessories;41

2. Notice of reliance on excerpt from the Bontrager.com website purportedly

depicting bicycle computer accessories;42

3. Notice of reliance on Opposer’s website purportedly depicting bicycle

computer accessories;43

4. Notice of reliance on excerpts from the discovery deposition of Dean Gore,

Opposer’s Vice President of Marketing;44

3975 TTABVUE. Opposer filed an amended notice of reliance posted on 77 TTABVUE.
Opposer also filed a notice of reliance on confidential portions of the Dean Gore discovery
deposition posted on 79 TTABVUE.
4076 TTABVUE. While these excerpts are generally illegible, they may be clear enough to
have limited probative value.
41 73 TTABVUE 2-6.
42 73 TTABVUE 7-11.
43 73 TTABVUE 12-21.
4457 TTABVUE 41-68 and 67 TTABVUE 11-16. The portions of the Gore deposition
designated confidential are posted on 59 TTABVUE.

– 12 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

5. Notice of reliance on excerpts from third-party websites purportedly

depicting Opposer’s bicycle travel computers;45

6. Notice of reliance on excerpts from Applicant’s website purportedly

depicting a handheld compass, thermometer and barometer;46

7. Notice of reliance on excerpts from Applicant’s website purportedly

depicting a portable electric charger;47

8. Notice of reliance on excerpts from Applicant’s website purportedly

depicting electric hand warmers;48 and

9. Testimony deposition of Michelle Meskill, Applicant’s Marketing

Manager.49

III. Standing

Standing is a threshold issue that must be proven by the plaintiff in every inter

partes case. SeeEmpresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270,

111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Opposer’s standing to oppose registration

of Applicant’s marks is established by its pleaded registrations, which the record

shows to be valid and subsisting, and owned by Opposer. See, e.g., Cunningham v.

45 57 TTABVUE 69-103 and 67 TTABVUE 17-20.
46 73 TTABVUE 22-26.
47 73 TTABVUE 27-33.
48 73 TTABVUE 34-38.
49 61 TTABVUE 2-46.

– 13 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); N.Y. Yankees

P’ship v. IET Prods. & Servs., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1497, 1501 (TTAB 2015).

IV. Priority

Because Opposer’s pleaded registrations are of record, priority is not at issue with

respect to the goods identified in Opposer’s pleaded registrations. Mini Melts, Inc. v.

Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1464, 1469 (TTAB 2016) (citing King Candy Co.

v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974)).

V. Likelihood of Confusion

Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the

probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of

likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,

177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“du Pont”) (cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis

Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015)); see also In re Majestic

Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have

considered each du Pont factor that is relevant or for which there is evidence of record.

See M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947

(Fed. Cir. 2006); ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232, 1242

(TTAB 2015) (“While we have considered each factor for which we have evidence, we

focus our analysis on those factors we find to be relevant.”). In any likelihood of

confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks

and the similarities between the goods or services. See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380

F.2d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort

– 14 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental

inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential

characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”); see also In re

i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The

likelihood of confusion analysis considers all DuPont factors for which there is record

evidence but ‘may focus … on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and

relatedness of the goods’”) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 303 F.3d

1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

A. The strength and fame of Opposer’s TREK mark.

In determining the strength of a mark, we consider both its inherent strength,

based on the nature of the mark itself, and its commercial strength, based on the

marketplace recognition value of the mark. See In re Chippendales USA, Inc.,

622 F.3d 1346, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A mark’s strength is

measured both by its conceptual strength (distinctiveness) and its marketplace

strength (secondary meaning).”); Top Tobacco, L.P. v. N. Atl. Operating Co., Inc.,

101 USPQ2d 1163, 1171-72 (TTAB 2011) (the strength of a mark is determined by

assessing its inherent strength and its commercial strength); Tea Board of India v.

Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1899 (TTAB 2006); McCarthy on Trademarks

and Unfair Competition § 11:83 (5th ed. 2017) (“The first enquiry focuses on the

inherent potential of the term at the time of its first use. The second evaluates the

actual customer recognition value of the mark at the time registration is sought or at

the time the mark is asserted in litigation to prevent another’s use.”). Market

– 15 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

strength is the extent to which the relevant public recognizes a mark as denoting a

single source. Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d at 1899.

1. The inherent strength of Opposer’s TREK trademark.

The word “Trek” is defined, inter alia, as “to travel or migrate, especially slowly

or with difficulty” and as “a journey or trip, especially one involving difficulty or

hardship.”50 When TREK is used in connection with bicycles or bicycle accessories, it

is inherently distinctive. As noted above, Opposer has made of record its pleaded

TREK registrations which are not subject to any counterclaims for cancellation. The

registrations are “prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark[s] and of

the registration of the mark[s], of the owner’s ownership of the mark[s], and of the

owner’s exclusive right to use the registered mark[s] in commerce on or in connection

with the goods or services specified in the certificate.” Section 7(b) of the Trademark

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b).

In assessing the inherent strength of Opposer’s TREK mark, we note that there is

no testimony or evidence regarding the number and nature of similar marks in use

on similar goods or third-party registrations consisting in whole, or in part, of the

word “Trek.” See Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334,

115 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the extent of third-party use or

50 Dictionary.com based on the Random House Dictionary (2017). The Board may take
judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries that exist in printed
format. In re Cordua Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.4 (TTAB 2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d
594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Threshold.TV Inc. v. Metronome Enters. Inc.,
96 USPQ2d 1031, 1038 n.14 (TTAB 2010). See also Meskill Testimony Dep., p. 9
(61 TTABVUE 10) (“Trek is a word that defines a long outdoor walk or journey.”).

– 16 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

registrations may indicate that a term carries a suggestive or descriptive connotation

and is weak for that reason).

2. The commercial strength of Opposer’s TREK trademark.

Opposer alleges that “[p]rior to the first use date for Applicant’s Mark, [Opposer’s]

TREK mark had become famous for [Opposer’s] goods and services.”51 Fame, if it

exists, plays a dominant role in the likelihood of confusion analysis because famous

marks enjoy a broad scope of protection or exclusivity of use. A famous mark has

extensive public recognition and renown. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc.,

293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 54

USPQ2d at 1897; Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus. Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22

USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

“[L]ikelihood of confusion fame ‘varies along a spectrum from very strong to very

weak.’” Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmount Holdings, LLC, 857 F.3d 1323,

122 USPQ2d 1733, 1734 (Fed Cir. 2017) (quoting Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve

Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1694

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 68 USPQ2d 1059,

1063 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). Fame may be measured indirectly by the volume of sales of

and advertising expenditures for the goods and services identified by the marks at

issue, “the length of time those indicia of commercial awareness have been evident,”

widespread critical assessments and through notice, by independent sources, of the

51 Notice of Opposition ¶11 (1 TTABVUE 19).

– 17 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

products identified by the marks, as well as the general reputation of the products

and services. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc., 63 USPQ2d at 1305-06, 1309.

Although raw numbers of product sales and advertising expenses sometimes suffice

to prove fame, raw numbers alone may be misleading. Some context in which to place

raw numbers may be necessary (e.g., the substantiality of the sales or advertising

figures for comparable types of products or services). Id. at 1309.

Finally, because of the extreme deference that we accord a famous mark in terms

of the wide latitude of legal protection it receives, and the dominant role fame plays

in the likelihood of confusion analysis, it is the duty of the party asserting that its

mark is famous to clearly prove it. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,

668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1720 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Leading Jewelers

Guild Inc. v. LJOW Holdings LLC, 82 USPQ2d 1901, 1904 (TTAB 2007)).

Opposer introduced the following evidence to prove that TREK is a famous mark:

• From 2009 through 2015, Opposer’s sales and advertising and marketing

expenditures in the United States have been substantial;52

• Opposer has sponsored the U.S. Postal Service professional bicycling team. The

team wears jerseys displaying the TREK trademark and the TREK marks were

52Brown Testimony Dep., pp. 3-7 and Exhibits 1 (54 TTABVUE 7-11 and 35) (Confidential).
Because Opposer’s sales and advertising and marketing expenditures were designated
confidential, we refer to them only in general terms.

– 18 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

purportedly featured on priority mail envelopes available through the U.S. Postal

Service;53

• The TREK trademark has appeared on a bicycle on the front of a WHEATIES

cereal box;54

• The TREK trademark has received publicity in magazines and newspapers in

general circulation, including, but limited to, Allure Magazine, Autoweek, Maxim,

Men’s Health, Men’s Journal, Outside Buyer’s Guide, Popular Science, Design,

Chicago Tribune, Time, Sports Illustrated, New York Times, and Consumer Reports;55

• Lance Armstrong, multiple winner of the Tour de France bicycle race, rode

TREK bicycles;56

• Consumers visit Opposer’s website 40 million times per year;57

• Bicycling.com, the online component of Bicycling Magazine, conducted a reader’s

survey in 2012 and reported that TREK was the brand owned by most responders;58

and

53Gore Testimony Dep., pp. 13-14 and Exhibit 101 (55 TTABVUE 17-18 and 159). The
photograph on the envelope purportedly showing the racing team wearing jerseys displaying
the TREK trademark is illegible.
54Gore Testimony Dep., pp. 15-16 and Exhibits 102 and 103 (55 TTABVUE 19-20 and 161-
163).
55 23 TTABVUE.
56 23 TTABVUE 41-42, 47, 49, 51-52, 57, 59, 85, 91, 101 and 104.
57 Gore Testimony Dep., p. 51 (55 TTABVUE 55).
58Gore Testimony Dep., pp. 37-39 and Exhibit 108 (55 TTABVUE 41-43 and 170). See also
45 TTABVUE 10.

Applicant objects to the results of the reader’s survey and to the National Bicycle Dealer’s
Association “Industry Overview 2014, discussed below, on the grounds that they lack

– 19 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

• The National Bicycle Dealers Association “Industry Overview 2014” reported

that TREK was the largest company “specializing in bicycles for the independent

bicycle dealer channel of trade.”59

While Applicant “agrees” that TREK “is a well-known trademark in the United

States for middle-market bicycles,” it argues that TREK is not entitled to a “monopoly

over the use of the word ‘trek’ as a component of a mark for all goods that might be

used outdoors.”60 We agree, but nevertheless find that the Opposer’s TREK mark is

famous for bicycles and bicycle accessories.

Nevertheless, we hasten to add that having found Opposer’s TREK mark to be

famous does not end the likelihood of confusion analysis. While the fame of Opposer’s

TREK mark must be accorded great weight in a likelihood of confusion analysis,

“fame alone cannot overwhelm the other du Pont factors as a matter of law.” Recot

foundation, are speculative, and are hearsay. 83 TTABVUE 17-18. However, they are
admissible pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.122(e)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e)(2) (“Internet
materials may be admitted into evidence under a notice of reliance … in the same manner as
a printed publication in general circulation, so long as the date the internet materials were
accessed and their source (e.g., URL) are provided.”). Such documents are admissible only to
show what has been printed, not the truth of what has been printed. See Safer Inc. v. OMS
Inv. Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031, 1040 (TTAB 2010).

On the other hand, Applicant’s objection to the NPD Group data on industry market share
(Brown Testimony Dep., pp. 20-23 (53 TTABVUE 24-27) and Brown Confidential Testimony
Dep., pp. 13-15 and Exhibit 4 (54 TTABVUE 17-19 and 39)) at 83 TTABVUE 19 is sustained
because Opposer failed to lay a foundation for that evidence. Chad Brown’s testimony that
Opposer pays for a subscription to NPD, a company that provides information to various
industries, does not lay the proper foundation because the testimony does not tell us what
kind of information is provided, how that information is compiled, or whether Opposer relies
on the information in the ordinary course of its business.

59 45 TTABVUE 47, 50.
60 Applicant’s Brief, p. 9 (83 TTABVUE 10).

– 20 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 54 USPQ2d at 1898; see also Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet

Food Imports Co., Inc., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505, 507 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The fame

of the [plaintiff’s] name is insufficient in itself to establish likelihood of confusion

under §2(d).”).

The strength of Opposer’s TREK mark is a du Pont factor that weighs in Opposer’s

favor.

B. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods.

1. Applicant’s “barometer; magnetic compasses; thermometers.”

Opposer is the owner of Registration No. 2060274 for the mark TREK for, inter

alia, “cycling computers.” Opposer’s TREK INCITE ALPINE cycling computer

includes a compass function and Opposer’s TREK INCITE 9i WIRELESS (a cycling

computer) includes a temperature gauge.61 The computers may be removed from the

bicycle for handheld use.62

Opposer’s cycling computer and Applicant’s digital compass are similar in

appearance, size and mobility which goes to the ability to use them in a similar

manner for similar purposes as evidenced by Applicant’s having advertised its

TREKGUIDE compass for use in connection with bicycling.63 Applicant’s

TREKGUIDE product and Opposer’s TREK cycling computer are reproduced below:

61Gore Testimony Dep., Exhibit 112 (56 TTABVUE 120-128) (a catalogue improperly
designated as confidential).
62 Gore Testimony Dep., p. 22 (56 TTABVUE 26) (improperly designated as confidential).
63 Meskill Discovery Dep., p. 26 (47 TTABVUE 13).

– 21 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Applicant’s TREKGUIDE 64 Opposer’s TREK cycling computer65

Opposer is the owner of Registration No. 4077999 for the mark PRO TREK for

“electric wrist watches.” The watches may include a thermometer and compass

function.66

Considering the fame accorded to Opposer’s TREK mark when used in connection

with bicycles and bicycle accessories and the fact that Opposer’s cycling computers

and wrist watches may include a thermometer and compass function, and are used

in similar contexts for outdoor sporting activities, they are related to Applicant’s

magnetic compasses and thermometers, which can be used for similar purposes.

2. Applicant’s “electric hand warmers.”

Consumers use Applicant’s THERMOTREK hand warmer by holding it in their

hands. It is a mobile device that one can carry in a bag or affix to the wrist while on

the move.

64 57 TTABVUE 24; see also Applicant’s TREKGUIDE specimen filed with its application.
65 39 TTABVUE 13.
66 26 TTABVUE 6, 8, 10, and 16.

– 22 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Q. Is this a product [THERMOTREK electric hand
warmer] that’s suitable for use on a bicycle?

A. You can take it with you in a bag or, you know, it has
a wrist strap when you are on a bike.

Q. Is it meant to be mounted on a bike?

A. No.67

A THERMOTREK package is reproduced below:68

Opposer argues that because Applicant’s THERMOTREK electric hand warmers

have a strap for affixing to one’s wrist, they “could be worn while bicycling” and,

therefore, they are related to Opposer’s bicycles and bicycle accessories because they

can be carried by a bicycle rider.69 In other words, electric hand warmers and bicycles

are complementary products.

67 Meskill Testimony Dep., p. 13 (61 TTABVUE 14).
68 27 TTABVUE 114.
69 Opposer’s Reply Brief, p. 5 (84 TTABVUE 8).

– 23 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Further, Applicant’s easily portable TREKGUIDE,
TREKCEL and THERMOTREK products do not have to be
mounted on a bicycle, or used while sitting on a bike, for
them to be effectively used by a cyclist or consumers of
[Opposer’s] products.70

While bicycle riders may carry electric hand warmers, the use of electric hand

warmers is not conducive to safe bicycle riding because it works when the user holds

it in his/her hands.71 Thus, we doubt that consumers perceive an electric hand

warmer as being associated with bicycles or bicycle accessories inasmuch as it is

counter-intuitive that a product you hold in your hands to use would be related to a

bicycle which requires the use of both hands. There is no testimony or evidence that

bicycle riders use electric hand warmers.72

Opposer is the owner of Registration No. 2745442 for the mark TREK for

“bicycling apparel, namely, bicycling jersey; form fitting and reinforced seat elastic

shorts; ankle length socks; wind resistant jackets with enhanced visibility fabric,

extra sleeve length, high collar and extended length back panel; vests with enhanced

visibility fabric, high collar and extended length back panel,” in Class 25, and “padded

and reinforced fingerless bicycling gloves,” in Class 28.

70 Id.
71 Meskill Testimony Dep., p. 13 (61 TTABVUE 14).
72 Ms. Meskill’s testimony that a webpage advertising its THERMOTREK electric hand
warmer may be used by “men, women, kids, climb, bike, hike, camp, run, travel, and life,
snow, water, your; all,” is problematical for two reasons. See Meskill Discovery Dep.,
pp. 38- 39 and Exhibit 13 (47 TTABVUE 16 and 46). First, it refers to a webpage posted on
www.mec.ca, a Canadian website. There is no testimony or evidence regarding the extent to
which consumers in the United States, if any, access that website when shopping for products
used in any of those activities. Second, because the website is partially illegible, we cannot
find or read the excerpt quoted in the testimony.

– 24 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

There is no evidence or testimony regarding how an electric hand warmer and

Opposer’s apparel, including bicycling gloves, are related products. Nevertheless,

Opposer argues that it is developing battery-powered clothing and that electric hand

warmers fall within Opposer’s natural zone of expansion.73 However, there is no

evidence that consumers expect electric hand warmers and battery-powered clothing

to emanate from the same source.

Among the factors to be considered in determining whether
an expansion, either actual or potential, is natural are: (1)
whether the second area of business (that is, the
subsequent user’s area of business, into which the first
user has or potentially may expand) is a distinct departure
from the first area of business (of the prior user), thereby
requiring a new technology or know-how, or whether it is
merely an extension of the technology involved in the first
area of business; (2) the nature and purpose of the goods or
services in each area; (3) whether the channels of trade and
classes of customers for the two areas of business are the
same, so that the goodwill established by the prior user in
its first area of business would carry over into the second
area; and (4) whether other companies have expanded from
one area to the other. See: Central Soya Co., Inc. v. North
American Plant Breeders, 212 USPQ 37 (TTAB 1981), and
Porta-Tool, Inc. v. DND Corp., 196 USPQ 643 (TTAB 1977).
Finally, the determination of whether an expansion is or
would be natural must be made on the basis of the
circumstances prevailing at the time when the subsequent
user first began to do business under its mark, i.e., what
was “natural” in the relevant trade at that time. See:
Viking Boat Co., Inc. v. Viking Camper Supply, Inc., 191
USPQ 297 (TTAB 1976).

Mason Eng’g and Design Corp. v. Mateson Chem. Corp., 225 USPQ 956, 962 TTAB

1985). There is no testimony or evidence regarding factors one (whether battery

73 Opposer’s Brief, p. 27 (81 TTABVUE 33).

– 25 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

powered clothing is a distinct departure from Opposer’s existing products) and four

(evidence that third parties offer both products indicating that an entity could expand

its business to include both types of goods) and there is no testimony or evidence

regarding any of the factors as of Applicant’s 2013 constructive use date.

We find that the record does not support the relatedness of Opposer’s clothing

products and bicycling gloves to Applicant’s electric hand warmers.

3. Applicant’s “transformers; portable electrical power chargers for cell
phones, smart phones, tablet computers, MP3 players and wireless
headsets.”

Opposer introduced excerpts from third-party websites advertising the sale of a

TREKCEL combination power charger and flashlight.74 Opposer also introduced

evidence that it sells TREK bicycle lights that may be removed from a bicycle and

used as a flashlight.75 Opposer contends that because Opposer’s bicycle lights may be

used as a flashlight and Applicant’s power charger may be combined with a flashlight,

bicycle lights and power chargers are related.76 We disagree. This evidence shows

that both parties sell goods that may generally be referred to as “lights.”

Applicant’s TREKCEL combination power charger and flashlight does not fall

within the TREKCEL application description of goods which encompasses “portable

electrical power chargers for cell phones, smart phones, tablet computers, MP3

players and wireless headsets.”

74 34 TTABVUE.
75 55 TTABVUE 67, 190-193.
76 Applicant’s Brief, p. 27 (81 TTABVUE 33).

– 26 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Q. And can you describe for the Court here, the Board,
exactly what is meant by a charger? What is it’s [sic]
function?

A. You can charge it through your computer USB and
then you can take it out into the field with you and
recharge your handheld computer, like smart
phones and iPads.77

It is axiomatic that we must consider the goods as they are described in the

application and registration at issue. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital

LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys, Inc. v.

Houston Comput. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

(“The authority is legion that the question of registrability of an applicant’s mark

must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the application

regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant’s

goods, the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to which the sales

of goods are directed.”).

Also, we do not read limitations into the identification of goods. Squirtco v. Tomy

Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“There is no specific

limitation and nothing in the inherent nature of Squirtco’s mark or goods that

restricts the usage of SQUIRT for balloons to promotion of soft drinks. The Board,

thus, improperly read limitations into the registration”). Therefore, we must not

presume that Applicant’s power chargers as described in the description of goods

include flashlights.

77 Meskill Testimony Dep., p. 12 (61 TTABVUE 13).

– 27 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

There is no testimony or evidence regarding how Opposer’s bicycle lights are

related to Applicant’s power chargers for cell phones, smart phones, tablet computers,

MP3 players and wireless headsets. Accordingly, we cannot find that bicycle lights

and power chargers for cell phones, smart phones, tablet computers, MP3 players and

wireless headsets are related products.

C. Established, likely-to-continue channels of trade.

1. TREKGUIDE

TREKGUIDE products are widely available through all of Applicant’s dealers78

and through various “mass retailers and specialty stores,” such as “B and H, Gulls,

Maynards [sic], Canadian Tire, High Point Scientific,” and “Walmart.com.”79

Applicant promoted its TREKGUIDE products at the 2012 and 2013 Outdoor Retailer

Show, the 2012 and 2014 CES Show, and the 2014 Shot Show.80 Applicant has

marketed its TREKGUIDE products in connection with bicycles because bicycling is

an outdoor activity.81

Applicant’s TREKGUIDE products are sold through its own website

(celestron.com),82 as well as the websites listed below, none of which appear to

78 Meskill Discovery Dep., p. 20 (47 TTABVUE 11).
79 Meskill Testimony Dep. pp. 21-22 (61 TTBVUE 22-23).
80 Applicant’s response to Opposer’s Interrogatory No. 7 (24 TTABVUE 13).
81Meskill Discovery Dep., p. 26 (47 TTABVUE 13). See also Applicant’s response to Opposer’s
request for admission No. 5 and Exhibit B (27 TTABVUE 8-9 and 19); Applicant’s
supplemental response to Opposer’s request for admission No. 5 and Exhibit B (27 TTABVUE
32-33 and 41); 42 TTABVUE 20-53.
82 33 TTABVUE 8.

– 28 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

advertise the sale of any of Opposer’s TREK products. However, many of the websites

feature bicycles or bicycle accessories.

• Opticsplanet.com whose menu identifies sport optics, hunting, shooting gear,

outdoor gear, apparel, eyewear, “military & tactical,” police, EMS, and fire, “sports &

hobbies”, and “lab & science.”83 Opticsplanet.com also advertises a third-party ankle

bicycle light, mount, and spoke wheel light.84

• Highpointscientific.com whose menu identifies telescopes, computerized

telescopes, telescopes accessories, and telescope mounts.85 There is no evidence that

this website advertises bicycles or bicycle accessories.

• Adorama.com advertises the sale of a POLOROID bicycle mount for a camera,

as well as other third-party bicycle accessories such as a bike mount to hold other

products, a seat pack, bicycle light, and a Bluetooth sensor.86

• Astronomics.com advertises the sale of, inter alia, telescopes and spotting

scopes.87

• Bhphotovideo.com also advertises third-party bike mounts, cycling computers,

and bike lights.88

83 33 TTABVUE 10-20.
84 33 TTABVUE 12-20.
85 33 TTABVUE 22.
86 33 TTABVUE 24-36.
87 33 TTABVUE 38.
88 33 TTABVUE 40-48.

– 29 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

• Focuscamera.com.89

• Realrecreationusa.com, based on the menu in the website excerpt, appears to be

an online department store.90

Inasmuch as Applicant sells its products for use in connection with outdoor

sports,91 including bicycling,92 Applicant’s products are offered in the same channels

of trade as Opposer’s TREK products to the extent that they are sold to the same

consumers.

2. THERMOTREK and TREKCEL

“ThermoTrek and TrekCel are limited distribution, so they are not widely

available.”93 They are sold to “select retailers,” such as Cabela’s and Target.94 There

is no evidence that Cabela’s or Target sell any of Opposer’s TREK products. There is

no testimony or evidence that Cabela’s sells bicycles or bicycle accessories.

Applicant’s THERMOTREK hand warmers also are sold through the following

online websites, none of which advertise the sale of any of Opposer’s TREK products:

89 27 TTABVUE 27.
90 27 TTABVUE 29.
91 Applicant’s response to Opposer’s Interrogatory No. 1 (24 TTABVUE 8, 28 and 47).
92Meskill Discovery Dep., p. 26 (47 TTABVUE 13). See also Applicant’s response to Opposer’s
request for admission No. 5 and Exhibit B (27 TTABVUE 8-9 and 19); Applicant’s
supplemental response to Opposer’s request for admission No. 5 and Exhibit B (27 TTABVUE
32-33 and 41); 42 TTABVUE 20-53.
93 Meskill Discovery Dep., p. 20 (47 TTABVUE 11).
94 Meskill Discovery Dep., p. 20 (47 TTABVUE 11).

– 30 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

• Menards.com, an online retail department store.95 The menu listing the

categories of products carried by Menards.com includes building materials, doors and

windows, electrical, groceries, home & décor, etc. Menards.com also advertises third-

party bicycle accessories. As noted above, evidence that department stores sell the

products at issue has limited value in proving that the products are offered in the

same channels of trade. See Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 54 USPQ2d at 1899-100; Morgan

Creek Prods. Inc. v. Foria Int’l Inc., 91 USPQ2d at 1142.

• Mackspw.com advertises itself as “America’s Premier Waterfowl Outfitter,” and

its menu lists decoys, calls, hunting, hunting clothing, casual, footwear, and bargain

blind. There is no evidence that this website advertises bicycles or bicycle

accessories.96

• Opticscamp.com advertises itself as selling “Sports Optics & Outdoor Gear,” and

its menu lists binoculars, rifle scopes, night vision, spotting scopes, telescopes, scope

rings and mounts, as well as Applicant’s products. There is no evidence that this

website advertises bicycles or bicycle accessories.97

• Galls.com specializes in public safety equipment and apparel. It also advertises

third-party cycling gloves and bike lights.98

95 35 TTABVUE 9-15.
96 35 TTABVUE 17.
97 35 TTABVUE 19.
98 35 TTABVUE 23-25.

– 31 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

• Midwayusa.com.99 There is no evidence that this website advertises bicycles or

bicycle accessories.

• Leacockcolemancenter.com.100 There is no evidence that this website advertises

bicycles or bicycle accessories.

Applicant’s TREKCEL combination power charger and flashlight is advertised on

the websites listed below, none which advertise the sale of any of Opposer’s TREK

products:

• Duckhole.com.101

• Opticscamera.com.102

• Homedepot.com also advertises third-party bicycles and bicycle lights.103

• Huntersrefuge.com.104

Because there is no testimony or evidence that Applicant’s THERMOTREK or

TREKCEL products are offered in the same channels of trade as Opposer’s TREK

products, we analyze below Opposer’s channels of trade to determine whether there

is any similarity.

3. Opposer’s TREK marks.

99 35 TTABVUE 27.
100 35 TTABVUE.
101 34 TTABVUE 6.
102 34 TTABVUE 8.
103 34 TTABVUE 10-14.
104 34 TTABVUE 16.

– 32 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Opposer sells its products through independent bicycle dealers and general

sporting goods stores. Opposer’s TREK gloves and computers are sold at

cahabacycles.com, western-cycle.com, landiscyclery.com, villagecycle.com,

topgearbicycleshop.com, trekbicyclestores.com, trekbikestoreusa.com,

trekbicyclesuperstore.com, trekbikes.com, suncyclecenter.com, bloomfieldbike.com,

bontrager.com, bertsbikes.com, revolutioncycles.com, and casio-usa.com.105 Also

TREK computers are sold through trekdg.com, trekstorecincinnati.com, and

wheelworks.com.106 There is no evidence that these websites advertise Applicant’s

TREKGUIDE, TREKCEL, or THERMOTREK products.

Kristi Mountain Sports (kristiemountainsports.com) and Seacoast Sports

(seacoastsports.com) advertise the sale of TREK bicycles, as well as camping

equipment, clothing, electronics, eyewear, footwear, maps, and ski equipment.107

There is no evidence that either of these websites advertise Applicant’s TREKGUIDE,

TREKCEL, or THERMOTREK products.

Opposer, in its brief, asserts that both parties sell their products at Scheel’s

sporting goods store.108 Although we cannot find the supporting evidence in the

105 30-32 and 39 TTABVUE.
106 32 TTABVUE.
10743 TTABVUE. Opposer does not include any evidence that these retailers advertise the
sale of Applicant’s products.
108Opposer’s Brief, p. 28 (82 TTABVUE 34) (improperly designated as confidential). Opposer
cited to the record ROF, A.8 and B.3, but there is no definition to interpret those citations.

– 33 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

record, and neither party cited to it, Applicant acknowledged and addressed

Opposer’s assertion that both parties sold products at Scheel’s sporting goods store.109

Inasmuch as there is only one retailer who assertedly sells the products of both

parties, one third party that sells Applicant’s THERMOTREK product as well as

bicycle accessories, and two third parties that sell Opposer’s bicycles as well as

electronics, we find that the evidence is insufficient to prove that Applicant’s electric

hand warmers and portable chargers are offered in the same channels of trade as

Opposer’s bicycles and bicycle accessories. In other words, it is unlikely that the same

consumers will encounter Applicant’s products and Opposer’s products in the same

marketing milieu.

D. The nature and extent of any actual confusion.

While Opposer concedes that it has not proven that there are any reported

instances of actual confusion, it argues that this du Pont factor is neutral because it

is not required to prove actual confusion.110

The absence of any reported instances of confusion is meaningful if the record

indicates appreciable and continuous use by Applicant of its mark for a significant

period of time in the same markets as those served by Opposer under its marks. In

109Applicant’s Brief, p. 9 (83 TTABVUE 10). Applicant did not identify that portion of the
record referring to Scheel’s sporting goods store.
110Opposer’s Brief, p. 29 (81 TTABVUE 35). Michelle Meskill, Applicant’s Marketing
Manager, testified that she is unaware of any reported instances of confusion between
Applicant’s TREKGUIDE, TREKCEL, and THERMOTREK products and Opposer’s TREK
products. Meskill Testimony Dep., p. 23 (61 TTABVUE 24). See also Applicant’s response to
Opposer’s Interrogatory No. 14 (26 TTABVUE 18).

– 34 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

other words, for the absence of actual confusion to be probative, there must have been

a reasonable opportunity for confusion to have occurred. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital

City Bank Grp. Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1645, 1660 (TTAB 2010), aff’d, 637 F.3d 1344, 98

USPQ2d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Applicant first used TREKGUIDE in connection with digital compasses in

January 2011.111 Applicant first used its TREKCEL and THERMOTREK marks in

October 2013.112 Applicant has sold approximately 50,000 units of the TREKGUIDE,

TREKCEL, and THERMOTREK products.113 Opposer’s sales of electronic products

from 2009-2015 have been substantial.114 Moreover, we have previously found that

Opposer’s TREK mark is famous for bicycles and bicycle accessories, and Applicant’s

TRKEGUIDE products are offered through the same channels of trade.115 Therefore,

at the time of trial, there had been 4-6 years of simultaneous use of actively marketed

products under the marks in some of the same channels of trade, particularly with

respect to Applicant’s TREKGUIDE products, with no reported instances of

confusion. Based on this evidence, we find that there has been a reasonable

111Meskill Testimony Dep., p. 21 (61 TTABVUE 22); Applicant’s response to Opposer’s
Interrogatory No. 3 (24 TTABVUE 9).
112 Meskill Testimony Dep., p. 28 (61 TTABVUE 29).
113 Meskill Testimony Dep. p. 21 (61 TTBVUE 22).
114 Brown Testimony Dep., p. 7 and Exhibit 1 (54 TTABVUE 11 and 35) (Confidential).
115Opposer argues that its publicity is “far reaching” and that its “famous status has been
underscored by appearances in, or on the cover of, numerous high-profile, general circulation
publications as well as publications in the field of cycling.” Opposer’s Brief, p. 26 (81
TTABVUE 32). Opposer also asserts that “the market place bears out the overlap in the
parties’ channels of trade.” Opposer’s Brief, p. 28 (81 TTABVUE 34).

– 35 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

opportunity for confusion to have occurred with respect to Applicant’s TREKGUIDE

mark and that the lack of any reported instances of confusion weighs against finding

that there is a likelihood of confusion.

Because we find that Applicant’s TREKCEL and THERMOTREK products are

offered in different channels of trade and have been offered for sale for only 2-3 years

of simultaneous use with Opposer’s TREK products, we find that there has not been

a reasonable opportunity for actual confusion to have occurred and this factor is

neutral with respect to these marks.

E. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks.

We now turn to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the similarity

or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation

and commercial impression. du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567. “Similarity in any one of

these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Davia,

110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014). In comparing the marks, we are mindful that

“[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether

the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression’ such that

persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between

the parties.” Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101 USPQ2d at 1721

(quoting Leading Jewelers Guild Inc. v. LJOW Holdings LLC, 82 USPQ2d at 1905);

see also San Fernando Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elec. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683,

196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA 1977); Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735,

1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d mem., 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

– 36 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

Applicant’s marks TREKGUIDE, TREKCEL, and THERMOTREK are similar to

Opposer’s TREK marks because they share the term “Trek” and, to that extent, they

are similar in appearance and sound. In addition, the word “Guide” in the mark

TREKGUIDE for a “magnetic compass,”116 the term “Cel” in the mark TREKCEL for

“portable electrical power chargers,”117 and the term “Thermo” in the mark

THERMOTREK for “electric hand warmers”118 are descriptive thereby making the

word “Trek” the dominant portion of the marks that consumers are likely to

remember. It is well-settled that disclaimed, descriptive matter may have less

significance in likelihood of confusion determinations. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf

Corp., 55 USPQ2d at 1846 (“Regarding descriptive terms, this court has noted that

the ‘descriptive component of a mark may be given little weight in reaching a

conclusion on the likelihood of confusion.’”) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d

1056, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41

USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997). There is nothing improper in stating that,

for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a

116The word “Guide” is defined, inter alia, as “to assist (a person) to travel through, or reach
a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions to the person”
and “ a person who guides, especially one hired to guide travelers, tourists, hunters, etc.”
Dictionary.com based on the Random House Dictionary (2017).
117The word “Cell” is defined, inter alia, as “Electricity. a. Also called battery, electrical cell,
electrochemical cell, galvanic cell, voltaic cell. a device that generates electrical energy from
chemical energy, usually consisting of two different conducting substances placed in an
electrolyte.” Dictionary.com based on the Random House Dictionary (2018).
118The term “Thermo” is defined as “a combining form meaning ‘heat,” ‘hot,’ used in the
formation of compound words: thermoplastic.” Dictionary.com based on the Random House
Dictionary (2018).

– 37 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

mark, such as a common dominant element, provided the ultimate conclusion rests

on a consideration of the marks in their entireties. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 224 USPQ

at 751.

As noted above, the word “Trek” is defined as a long or difficult trip. When “Trek”

is used in connection with bicycles or bicycle accessories it means and engenders the

commercial impression of products for traveling.

The mark TREKGUIDE used in connection with a barometer, thermometer or

compass, means and engenders the commercial impression of assistance or an

assistant for traveling or pointing the way or path to take.

The mark TREKCEL used in connection with “transformers; portable electrical

power chargers for cell phones, smart phones, tablet computers, MP3 players and

wireless headsets” means and engenders the commercial impression of an energy

source for use on a journey.

The mark THERMOTREK used in connection with an electric hand warmer

means and engenders the commercial impression of a heat source for a journey.

While there are differences between Opposer’s TREK mark and Applicant’s

TREKGUIDE, TREKCEL, and THERMOTREK marks, in view of the fame of

Opposer’s mark and the fact that the commercial impression of all the marks center

on a traveling or a long, difficult journey, we find that the similarities of the marks

outweigh the differences. “[T]he tolerance for similarity between competing marks

varies inversely with the fame of the prior mark.” Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose

Art Indus. Inc., 22 USPQ2d at 1456; see also B.V.D. Licensing v. Body Action Design,

– 38 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

846 F.2d 727, 6 USPQ2d 1719, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Nies, J., dissenting) (“a

purchaser is less likely to perceive differences from a famous mark.”) (emphasis in

original). Accordingly the marks are similar in their entireties in terms of

appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.

F. Analyzing the factors.

“When an opposer’s trademark is a strong, famous mark, it can never be ‘of little

consequence.’ The fame of a trademark may affect the likelihood purchasers will be

confused inasmuch as less care may be taken in purchasing a product under a famous

name.” Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distrib., Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 223 USPQ

1281, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, an applicant has the obligation to avoid confusion

with the well-known marks of others. J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp.,

932 F.3d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889, 1892 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

In view of the fame of Opposer’s TREK mark, the similarity of TREKGUIDE and

TREK, the fact that Applicant’s “barometer; magnetic compasses; thermometers” are

related to Opposer’s cycling computers, and that those goods are offered in the same

channels of trade, we find that Applicant’s TREKGUIDE mark for “barometer;

magnetic compasses; thermometers” is likely to cause confusion with Opposer’s

registered TREK mark for “cycling computers.”

On the other hand, because Applicant’s THERMOTREK mark for “electric hand

warmers” and TREKCEL mark for “transformers; portable electrical power chargers

for cell phones, smart phones, tablet computers, MP3 players and wireless headsets”

are not related to the products in any of Opposer’s pleaded registrations and that

– 39 –
Opposition No. 91213696
Opposition No. 91213957
Opposition No. 91213962

those products are not offered in the same channels of trade, we find that Applicant’s

marks THERMOTREK and TREKCEL are not likely to cause confusion with

Opposer’s TREK marks in any of Opposer’s pleaded registrations.

Decision: Opposition No. 91213696 involving Application Serial No. 86042283 for

the mark TREKGUIDE is sustained and registration to Applicant is refused.

Opposition No. 91213957 involving Application Serial No. 86022350 for the mark

THERMOTREK is dismissed.

Opposition No. 91213962 involving Application Serial No. 86013814 for the mark

TREKCEL is dismissed.

– 40 –