Background
In August two thousand twenty-two, Marini y Compania, S.A. applied to register four variations of the MON AMI mark for use with edible pet treats in International Class thirty-one. The Examining Attorney refused registration, citing a likelihood of confusion with a previously registered mark, AMI, which covers foodstuffs for animals in the same class. Marini appealed the refusals to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed the Examining Attorney’s decision after finding that the marks were likely to cause confusion under the DuPont factors.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. The Board determined that the marks were similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Marini argued that the Board ignored the accent mark on AMI and the meaning of the word MON. The court found that the Board properly relied on precedent stating that consumers may pronounce marks differently than intended and that the word MON reinforced the meaning of AMI rather than distinguishing the marks. The court concluded that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that minor variations such as accent marks or adding common words like MON may not be sufficient to distinguish marks that share the same core meaning and are used on identical goods.