1207.01(b)(i)    Word Marks

The points of comparison for a word mark are appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression. See In re Charger Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1380, 2023 USPQ2d 451, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)). Similarity of the marks in one respect – sight, sound, or meaning – will not automatically result in a determination that confusion is likely even if the goods are identical or closely related; rather, taking into account all of the relevant facts of a particular case, similarity as to one factor alone may be sufficient to support a holding that the marks are confusingly similar. See In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988). However, similarity of marks in all respects weighs heavily in favor of likelihood of confusion. See Naterra Int’l, Inc. v. Bensalem, 92 F.4th 1113, 1119, 2024 USPQ2d 293, at *4-5 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citing In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303-04, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1048-49 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).