The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) recently ruled that the marks GASPER ROOFING and JASPER CONTRACTORS do not create a likelihood of confusion, despite both being used for roofing services. The decision, issued in In re Jason Jimenez, underscores the nuanced interplay between pronunciation, connotation, and consumer perception in trademark law.
The TTAB rejected the examining attorney’s argument that the absence of a “correct” pronunciation for a trademark inherently leads to confusion. While this principle is generally accepted, the board emphasized it applies more strongly when one mark is a coined term - like GASPER - versus an existing word with established meaning.
The TTAB noted that disclaimed terms can influence a mark’s overall impression but stressed they rarely play a decisive role in determining confusion. The board reasoned that such terms, by definition, lack the specificity to mislead consumers about product or service sources.
The decision also highlighted the role of consumer behavior. The TT, noted that purchases of roofing services are typically made with “a relatively high degree of care,” suggesting buyers are more discerning in selecting providers. This factor, combined with the marks’ distinct phonetic and semantic profiles, tipped the scale against confusion.
For businesses, the case illustrates the importance of evidence in trademark disputes. While the absence of a “correct” pronunciation may seem like a loophole, the TTAB made it clear that speculation alone cannot override established linguistic distinctions. Disclaimed terms can bolster arguments for differences, but they should not be used as a substitute for substantive proof. Ultimately, the ruling reinforces that trademark law hinges on tangible, consumer-facing factors rather than abstract linguistic theory.
The case also raises questions about the strategic use of disclaimed terms. While they may help distinguish marks, the TTAB cautioned against relying on them to circumvent existing trademarks. Businesses must balance creativity with clarity, ensuring their marks are both distinctive and meaningful to avoid legal entanglements.
Amidst evolving branding strategies, the TTAB’s decision serves as a reminder that trademark law demands precision. Confusability is not a matter of chance but a calculus of sound, meaning, and market behavior. For companies navigating this terrain, the lesson is clear: clarity in branding is not just a legal necessity - it’s a competitive advantage.
IP Defender monitors national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements, offering businesses a proactive way to safeguard their intellectual property. By tracking 50+ countries, including the EU, the U.S., and Australia, the service ensures brands stay ahead of potential threats. IP Defender’s focus on continuous monitoring means no detail is overlooked, helping companies avoid costly legal battles and protect their market position.