Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1190776
`
`Filing date:
`
`02/14/2022
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte appeal
`no.
`
`88886981
`
`Appellant
`
`EWB Holdings LLC
`
`Applied for mark
`
`CAMBIO
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`TIMOTHY M HSIEH
`MH2 TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP LLP
`1951 KIDWELL DRIVE
`SUITE 310
`TYSONS CORNER, DC 20006
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: tim@mh2law.com
`Secondary email(s): doreen@mh2law.com, docketing@mh2law.com,
`eraynes@symbus.com
`703-917-0000
`
`Submission
`
`Attachments
`
`Appeal brief
`
`2022-02-14 - CAMBIO - Appeal Brief.pdf(215052 bytes )
`
`Appealed classes Class 014. First Use: None First Use In Commerce: None
`All goods and services in the class are appealed, namely: Jewelry
`
`Class 035. First Use: None First Use In Commerce: None
`All goods and services in the class are appealed, namely: Retail store services
`featuring jewelry
`
`Timothy M. Hsieh
`
`tim@mh2law.com, doreen@mh2law.com, docketing@mh2law.com,
`eraynes@symbus.com
`
`/Timothy M. Hsieh/
`
`02/14/2022
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re:
`
`Mark:
`
`Serial Number:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Examining Atty:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EWB Holdings LLC
`
`CAMBIO
`
`88886981
`
`April 24, 2020
`
`Verna Beth Ririe, Esq.
`
`APPLICANT’S APPEAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`Timothy M. Hsieh, Esq.
`MH2 Technology Law Group LLP
`1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 310
`Tysons Corner, VA 22182
`Telephone: 703-917-0000
`Email: tim@mh2law.com
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Evan A. Raynes, Esq.
`Symbus Law Group PLLC
`1775 I Street, NW, Suite 1150
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202-258-0652
`Email: eraynes@symbus.com
`
`Of Counsel
`
`
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Brown Shoe Co. v. Robbins, 90 USPQ2d 1752 (TTAB 2009) ......................................................6
`
`In re Hop Daddy LLC, Serial No. 88175921 (Aug. 24, 2020) [not precedential] ...................... 5, 8
`
`Miguel Torres S.A. v. Casa Vinicola Gerardo Cesari S.R.L.,
` 49 USPQ2d 2018 (TTAB 1998) ..............................................................................................7
`
`Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Bel Canto Fancy Foods, Ltd., 5 USPQ2d 1980 (TTAB 1987) ..................6
`
`Sutter Home Winery, Inc. v. Madrona Vineyards, L.P., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4581
`
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2005)........................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`EWB Holdings LLC (“EWB” or “Applicant”) appeals the Examining Attorney’s refusal
`
`to register the trademark CAMBIO for jewelry and related services. The Examining Attorney’s
`
`refusal is based on a registration for the trademark CAMBIARE covering jewelry. The
`
`Examining Attorney’s initial likelihood of confusion refusal appeared to be based on the doctrine
`
`of foreign equivalents, but now appears to be based on a likelihood of confusion without
`
`reference to the doctrine of foreign equivalents. The thrust of the Examining Attorney’s
`
`argument is that the parties’ marks start with the same letters and have the same meaning, and
`
`therefore, they are likely to be confused. However, the Examining Attorney’s refusal discounts
`
`important differences between the parties’ marks, namely, significant differences in spelling,
`
`meaning, and particularly pronunciation. Most significantly, the Examining Attorney overstates
`
`the similarities between the meanings of the parties’ marks, and she appears to ignore
`
`Applicant’s evidence regarding the pronunciation of the parties’ marks, which Applicant submits
`
`is determinative in this case. There are substantial differences between the appearances,
`
`meanings, and particularly pronunciations of the parties’ marks, and as a result, there is no
`
`likelihood of confusion between the marks.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`A.
`
`EWB’s Application
`
`On April 24, 2020, EWB filed an application to register the mark CAMBIO for “Jewelry”
`
`in Class 14 and “Retail store services featuring jewelry” in Class 35 under Section 1(b).
`
`B.
`
`The First Office Action
`
`On July 21, 2020, the Examining Attorney issued an Office Action refusing registration
`
`of Applicant’s mark based on Registration No. 5829466 for the trademark CAMBIARE covering
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`“Jewelry” in Class 14. The registration is owned by PAJ, Inc. (“PAJ” or “Registrant”).
`
`
`
`According to the Examining Attorney:
`
`Applicant’s proposed mark is the wording “CAMBIO” which translates to “CHANGE.”
`The registrant’s mark is the wording “CAMBIARE” which translates to “TO CHANGE.”
`The proposed mark is highly similar to the registrant’s mark as it is the conjugation of the
`registrant’s mark with both meaning “CHANGE.”
`
`The Examining Attorney also stated that the parties’ goods and services are identical or
`
`closely related. The parties’ goods and services are used for very different types of jewelry in
`
`the marketplace, but Applicant does not dispute the Examining Attorney’s position on this issue
`
`for purposes of this appeal.
`
`The Examining Attorney also cited Application Serial No. 88728017 for the trademark
`
`CAMBIAR covering “Timepieces; Watch straps; Watches” as a potential bar to the registration
`
`of Applicant’s mark.
`
`C.
`
`EWB’s Response to the First Office Action
`
`On September 22, 2020, EWB filed a response to the first Office Action. EWB stated
`
`that, while the doctrine of foreign equivalents may be relevant when one mark is in English and
`
`another mark is in a foreign language, this is not always the case. Applicant noted that, under
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) precedent, the doctrine of foreign equivalents does
`
`not apply when both marks are in foreign languages. Applicant argued that, in view of the
`
`above, the doctrine of foreign equivalents should not apply in this case because CAMBIO is
`
`Spanish for “change” and CAMBIARE mark is Italian for “to change.” As Applicant noted,
`
`there is no reason to assume that a substantial number of U.S. consumers would know both
`
`Spanish and Italian and automatically translate the parties’ marks into their English equivalents.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Applicant also noted that it appeared that the CAMBIAR application had been
`
`abandoned, and that, as such, the application should no longer be cited as a potential bar to the
`
`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`
`
`registration of Applicant’s mark.
`
`D.
`
`The Suspension Notice
`
`On October 13, 2020, the Examining Attorney issued a Suspension Notice, continuing
`
`the refusal of registration on the basis of the CAMBIARE registration, but suspending further
`
`action until the resolution of the CAMBIAR application.
`
`E.
`
`EWB’s Response to the Notice of Suspension
`
`EWB responded to the Notice of Suspension on December 10, 2020, stating that the
`
`CAMBIAR application had officially been abandoned and reiterating its arguments regarding the
`
`doctrine of foreign equivalents.
`
`F.
`
`The Second Office Action
`
`On April 14, 2021, the Examining Attorney issued a Final Office Action, withdrawing
`
`the potential refusal of registration based on the CABIAR application, but reiterating the refusal
`
`based on the CAMBIARE registration. According to the Examining Attorney:
`
`[I]n this case the translation is only a portion of the evidence of likelihood of confusion.
`In this case, the marks themselves are highly similar in that both begin with the wording
`“CAMBI.” The attached excerpts from https://www.latin-is-simple.comandwww.latin-
`dictionary.net provide further evidence that both marks are a form of the same Latin root.
`The attached excerpts from www.spanishdict.com further shows that both applicant’s and
`registrant’s marks, the wording CAMBIO and CAMBIARE are conjugations of the
`Spanish language word CAMBIAR.
`
`In addition, the Examining Attorney stated that, “In this case, the marks create a common
`
`
`
`commercial impression as they look nearly the same, sound highly similar and have the same
`
`meaning.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`G.
`
`EWB’s Request for Reconsideration
`
`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`
`
`In response to the final Office Action, Applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration
`
`on September 29, 2021. EWB reiterated its arguments regarding the doctrine of foreign
`
`equivalents, submitted additional arguments regarding the differences between the appearances
`
`and meanings of the parties’ marks, and submitted additional arguments and evidence regarding
`
`the pronunciation of the parties’ marks. Applicant submitted a webpage located at
`
`https://www.spanishdict.com/pronunciation/cambio, showing that the CAMBIO mark is
`
`pronounced cam-bio, and a webpage located at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cambiare, showing
`
`that the CAMBIARE mark is pronounced cam-biar-ay. As Applicant noted, “These materials
`
`show that the differences in the pronunciations of the parties' marks is stark, and in view of these
`
`differences alone, it is highly unlikely that anyone would confuse the marks, with or without
`
`reference to the doctrine of foreign equivalents.”
`
`H.
`
`EWB’s Notice of Appeal
`
`In addition to filing a Request for Reconsideration on September 29, 2021, Applicant
`
`filed a Notice of Appeal on October 14, 2021.
`
`I.
`
`The Request for Reconsideration Denied
`
`On December 14, 2021, the Examining Attorney issued a Request for Reconsideration
`
`Denied, stating that Applicant did not provide any new or compelling evidence. Thus, the
`
`Examining Attorney did not object to Applicant’s pronunciation evidence, but does not appear to
`
`have listened to the pronunciations. The Examining Attorney also reiterated the argument that
`
`“confusion is likely as both marks begin with the wording “CAMB” and have a common
`
`commercial meaning and the marks are or will be used with identical goods.” The Examining
`
`Attorney also introduced new “evidence of the similarity of the marks,” namely, “excerpts from
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`www.wordsense.eu and www.merriam-webster.com showing that the registrant’s mark is the
`
`
`
`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`Latin root of the applicant’s proposed mark.”
`
`J.
`
`The Appeal
`
`Following the issuance of the Request for Reconsider Denied on December 14, 2021, the
`
`Board issued a scheduling order making EWB’s Appeal Brief due on February 12, 2022
`
`(effectively, February 14, 2022).
`
`III. EVIDENTIARY RECORD
`
`A.
`
`The Examining Attorney’s Evidence
`
`The vast majority of the Examining Attorney’s evidence relates to the similarities
`
`between the parties’ goods and services. As indicated above, the parties’ goods and services are
`
`used for very different types of jewelry in the marketplace, but Applicant does not dispute the
`
`Examining Attorney’s position on this issue for purposes of this appeal.
`
`The most significant evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney are the above-
`
`described materials regarding the meanings of the parties’ marks.
`
`B.
`
`EWB’s Evidence
`
`The most salient evidence submitted by Applicant are the pronunciations described
`
`above. As stated above, Applicant believes this evidence is dispositive on the issue of whether a
`
`likelihood of confusion exists in this case.
`
`EWB’s evidence also includes the non-precedential case In re Hop Daddy LLC, Serial
`
`No. 88175921 (Aug. 24, 2020).
`
`C.
`
`Issues Presented
`
`The only issues presented by this appeal are whether the doctrine of foreign equivalent
`
`applies and whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s CAMBIO trademark
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`and Registrant’s CAMBIARE trademark in view the differences between the marks in terms of
`
`
`
`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`their appearances, meanings, and particularly pronunciations.
`
`IV. Argument
`
`A.
`
` The Doctrine of Foreign Equivalent Does Not Apply
`
`The Examining Attorney contends that there is a likelihood of confusion between
`
`Applicant’s CAMBIO trademark and Registrant’s CAMBIARE trademark. However, CAMBIO
`
`is Spanish for “change” (as Applicant has acknowledged) and CAMBIARE is Italian for “to
`
`change” (as indicated in the file history of the CAMBIARE registration and as the Examining
`
`Attorney has not disputed), and two foreign words should not normally be compared to
`
`determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists.
`
`According to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”):
`
`
`
`[T]he Board has stated that, in general, it does not apply the doctrine [of foreign
`equivalents] where both marks are non-English words from two different foreign
`languages. Brown Shoe Co., 90 USPQ2d at 1756 [Brown Shoe Co. v. Robbins, 90
`USPQ2d 1752, 1756 (TTAB 2009)]; see also Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Bel Canto Fancy
`Foods, Ltd., 5 USPQ2d 1980, 1982 (TTAB 1987) (“[T]his Board does not think it proper
`to take the French expression ‘bel air’ and the Italian expression ‘bel aria’ and then
`convert both into English and compare the English translations to determine whether
`there is similarity as to connotation . . . .”). One reason for not applying the doctrine
`where the marks are in different foreign languages is that it is less likely that the ordinary
`American purchaser would be fluent in two or more foreign languages.
`
`
`TEMP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A).
`
`
`Therefore, with Applicant's mark being a Spanish word and Registrant's mark being an
`
`Italian word, the doctrine of foreign equivalents should not apply. The doctrine of foreign
`
`equivalents should not apply such situations because, as the TMEP states, it is highly unlikely
`
`that an ordinary American purchaser would be fluent in two different foreign languages and
`
`would immediately translate the parties’ marks into English and find them confusing based on
`
`such translations.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`
`
`The TMEP indicates that the Board has applied the doctrine of foreign equivalents when
`
`the parties’ marks are in two different foreign language, citing Miguel Torres S.A. v. Casa
`
`Vinicola Gerardo Cesari S.R.L., 49 USPQ2d 2018 (TTAB 1998). However, the TTAB’s
`
`analysis of this case indicates that the Board only does so when additional factors are present
`
`indicating a connection between the parties’ marks. In discussing this principle, the TMEP
`
`notes:
`
`
`Id.
`
`In Miguel Torres, the Board noted that the relevant marks were of such a nature that it
`was unnecessary for those encountering the relevant marks to be fluent in both Spanish
`and Italian to understand the connotations of the marks, because, for instance, a purchaser
`who is fluent in Spanish and familiar with the meaning of the mark TORRES may be able
`to discern the meaning of a mark containing the Italian wording DUE TORRI and a
`design of two towers. 49 USPQ2d at 2021. [Emphasis added.]
`
`Thus, a likelihood of confusion can exist where two marks are in foreign languages, but
`
`only in rare situations. When both marks are in foreign languages, it is necessary to show a great
`
`deal more than the dictionary definitions of the marks to establish that a likelihood of confusion
`
`exists. To show that a likelihood of confusion exists, there must additional factors aside from the
`
`definitions of the parties' marks that clearly indicate their meanings. In Miguel Torres, the
`
`additional factor was the presence of a drawing of two towers, clearly telling consumers that the
`
`DUE TORRI mark means "two towers." However, in this case, no additional factors exist. The
`
`parties’ marks are CAMBIO and CAMBIARE, without any additional words or designs
`
`suggesting a connection between the marks. Thus, the parties' marks must be evaluated solely on
`
`the basis on the words CAMBIO and CAMBIARE, and Applicant respectfully submits that those
`
`words are readily distinguishable for the reasons set forth below.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`
`
`Further, even if the Board determines that the doctrine of foreign equivalents is relevant
`
`in this case, the Board has expressed skepticism about applying the doctrine when the parties’
`
`marks are not literal translations of each other. See, e.g., In re Hop Daddy LLC, Serial No.
`
`88175921 (Aug. 24, 2020) [not precedential], where the Board declined to apply the doctrine of
`
`foreign equivalents because the terms SALTY BULL and TORO SALAO were not literal
`
`translations of each. As the Board noted, the meaning of SALAO depends on the context in
`
`which the word is used, and therefore, it cannot be a literal translation of SALTY BULL. See
`
`also Sutter Home Winery, Inc. v. Madrona Vineyards, L.P., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4581 at *23-
`
`24 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2005), where the court noted that, despite some similarities, MENAGE A
`
`TROIS and MELANGE DE TROIS have very different meanings and therefore were unlikely to
`
`be found confusing. A similar situation exists in this case because the parties' marks are not
`
`literal translations of each other, and as a result, they are capable of different meanings. In this
`
`case, the infinitive CAMBIARE—i.e., to change—could suggest an encouragement to change, or
`
`perhaps the process of changing, whereas the word CAMBIO can only mean one thing—i.e.,
`
`change. Thus, the parties' marks are clearly capable of being understood differently, and this
`
`makes it unlikely that Spanish and Italian speaking people would be confused, even if they
`
`encountered the marks at the same time.
`
`B.
`
`The Differences between the Parties’ Trademarks
`
`The CAMBIO and CAMBIARE marks are very different in appearance, meaning,
`
`pronunciation, and therefore overall commercial impression.
`
`1.
`
`The Parties Marks Are Different in Appearance
`
`The Examining Attorney states that CAMBIO and CAMBIARE “look nearly the same”
`
`because they both start with the letters "CAMB." However, the analysis should not end there.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`
`
`The parties' marks start with the same four letters, but that is the only aspect of the marks that is
`
`identical. The remaining letters in the parties' marks are different, and this renders the marks
`
`distinguishable in terms of their appearances. Applicant's CAMBIO mark ends with the visually
`
`distinctive letters "IO," whereas Registrant's CAMBIARE mark ends with the visually distinctive
`
`letters "IARE." Thus, contrary to the Examining Attorney’s contentions, the parties’ marks are
`
`not “nearly the same” in appearance, and as a result, this likelihood-of-confusion factor favors
`
`Applicant.
`
`2.
`
`The Parties Marks Are Different in Meaning
`
`The Examining Attorney states that the parties’ marks “have the same meaning,” and she
`
`appears to treat this factor as dispositive. However, there are significant differences between the
`
`meanings of the parties’ marks, and Applicant contends that these differences are sufficient to
`
`show that consumers will not automatically believe the parties’ products emanate from the same
`
`source. Applicant’s mark means “change,” whereas Registrant’s mark means “to change”—a
`
`fact that the Examining Attorney does not dispute despite contending the parties’ marks have the
`
`same meaning—and the difference is highly significant. If the parties’ marks appeared in
`
`English as opposed to Spanish and Italian, consumers would recognize that the CHANGE
`
`trademark and the TO CHANGE trademark both contain the word “CHANGE,” but they would
`
`immediately recognize that, aside from having significantly different spellings, the mark have
`
`significantly different meanings, and as a result, they would likely view the parties’ products as
`
`emanating from different sources.
`
`In saying that the parties’ marks “have the same meaning,” the Examining Attorney is
`
`treating “change” and “to change” as literal equivalents. But they are not. There are clear
`
`differences between the connotations of the words “change” and “to change.” “Change” can be
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`used as noun or a verb, whereas “to change” is always used as a verb. Further, as stated above,
`
`
`
`the infinitive CAMBIARE—i.e., to change—could suggest an encouragement to change, or
`
`perhaps the process of changing, whereas the word CAMBIO can only mean one thing—i.e.,
`
`change. And even if the Examining Attorney contends that these terms are essentially the same,
`
`rather than exact equivalents, the fact that they both concern the general concept of change is
`
`insufficient to equate them for likelihood of confusion purposes. The terms “change” and “to
`
`change” have different connotations, and such connotations are sufficient to distinguish the
`
`meanings of the CAMBIO and CAMBIARE marks for likelihood of confusion purposes.
`
`Moreover, several of the website printouts submitted by the Examining Attorney, such as
`
`the first printout attached to the second Office Action, indicate that the Italian word “cambiare”
`
`means “to change (of money).” Thus, Registrant’s mark appears to mean “providing someone
`
`with change in a monetary transaction.” In other words, the Examining Attorney’s own
`
`evidence indicates that Applicant’s CAMBIO mark means “change,” whereas Registrant’s
`
`CAMBIARE mark refers to the act of “providing change in a monetary transaction.” The
`
`Examining Attorney contends that the parties’ marks “have the same meaning,” but her own
`
`evidence shows that they have very different meanings and establishes that consumers are highly
`
`unlikely to confuse the parties’ marks.
`
`Thus, the parties’ marks do not “have the same meaning,” and this likelihood of
`
`confusion factor weighs in Applicant’s favor, whether or not the CAMBIARE mark is
`
`interpreted as “to change” or “to change money.”
`
`3.
`
`The Latin Derivations of the Parties’ Marks Are Not Relevant
`
`Applicant notes that, in the Request for Reconsideration Denied, the Examining Attorney
`
`argues that the parties’ marks “have a common commercial meaning” because “the registrant’s
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`[CAMBIARE] mark is the Latin root of the applicant’s proposed [CAMBIO] mark.” This
`
`
`
`argument is perplexing because, even if true, it presumes that consumers know the Latin roots of
`
`the parties’ marks, which is highly unlikely, except perhaps in the case of a very small minority
`
`of the population who have taken Latin classes. Latin is a dead language that is only taught and
`
`not spoken or written in the modern world, and it seems highly unlikely that a significant number
`
`of people would conjugate the parties’ marks and conclude that they are equivalents.1 A handful
`
`of people may do so, but the vast majority of consumers will not go through such mental
`
`gymnastics. The vast majority of consumers are more likely to simply view the marks in their
`
`entireties and compare their overall commercial impressions rather than conjugate the marks
`
`when making purchasing decisions. Second, it may be theoretically possible that a small number
`
`of people who speak Latin-derived romance languages may consider the Latin conjugations of
`
`the parties’ marks. However, this is highly unlikely in the case of the vast majority of English-
`
`language speakers for the simple reason that English is not a romance language. Thus, the
`
`alleged Latin roots of the parties’ marks are not relevant or are only minimally relevant in this
`
`case.
`
`4.
`
`The Parties’ Marks Have Very Different Pronunciations
`
`Finally, the Examining Attorney, without providing any evidence, contends that the
`
`parties’ marks “sound highly similar.” This is simply not the case. There can be no question,
`
`when listening to the audio clips identified in Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration, located at
`
`
`1TMEP §1209.10 states that “Latin is generally considered a dead language. However, if
`evidence exists that the relevant purchasing public still uses a Latin term (e.g., if the term
`appears in current dictionaries or news articles), then that Latin term is not considered dead.”
`Applicant acknowledges this principle, but notes that there is nothing in the record to indicate
`that either party’s mark, or any portion of either party’s mark, is still used by the relevant
`purchasing public.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`
`https://www.spanishdict.com/pronunciation/cambio and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cambiare,
`
`that the CAMBIO and CAMBIARE marks are pronounced very differently. These audio clips
`
`demonstrate that Applicant's mark is pronounced cam-bio, with a distinctive “e-o” sound at the
`
`end of the mark, whereas Registrant's mark is pronounced cam-biar-ay, with a distinctive hard
`
`“ay” at the end of the mark. Thus, regardless of any alleged similarities between the parties’
`
`marks in appearance and meaning, the pronunciations cam-bio and cam-biar-ay will stand out
`
`in the minds of the consuming public because they are so distinct. Listening to the audio clips
`
`provided by Applicant, rather than merely assuming that the pronunciations of the parties’ marks
`
`is similar because they start with the same four letters, unequivocally establishes that the parties’
`
`marks are pronounced very different, and as such, will be perceived very differently by the
`
`relevant consuming public. The differences between the pronunciations of the parties’ marks are
`
`stark, and Applicant contends that these differences alone make it highly unlikely that anyone
`
`would confuse the marks, with or without reference to the doctrine of foreign equivalents.
`
`Applicant submits that all of the likelihood of confusion factors discussed in this appeal favor
`
`Applicant, but this one very strongly favor Applicant.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`As stated above, Applicant contends that the differences between the pronunciations of
`
`the parties’ marks is determinative in this case. However, the differences between the
`
`pronunciations of the parties’ marks are not the only differences between the marks. The parties’
`
`marks are readily distinguishable in terms of all three of the above duPont factors—i.e.,
`
`appearance, meaning, and particularly pronunciation. Thus, given the combination of the
`
`differences between the parties’ marks in appearance, meaning, and particularly pronunciation,
`
`consumers will have no trouble differentiating the marks and concluding that the parties’ goods
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`In re EWB Holdings LLC
`Application Serial No. 88886981
`
`and services emanate from different sources. Consumers are unlikely to be confused simply
`
`because the parties’ marks begin with the letters "CAMB" or have Latin derivations or
`
`conjugations. These factors are easily outweighed by the numerous differences between the
`
`spelling, meanings, and particularly pronunciations of the parties’ marks. CAMBIO (cam-bio)
`
`and CAMBIARE (cam-biar-ay) are simply too different in appearance, meaning, and
`
`particularly pronunciation for consumers to confuse them.
`
`To summarize, for the reasons stated above, the doctrine of foreign equivalents is not
`
`relevant in this case, and all three of the above duPont factors favor Applicant or strongly favor
`
`Applicant—namely, the differences between the CAMBIO and CAMBIARE trademarks in
`
`appearance, meaning, and particularly pronunciation. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits
`
`that there is no likelihood confusion between the CAMBIO and CAMBIARE trademarks and
`
`requests approval of its CAMBIO mark for publication.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`EWB Holdings LLC
`
`Date: February 14, 2022
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Timothy M. Hsieh/
`Timothy M. Hsieh, Esq.
`MH2 Technology Law Group LLP
`1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 310
`Tysons Corner, VA 22182
`Telephone: 703-917-0000
`Email: tim@mh2law.com
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`