Serial No. 777539132connection with rum, so resembles the registered markMOCAMBO, in typed drawing form, for “cigars,” in Class 34,as to be likely to cause confusion.
Our determination of likelihood of confusion underSection 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of theprobative facts in evidence that are relevant to thefactors bearing on the likelihood of confusion.
In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357,177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973).
See also, In re MajesticDistilling Company, Inc.,
315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201,1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusionanalysis, two key considerations are the similaritiesbetween the marks and the similarities between the goods.
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,
544 F.2d1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976). A. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in theirentireties as to appearance, sound, connotation andcommercial impression and the strength of theregistered mark.The marks are identical. In addition, we note thatapplicant stated in its application that “[t]he wordingMOCAMBO has no meaning in a foreign language,” and that it“has no significance in the relevant trade or industry … orany geographical significance.” There is nothing in the
Registration No. 1434163, issued March 24, 1987; renewed.