Often, when the goods or services between a pending trademark application and a registered trademark are literally or legally identical, the TTAB will affirm a Section 2(d) refusal because it lessens the degree of similarity between the marks necessary to support a determination that confusion is likely. Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC v. Fed. Corp., 673 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Jimenez, No. 97551823, 2025 WL 3126703, at *4 (TTAB 2025). But sometimes “the respective marks overall are different enough that even when used on identical . . . services in overlapping trade channels, consumers likely would not be confused into believing that they emanate from the same source.” Heil Co. v. Tripleye GmbH, No. 91277359, 2024 WL 4925901, at *38 (TTAB 2024).

In considering a Section 2(d) refusal of MICHAEL THE BULL (and other similar marks) for legal services in view of a “bull pen” of registered marks including CALL IN THE BULL and THE BULL ATTORNEYS! for legal services, the TTAB concluded that the differences in the marks outweighed the identity of the services. In re Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC, Ser. Nos. 98316445, 98317034, and 98317055 (TTAB Feb. 11, 2026). 

     We agree with Applicant that the name MICHAEL is the dominant portion of its mark because it appears first and because the words THE BULL that follow it would be viewed as “MICHAEL'S” nickname even though they are not contained within quotation marks. We will give greater weight to the name MICHAEL than to the words THE BULL in our comparison of the marks in their entireties.
          * * *
Applicant's mark identifies a specific individual service provider named MICHAEL whose nickname is “THE BULL,” while the cited marks allude to an unspecified attorney or group of attorneys who are described respectively as a bull or as bulls . . . .
          * * *
    The word marks CALL IN THE BULL, WE'RE THE BULL ATTORNEYS HIRE THE BIG GUNS, and THE BULL ATTORNEYS! are more dissimilar than similar in appearance and sound to MICHAEL THE BULL because the only visual and oral similarity is the presence of the word BULL in the involved marks. With respect to meaning, two of these marks refer to plural BULL ATTORNEYS, . . . and none of them identifies “MICHAEL” as the service provider. We find that these marks are more dissimilar than similar in meaning.
         * * *
     We find that Applicant's mark MICHAEL THE BULL and the cited marks are dissimilar in all means of comparison. The first DuPont factor strongly supports a conclusion that confusion is unlikely with respect to the MICHAEL THE BULL mark . . . . 

The respective marks were “different in their entireties” notwithstanding the commonality in the presence of the word BULL. Because a single DuPont factor may be dispositive of the issue of likelihood of confusion, Kellogg Co. v. Pack'em Enters., Inc., 951 F.2d 330, 333 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (finding no legal error in the Board's ruling “that the dissimilarity of ‘the marks in their entireties' itself made it unlikely that confusion would result from the simultaneous use of the marks”), the TTAB reversed the Section 2(d) refusals.