In evaluating likelihood of confusion, the marks as a whole are considered, while recognizing that more or less weight may be given to a particular feature provided the ultimate conclusion rests on the marks in their entireties. In re Nat'l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

“The incorporation of an entire mark within another has often been found to increase the similarity between the compared marks where … the dominant portion of the marks is the same.” Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1381-82 (SPARK LIVING and SPARK). 

On the other hand, the addition of matter sometimes is sufficient to distinguish marks that share a common term. In re Hearst Corp., 982 F.2d 493 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (VARGA GIRL versus VARGAS, where GIRL was held to contribute significantly to the commercial impression of VARGA GIRL such that stressing the portion "varga" and diminishing the portion "girl" inappropriately changed the mark). 

Where the goods or services are legally identical in part, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks is necessary to support a finding of likely confusion. Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

For legally identical services, in which “mental health therapy services” and “clinical mental health counseling services” were encompassed by a registrant's broadly-worded “mental health services”; the TTAB found that the applied-for CHARLIE BLUE mark incorporated the cited CHARLIE mark in its entirety and adds BLUE, which does not create a distinct source-identifying commercial impression sufficient to avoid confusion for legally identical mental health services offered in overlapping channels. In re Charlie Blue Therapy, LLC, Ser. No. 99180551 (TTAB Sept. 26, 2026). 

The TTAB gave more weight to CHARLIE because it is a commonly recognized given name that is shared between the marks, and "when [BLUE] follows the given name CHARLIE, consumers are more likely to perceive BLUE as a surname, and CHARLIE BLUE as a whole as the full name of a person."  

Because "[a] given name followed by a surname is an ordinary personal-name structure," the likely commercial impression of CHARLIE BLUE was a full personal name built on the cited given name CHARLIE. 

Consumers familiar with CHARLIE for mental health services who later encounter CHARLIE BLUE for the same services are likely to regard the latter as a more complete identification of the same source—the given name plus a surname—rather than as an unrelated mark. 

The TTAB found that the addition of BLUE to CHARLIE did not uniquely identify a different source even though the word "blue" also may denote melancholy or the color blue (trust, calm, loyalty). "Applicant has not shown that CHARLIE BLUE is a coined unitary expression with a meaning independent of its parts of the kind found in Hearst." And the TTAB held that giving more weight to CHARLIE as a given name, rather than to BLUE as a surname, was not improper dissection.