In a likelihood of confusion analysis under a Section 2(d) refusal, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the services. See In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int'l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also In re Chatam Int'l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”). 

The services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that the services emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)). 

Recently, the TTAB affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal of the LAUGHING BUDDHA RAMEN mark (with RAMEN disclaimed) for "Restaurant services" in view of the registered LAUGHING BUDDHA COMEDY mark (with COMEDY disclaimed) for “Education services, namely, providing live and on-line workshops in the field of comedy; Presentation of live comedy shows." In re AM Hospitality, LLC, Serial No. 97604912 (TTAB Feb. 4, 2025). 

First, the TTAB found that both marks share the same dominant portion, namely, LAUGHING BUDDHA, making them similar in sound and appearance. The record also contained evidence showing that “laughing buddha” as a commonly recognized phrase signifying the “ultimate symbol of happiness, taking away any problem, symbolizing good fortune, wealth in private and career, life fulfillment.”

Second, the TTAB noted that the record contained website evidence showing that it is not uncommon for comedy clubs to also provide restaurant services under the same mark. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (evidence that “a single company sells the goods and services of both parties, if presented, is relevant to a relatedness analysis”). That same website evidence also demonstrated that such services are complementary in nature insofar as they are advertised together and typically provided together. See In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[c]omplementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion.”); In re Cook Med. Techs. LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1377, 1380 (TTAB 2012) (catheters and guiding sheaths used therewith closely related; “[i]f goods [or services] are complementary in nature, or used together, this relatedness can support a finding of likelihood of confusion.”). 

The record also included use-based, third-party registrations showing that the same entity has registered a single mark identifying “restaurant services” and “Presentation of live comedy shows” or “comedy club services.”

Third-party registrations that cover services from both the cited registration and an applicant's application are relevant to show that the services are of a type that may emanate from a single source under one mark. See, e.g., Detroit Athletic, 128 USPQ2d at 1051; Hewlett-Packard, 62 USPQ2d at 1004. 

Finding "comedy-show services and restaurant services are related and complementary in nature," the TTAB concluded that this weighed in favor of finding of a likelihood of confusion.