Trademark Office — Gasp! — Finds No Likelihood of Confusion Between “Gasper Roofing” and “Jasper Contractors”

In a recent precedential opinion, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office overruled an examining attorney and found no likelihood of confusion between GASPER ROOFING and JASPER CONTRACTORS, both used for roofing services (In re Jason Jimenez, Ser. No. 97551823, Nov. 5, 2025).

The examining attorney argued that there is no “correct” way to pronounce a trademark and that GASPER can be pronounced with either a hard or soft letter “g” sound. The TTAB, however, found that the principle that there is no “correct” way to pronounce a trademark applies “with greater force” when the trademark is a coined term rather than an existing term with a generally known or understood meaning. Here, GASPER is a recognized surname with a “hard g” sound, whereas JASPER is an English word referring to a type of quartz, a town in Alabama, or a male given name with a “soft j” sound. Thus, the TTAB concluded the marks “sound different when verbalized.” The TTAB also noted the examining attorney’s argument that the pronunciations are similar was mere speculation and there was no evidence in the record to support it.

In both parties’ trademark filings, the generic terms ROOFING and CONTRACTORS, respectively, were disclaimed, leaving GASPER and JASPER as the dominant elements. The TTAB held that even though disclaimed, these terms “contribute to [the marks’] sound and appearance” and help create “differences in connotation and commercial impression.”  While disclaimed terms are not to be ignored, it is rare that they are important in considering the likelihood of confusion between two marks, as such terms arguably have little impact on consumers’ ability to distinguish between sources.

The TTAB concluded that, even if JASPER is perceived as a surname like GASPER, the marks “in their entireties are different in appearance, pronunciation, connotation, and overall commercial impression.” These differences, coupled with the TTAB’s finding that the purchase of roofing services is made with a “relatively high degree of care,” were enough to avoid a likelihood of confusion.

Takeaways

When arguing that marks may have a similar pronunciation because there is no correct pronunciation of a mark, it is important to remember that this principle applies with greater force when one of the marks involved is a coined term without a specific meaning; otherwise, applicants must submit evidence in the record to support their positions and not rely on mere speculation. In addition, the TTAB reinforced the principle that the presence of disclaimed terms in the marks can be used to support a finding of overall differences and weighs against a finding of likelihood of confusion. However, the TTAB’s decision should not be read as encouraging the inclusion in a new trademark of a merely descriptive or generic term as a means of avoiding a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark. The difference in pronunciation between GASPER and JASPER and the sophistication of the purchasers were likely the drivers of the TTAB’s decision, and reasonable minds can certainly disagree over whether those factors were enough.