Goods & Services: The “Something More” Requirement

In July 2024, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision in In re Samsung Display Co., Ltd., affirming a Section 2(d) refusal to register the trademark UPC for various electronic display panels and screens used as components of larger consumer products such as smartphones, monitors, televisions, and digital cameras. The Board found a likelihood of confusion with the identical mark UPC, previously registered for cable connectors, charging cables, and power connectors.

Understanding the TTAB’s 2024 Precedential Decision in In re Samsung Display Co.: Related Goods, Identical Marks, and the Limits of the “Something More” Doctrine

For entrepreneurs and business owners navigating the trademark process, this decision underscores why the relatedness of goods—and not just the similarity of the marks—is a critical consideration when choosing and clearing a brand.

Identical Marks: A Heavily Weighted Factor

Samsung’s application and the cited registration involved the identical mark UPC, presented in standard characters. Because the trademarks are identical, the first DuPont factor weighed heavily in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion. This is a consistent principle in trademark law: when the marks are the same, the threshold for establishing relatedness between goods becomes much lower.

The Board reiterated that even where the goods differ in form, purpose, or composition, if they are associated with the same or similar trademark, consumers may mistakenly believe they originate from the same source. This is especially true when the trademarks are neither descriptive nor suggestive.

Relatedness of Goods: Components in the Same Consumer Products

Samsung argued that its display panels were sophisticated component parts sold exclusively to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), while the registrant’s goods—charging cables and connectors—were finished products aimed at end users. Samsung also asserted that, because the goods serve different functions and are not inherently competitive, they were unrelated.

The TTAB disagreed. Citing the second DuPont factor, the Board emphasized that goods do not have to be identical or competitive to be related. Instead, the relevant test is whether the public might believe the goods come from the same source.

The examining attorney provided extensive evidence that display panels and power cables are both integrated into the same finished electronic products—like televisions, monitors, and computers—and are often highlighted side by side in marketing materials. Display screens were shown to be prominently featured as selling points for many devices that also include power cables or connectors. Based on this evidence, the Board found the goods to be related because they are commonly used together, sold together, and marketed as part of the same end-user experience.

Rejecting Samsung’s Argument for the “Something More” Doctrine

A central issue in this case was Samsung’s invocation of the so-called “something more” rule. Drawing from In re Coors Brewing Co. and In re St. Helena Hospital, Samsung argued that since its display panels and the registrant’s charging cables are functionally different and not obviously associated, something more than shared functionality was needed to prove relatedness.

The TTAB rejected this argument as a misapplication of the law. The “something more” requirement applies only in specific contexts—namely, when comparing goods to services (not goods to goods), and when the relationship between them is not evident or generally recognized. Because this case involved goods-to-goods comparison, the Board found that the doctrine simply didn’t apply.

This distinction matters for business owners. While you may believe your product is distinct from another company’s offering—even if the names are the same—the USPTO does not require overwhelming proof of consumer confusion. It simply requires evidence that your product and theirs are used together, sold through the same channels, or marketed as part of the same ecosystem.

Trade Channels and Consumers: Components Aren’t Just for Manufacturers

Samsung argued that its goods were intended for business-to-business sales only and not for retail consumers, while the registrant’s goods were sold to the public. However, the TTAB refused to accept this distinction because Samsung’s application included no such limitation.

In trademark analysis, the USPTO assumes that goods without specific limitations are available through all normal trade channels and to all classes of purchasers. Because Samsung’s application did not specify OEMs or exclude end-users, the Board presumed that its goods could also be sold to hobbyists, tech enthusiasts, and other consumers who build or repair electronic products.

Similarly, even if Samsung’s customers are sophisticated business buyers, the law still considers the least sophisticated possible consumer in its analysis. If someone shopping online for a computer monitor or smartphone could reasonably assume that UPC-brand display panels and UPC-brand charging cables came from the same company, that’s enough to support a likelihood of confusion.

Final Balancing of Factors

In weighing the DuPont factors, the TTAB found the following:

• The marks are identical, weighing heavily in favor of confusion.
• The goods are related, as they appear in the same finished products and are sold or marketed together.
• The channels of trade overlap, because both parties’ goods can reach similar classes of consumers.
• While Samsung asserted that its purchasers are sophisticated, there was no evidence showing that the relevant consumers (including retail buyers) exercise a high degree of care..
• The Board concluded that confusion is likely and affirmed the refusal to register.

Why This Case Matters for Business Owners and Entrepreneurs

This decision reinforces several key points for anyone developing a new brand:

• Identical or similar trademarks are a red flag—even across different types of products. It’s not enough to say, “Our products are different.” What matters is whether consumers might see them as coming from the same company.
• Trademark Class numbers don’t protect you from a conflict. Samsung’s components and the registrant’s power cables both fall in Class 9, but even if they were classified differently, the key question would still be whether the goods are related in the mind of the consumer.
• Descriptive terms like “components” won’t limit your risk unless you explicitly narrow your application. If your application doesn’t state that your goods are for OEMs only, the USPTO will assume they can be sold to the public.
• Don’t rely on the “something more” argument unless you’re comparing goods to services. That doctrine is narrow and doesn’t apply to situations like this one.
• Trademark search and clearance should be about more than just names—it should include a serious look at related goods. If another company uses your desired mark for a product that often appears in the same space as yours, you’re likely to run into problems.

Conclusion: The Evolving Scope of Related Goods Doctrine

The In re Samsung Display Co. decision reminds us that trademark conflicts often hinge on consumer perception—not on technical differences between goods. As the digital and tech marketplaces grow more interconnected, brands should expect a more nuanced and evidence-based analysis from the USPTO.

For new entrepreneurs, this means choosing a name isn’t just a creative exercise—it’s a legal strategy. Work with our trademark attorneys to ensure that your trademark doesn’t just sound good, but that it’s also clear, defensible, and uniquely yours.

For established business owners who haven’t yet secured their trademarks, now is the time to take that step. A registered trademark is more than a badge of ownership—it’s a shield against business disputes and confusion, and a cornerstone of your brand’s long-term value.