The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found that our client, Aerotrek IP Holdings, LLC, had established by a preponderance of the evidence that AeroTrek Applicant’s mark for its identified services so resembles Opposer’s AEROTREK mark in block letters for its goods as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found that the marks at issue are similar; that Opposer’s goods are related to Applicant’s services; that they would move in overlapping trade channels; and that they are offered to the same or overlapping classes of purchasers. Therefore, the opposition is sustained as to the likelihood of confusion claim and registration to our adversary is refused. Woodard Emhardt attorney, Dan Lueders, represented Aerotrek IP Holdings, LLC in their opposition to Aerotrek Flight Academy, LLC’s trademarks.