WEFIXIT GARAGE DOOR & GATE cannot register for door services after Board finds likely confusion

Decision Desk · August 21, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

We Fix It Franchise LLC applied to register WEFIXIT GARAGE DOOR & GATE for installing, maintaining and repairing doors, automatic doors and gates; an application is a request to register a mark. The Board upheld Precision Door Service SPV LLC’s opposition, a challenge to that request, after finding buyers likely to confuse the source of the parties’ services. Opinion, pp. 1, 31.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91287970, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

Precision Door Service’s existing registration, an official listing of a mark and its covered services, includes WE FIX GARAGE DOORS RIGHT! for garage-door installation, maintenance and repair. The Board found that We Fix It’s broadly listed door services include the garage-door services covered by that registration. It found the marks somewhat similar in appearance and quite similar in meaning and overall impression. Opinion, pp. 9, 12, 25.

Precision Door Service argued that the marks looked and sounded very similar because of their shared opening wording. We Fix It argued that its combined WEFIXIT wording and added reference to gates distinguished its mark from what it described as Precision Door Service’s advertising slogan. We Fix It also argued that its on-site work differed from what it described as Precision Door Service’s mainly retail-store services. Opinion, pp. 12, 20–21.

We Fix It submitted no evidence during its assigned evidence period. The Board excluded a late statement from We Fix It’s lawyer and its attached documents, which arrived with its written argument. It allowed We Fix It to rely on an answer to a written question that Precision Door Service had already submitted as evidence. Opinion, pp. 5–7.

Because the listed door services include garage-door services, the Board treated the parties’ services as identical in part. It therefore presumed that those shared services reach the same kinds of buyers through the same sales channels. Opinion, p. 13.

The Board gave the most weight to WEFIXIT and WE FIX when comparing the marks, and less weight to the later wording in We Fix It’s mark because it describes the services. It rejected We Fix It’s argument about how Precision Door Service displayed its phrase alongside another company name, comparing the marks as listed in the application and registration instead. Opinion, pp. 21, 24.

The Board acknowledged that WE FIX GARAGE DOORS RIGHT! suggests fixing garage doors, but found no properly submitted evidence that its protection should be reduced. It also found that Precision Door Service’s marketing evidence lacked context needed to establish wider public recognition. The Board found that potential garage-door customers varied in how carefully they might choose a provider, so their level of care did not weigh for or against likely confusion. Opinion, pp. 16, 18, 28.

Precision Door Service pointed to We Fix It’s account of a customer asking whether it was Precision. The Board said that question did not appear to show that the customer had actually confused the two businesses. The Board did not separately consider Precision Door Service’s claimed rights from using WE FIX GARAGE DOORS RIGHT! without relying on registration, because its existing registrations settled who had earlier rights for the marks and services they cover. Opinion, pp. 10, 28–29.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.