753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
How In re National Data established that you may give more or less weight to a dominant feature of a mark — so long as you compare the marks in their entireties — and why a disclaimer has no legal effect on likelihood of confusion. The holding, the framework, how to cite it, and its limits.
The 30-second version
In 1981, National Data Corporation tried to register THE CASH MANAGEMENT EXCHANGE for computerized cash management services. The examining attorney refused under Section 2(d), pointing to an already-registered mark: CASH MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT — the Merrill Lynch CMA financial-services mark (the opinion itself does not name the registrant). Two of the three words were identical, and they sat at the front of both marks.
National Data made a tactical move that, on its face, looked clever. It voluntarily disclaimed any exclusive rights in CASH MANAGEMENT and put financial-press articles into the record arguing the phrase was a common, descriptive expression nobody could own. The strategy: if CASH MANAGEMENT is just descriptive boilerplate, the only words that should count are EXCHANGE and ACCOUNT — and those are different.
The Federal Circuit did not bite. It held that a disclaimer is invisible to the public and has no legal effect on likelihood of confusion, and that even a descriptive shared term can be the dominant feature that drives the overall impression of both marks. The case is why first-years learn two rules at once: you may weight a dominant feature more heavily, but you must always compare the marks as wholes — and a disclaimer never shrinks what the public actually sees.
The cited mark CASH MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT registers (Reg. 1,118,929, Class 36) for financial services involving plastic credit cards drawing on a brokerage equity account — the Merrill Lynch CMA program.
National Data Corporation applies to register THE CASH MANAGEMENT EXCHANGE (Serial 73294193) for computerized cash management services in Class 35, claiming use since November 1980.
The examining attorney refuses under Section 2(d) over CASH MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT, and also under Section 2(e)(1) as merely descriptive.
National voluntarily disclaims exclusive rights in CASH MANAGEMENT and submits financial-publication articles arguing the term is a common descriptive expression.
The Board reverses the §2(e) descriptiveness refusal but affirms the §2(d) refusal, finding CASH MANAGEMENT the identical dominant feature. The Board did two distinct things: (a) it found, on the record, that National's evidence did not show CASH MANAGEMENT generic for the cited registration's services; and (b) it separately inferred — from the absence of a disclaimer in the cited registration — that the term was distinctive there (222 USPQ 515).
The court (Nies, J.) corrects the Board's reasoning but affirms: the disclaimer was legally irrelevant, and the absence of a disclaimer in the cited registration did not make CASH MANAGEMENT distinctive. It then affirmed on its own analysis — assuming CASH MANAGEMENT is generic or highly descriptive does not lead to reversal, because the marks remain confusingly similar in their entireties.
National Data's application is recorded as ABANDONED – AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL, confirming the loss.
Put yourself in National Data's chair. The shared words — CASH MANAGEMENT — are about as descriptive as financial-services language gets; the press itself used the phrase generically. The intuition is irresistible: if nobody can own those words, then comparing the marks ought to mean comparing what is left — EXCHANGE against ACCOUNT — and those are plainly different. National even reinforced the point by formally disclaiming CASH MANAGEMENT, as if surrendering the words would erase them from the comparison. The trap is that none of this changes what a customer encounters. The public never reads the prosecution file, never sees the disclaimer, and does not mentally delete the descriptive words before reacting to the mark. Descriptiveness ordinarily argues for giving a shared term less weight — but here the shared term was identical, led both marks, and on this record came nowhere near being shown generic for these services. Two of three words, sitting at the front of both marks, still dominate the impression — and an identical leading term can still dominate even when it is descriptive and unownable.
Prong 1 — the marks
Similarity of the marks — in appearance, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression, compared in their entireties.
Prong 2 — the goods
Relatedness of the goods or services — here, computerized cash management services against financial services, both in the broad money-management field.
This is a marks-prong case about HOW you compare. The marks must be considered in their entireties — a principle the opinion draws from Glenwood Laboratories v. American Home Products Corp., 455 F.2d 1384 (CCPA 1972), and the anti-dissection rule from Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005 (CCPA 1981) — but within that whole-mark comparison you may, for rational reasons, give more or less weight to a dominant feature. The two are not in tension: weighting a dominant feature is part of comparing the whole, not a license to dissect. (The §2(d) two prongs are a teaching shorthand: §2(d) is formally the 13-factor DuPont balancing test, and any factor can control.)
These are the two factors that usually decide §2(d), but the governing standard is the full 13-factor DuPont likelihood-of-confusion test — any factor can control on the right record.
An identical dominant feature
CASH MANAGEMENT appeared at the front of both marks, identical in spelling and sound. The Board and the court treated it as the dominant feature that shaped each mark's overall commercial impression.
The differing words could not distinguish
ACCOUNT and EXCHANGE were the only points of difference, and they were not enough to overcome the shared dominant phrase when the marks were viewed as wholes.
The disclaimer was legally irrelevant
National's voluntary disclaimer of CASH MANAGEMENT had no effect on the §2(d) analysis, because the public never sees a disclaimer and reacts to the full mark as encountered.
Descriptiveness did not save the mark
Even assuming CASH MANAGEMENT was generic or highly descriptive — and the court agreed National should have been allowed to prove descriptiveness — the marks viewed in their entireties were still confusingly similar. The court did not run a harmless-error analysis; it corrected the Board's reasoning and affirmed on its own: assuming the term generic or highly descriptive 'does not, however, lead to a reversal in this case.'
“there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.”
The rule to memorize
When comparing marks under §2(d), you may give a dominant feature more or less weight for rational reasons — including a shared term at the front of both marks — so long as the ultimate comparison is of the marks in their entireties, not a dissected piece. A disclaimer has no legal effect on likelihood of confusion: the public never sees it, so the disclaimed words still count in the impression the mark makes. Descriptiveness ordinarily argues for giving a shared term LESS weight; National Data holds that even so, an identical leading term can still dominate the commercial impression — and proving it descriptive does not, by itself, defeat confusion.
The Examining Attorney's refusal rests on dissecting the marks and weighing only the shared [shared term]. Under In re Nat'l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 750-51 (Fed. Cir. 1985), marks must be compared in their entireties; while a dominant feature may be given more or less weight for rational reasons, the ultimate comparison must rest on the marks as wholes. Here, comparing Applicant's [mark] and the cited [mark] in their entireties, the added [distinguishing matter] creates a distinct commercial impression that the shared [shared term] does not erase. The shared term is descriptive and weak, and consumers look to the marks' other elements to distinguish source.
National Data is double-edged — read which way it cuts before you cite it. It is the examiner's friend when the shared dominant feature controls (use it that way at your peril as an applicant). To use it FOR you, do not argue the disclaimer makes the shared words disappear — that argument lost here. Argue instead that, viewed as wholes, your added matter changes the commercial impression, and that the shared term is weak. The anti-dissection half of the holding is the part that helps applicants.
NATIONAL DATA CORPORATION · Serial 73294193
The refused application — computerized cash management services (Class 35). Filed 1981; never registered. Status: ABANDONED – AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL, directly confirming National's loss on the Federal Circuit appeal.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION · Serial 73137586
The cited prior registration — Reg. 1,118,929, issued 1979-05-22 for financial services in Class 36 (the Merrill Lynch CMA program). The 1985 opinion's registrant was Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith; the registration was later assigned to Bank of America following its 2009 acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
Live USPTO records in GleanMark — click through for full prosecution history.
A small irony closes the case: National Data tried to win by giving something up — disclaiming the very words it shared with Merrill Lynch — and the court told it the surrender bought nothing, because the public never saw it. The application went abandoned after the appeal; the cited CASH MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT registration remained in force. The page in the file is closed, but the one sentence the case is remembered for — weight a dominant feature, but always compare the marks in their entireties — is quoted in TMEP §1207.01(b) (and §1207.01(b)(viii)) for the dominant-feature/anti-dissection rule, while the disclaimer holding anchors TMEP §1213.10 (Disclaimer in Relation to Likelihood of Confusion) — and it is cited in TTAB §2(d) opinions to this day.
Does a disclaimer affect likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d)?
No. In re National Data Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1985) held that a disclaimer has no legal effect on likelihood of confusion, because the public is unaware of which words were disclaimed during prosecution. The disclaimed words still count in the overall commercial impression the mark makes on consumers. This disclaimer rule anchors TMEP §1213.10 (Disclaimer in Relation to Likelihood of Confusion).
What is the dominant feature rule in trademark comparison?
Under In re National Data, when comparing marks under Section 2(d) you may give more or less weight to a dominant feature of a mark for rational reasons — such as a shared term at the front of both marks — as long as the ultimate comparison rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties. Weighting a dominant feature is part of the whole-mark comparison, not permission to dissect the mark into pieces.
Can a descriptive word be the dominant part of a trademark?
Descriptiveness ordinarily argues for giving a shared term LESS weight. But in In re National Data, the court treated CASH MANAGEMENT as the dominant feature of both marks even while assuming it was descriptive, because it was identical and led both marks. An identical leading term can still drive the overall commercial impression — and even proving the shared term is descriptive did not, on its own, overcome the finding of confusion when the marks were viewed as wholes.
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
The §2(d) factors · CCPA 1973
Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC
Crowded field of weak marks · Fed. Cir. 2015
In re i.am.symbolic, llc
Marks compared in their entireties · Fed. Cir. 2017
Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
Foreign equivalents & fame · Fed. Cir. 2005
Jack Wolfskin Ausrüstung für Draußen GmbH v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.
Crowded field; weak design elements · Fed. Cir. 2015
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
Fame as a §2(d) factor · Fed. Cir. 2012
In re Gyulay
Mere descriptiveness · Fed. Cir. 1987
In re Abcor Development Corp.
Descriptiveness standard · CCPA 1978
In re Viterra Inc.
Similarity; standard-character display · Fed. Cir. 2012
In re Thor Tech, Inc.
Goods-relatedness coexistence · TTAB 2015
In re Shell Oil Co.
Relatedness of goods and services · Fed. Cir. 1993
In re Detroit Athletic Co.
First-word dominance; similarity · Fed. Cir. 2018
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP
Least-sophisticated purchaser · Fed. Cir. 2014
In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft
Descriptiveness; internet evidence · Fed. Cir. 2007
Paste the serial number to read your letter in plain English. Free, no account.