746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Why sophisticated, big-money buyers don't beat a §2(d) refusal: Stone Lion holds that confusion is judged on the services as recited and, where the recitation is unrestricted, on the least sophisticated potential purchaser. The holding, the trap, how to cite it, its limits, and the live USPTO records.
The 30-second version
Stone Lion Capital Partners was a New York hedge fund manager — credit-opportunities investing, the kind of firm whose clients wire in large minimums and read every line of a prospectus. In 2008 it filed an intent-to-use application for STONE LION CAPITAL in Class 36, the class for financial and investment services.
Across the Atlantic sat Lion Capital LLP, a UK private-equity firm that had begun using LION and LION CAPITAL in the United States in April 2005 (its priority was undisputed) and later obtained Class 36 registrations — LION CAPITAL in 2008 and LION in 2009 — covering investment management, venture capital, and equity investment. Lion Capital opposed under Section 2(d), and the TTAB sustained the opposition. Stone Lion took it to the Federal Circuit.
Stone Lion's best argument felt unanswerable: nobody who invests millions through a hedge fund is going to confuse two firms over a shared word. The court agreed those buyers are careful — and affirmed the refusal anyway. The reason is the rule first-years remember this case for: you don't get to argue your real customers. You're stuck with the customers your recitation describes, and that recitation reached all the way down to the least sophisticated potential purchaser.
Lion Capital LLP, a UK private-equity firm, begins using LION and LION CAPITAL in the United States for investment and financial services in April 2005 (priority later undisputed). Its Class 36 registrations issue afterward — LION CAPITAL (Reg. 3543654) on Dec. 9, 2008 and LION (Reg. 3645484) on June 30, 2009.
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. files an intent-to-use application for STONE LION CAPITAL (Serial 77551196) in Class 36, with CAPITAL disclaimed, for investment advisory, fund-management, and fund-investment services.
In Opp. No. 91191681, Lion Capital LLP opposes registration, pleading its LION (Reg. 3645484, matured from Serial 77300323) and LION CAPITAL (Reg. 3543654, matured from Serial 78627031) marks. The Board sustains the opposition on Jan. 18, 2013, finding the marks similar — LION the dominant shared term — and the services legally identical, and bases its likelihood-of-confusion finding on the least sophisticated potential purchasers the unrestricted recitation reaches.
In an opinion by Judge Wallach (No. 13-1353), the Federal Circuit affirms under the substantial-evidence standard: the Board permissibly evaluated the services as recited and, given the unrestricted recitation, properly based confusion on the least sophisticated potential purchasers.
Put yourself in Stone Lion's shoes — the argument writes itself. Our clients are institutions and high-net-worth investors who commit large minimums; nobody at that level skims a name and wires money to the wrong firm. The buyers on both sides are as sophisticated and careful as buyers get, and care of purchase is a recognized DuPont factor that cuts against confusion. It feels like a winning hand. The catch is that a Section 2(d) analysis does not look at the customers a firm actually has — it looks at the customers its recited services describe. Stone Lion's recitation (investment advisory, fund management, fund investment) was unrestricted, with nothing limiting it to multi-million-dollar institutional clients. Read on its face, it encompasses ordinary investors too. Once the Board could point to even the least sophisticated potential purchaser inside that broad description, the sophistication of the real clientele stopped mattering. And because that least-sophisticated finding was a factual one, on appeal it only had to be supported by substantial evidence — so re-arguing the marketplace to the Federal Circuit was never going to disturb it. The applicant had argued the marketplace; the law was about to confine it to the page.
Prong 1 — the marks
Similarity of the marks. STONE LION CAPITAL versus LION and LION CAPITAL — the court treated LION as the dominant shared element, held that adding the adjective STONE was "not sufficient to distinguish the marks," and found them similar in "sight, sound, meaning, and overall commercial impression."
Prong 2 — the goods
Relatedness of the services and the conditions of sale / buyer care. These are two distinct DuPont factors that this shorthand collapses: the services were legally identical, while the separately contested factor was whether sophisticated, careful buyers made confusion unlikely.
The two prongs are a teaching shorthand: §2(d) is formally the 13-factor DuPont balancing test, and relatedness of the services and conditions of sale / purchaser care are separate factors within it. Stone Lion's lesson is about how the buyer-care factor is measured. The Federal Circuit did not coin the controlling phrase — it quoted "the least sophisticated potential purchasers" from Board precedent, Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. S.A., 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1600 (TTAB 2011), which in turn drew the mixed-buyer-class principle from Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., 930 F.2d 277, 293 (3d Cir. 1991) (when a buyer class is mixed, the standard of care equals that of the least sophisticated consumer in the class). When the recited services are unrestricted, the Board considers all potential buyers but decides on the least sophisticated one the recitation reaches; sophistication is judged against the recitation, not the applicant's real book of business. On review the Federal Circuit examined the Board's findings on each DuPont factor for substantial evidence and the ultimate likelihood-of-confusion conclusion de novo (746 F.3d at 1321) — so the least-sophisticated determination, a factual finding, was sustained rather than relitigated.
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.
The recitation, read on its face
Stone Lion's services — investment advisory, management of investment funds, fund investment services — carried no language limiting them to institutional or high-minimum clients. The court read them broadly enough to encompass ordinary investors, and Stone Lion did not rebut that finding.
Legally identical services
Lion Capital's registrations covered overlapping financial and investment services in the same class, so the goods-relatedness factor was not in dispute — the services were treated as legally identical.
All buyers considered, decision on the least sophisticated
The Board did consider the sophisticated investors Stone Lion emphasized; it simply did not stop there. Because the recitation reached down to less sophisticated buyers, the Board grounded its decision on the least sophisticated potential purchaser — and the Federal Circuit held that was proper.
Standard of review made the marketplace argument futile
On appeal the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board's findings on each DuPont factor for substantial evidence and its ultimate likelihood-of-confusion conclusion de novo (746 F.3d at 1321). The least-sophisticated-purchaser determination was sustained as a factual finding supported by substantial evidence — which is why merely re-arguing the marketplace on appeal was never going to disturb it.
“on the least sophisticated potential purchasers”
The rule to memorize
Likelihood of confusion is judged on the services as recited, not on the applicant's actual customers — and where a recitation is unrestricted as to purchasers or channels, the Board may base confusion on the least sophisticated potential purchaser it reaches. Sophisticated, careful buyers do not save an unrestricted recitation. Shorthand: if you want the benefit of a careful-buyer audience, you have to write that audience into your goods and services.
Applicant respectfully submits that the recited services are limited to [sophisticated/specialized purchasers / a defined channel], such that the relevant buyers exercise a high degree of care that makes confusion unlikely. Applicant recognizes that under Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014), likelihood of confusion is assessed on the basis of the services as identified, and where a recitation is unrestricted the analysis reaches the least sophisticated potential purchaser. Applicant has therefore amended the identification to [narrowed recitation], which restricts the services to [defined sophisticated class], so that the conditions-of-sale factor may properly be weighed in Applicant's favor.
Stone Lion is usually cited AGAINST the applicant, so the move is to neutralize it, not lean on it. Don't argue your real customers are sophisticated — that's exactly the argument Stone Lion forecloses. Instead, amend the identification to bake the sophisticated audience or channel into the recitation itself, then argue purchaser care on the narrowed language. If you can't or won't narrow, the careful-buyer argument is weak.
Of 164 applications that cited this case against a §2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal, 42 have reached a final outcome — 42.9% registered, above the 37.6% §2(d) baseline (N=10,097).
Stone Lion tends to surface in already-hard §2(d) fights — the marks are similar, the services overlap, and the applicant's only real argument is that its buyers are careful, which is among the toughest §2(d) postures to begin with. So the citation marks the presence of that hard fight rather than causing the outcome. Whether you win turns on whether you actually narrowed the recitation, not on naming the case.
These rates are correlational, not causal. Citing a case does not “win” it — a response that cites a precedent often faced a harder, more contested refusal to begin with. Every rate is shown against its refusal-ground baseline and the number of terminal (finally-decided) applications it is based on; pending applications are excluded. This is a descriptive picture of how the profession argues, not legal advice.
Stone Lion Capital Partners L.P. · Serial 77551196
The applied-for mark on appeal — Class 36 financial/investment services, CAPITAL disclaimed, filed Aug 20, 2008 (intent-to-use). Now Dead (abandoned Feb 25, 2015), consistent with the sustained opposition and refused registration.
Lion Capital LLP · Serial 77300323
One of the two pleaded registrations the opposition was sustained on — Reg. 3645484 (registered June 30, 2009), Class 36 financial and investment services. LION is the dominant shared term the Board and court keyed on; still live.
Lion Capital LLP · Serial 78627031
The second pleaded registration — Reg. 3543654 (registered Dec. 9, 2008), Class 36 equity-capital investment, venture-capital, and buyout services, CAPITAL disclaimed. Services treated as legally identical to the applicant's; still live.
Live USPTO records in GleanMark — click through for full prosecution history.
The complete TTAB record behind this decision — every filing and exhibit, the full timeline, and a one-click AI summary.
Open proceeding 91191681There is a quiet asymmetry in the aftermath. Lion Capital's LION and LION CAPITAL registrations remain live on the U.S. register; Stone Lion Capital's application went abandoned, exactly as a sustained opposition and an affirmed refusal would leave it. The firm kept operating under the name in the market — the courthouse loss closed the register, not the business. A decade on, Stone Lion is read less for who the parties were than for the sentence it left behind: you litigate the customers your recitation describes, down to the least sophisticated one.
What is the least sophisticated purchaser rule in trademark law?
When a §2(d) likelihood-of-confusion analysis turns on buyer care, the Board considers all potential purchasers of the recited services but bases its decision on the least sophisticated one the recitation reaches. Stone Lion Capital v. Lion Capital (Fed. Cir. 2014) is the leading authority, quoting the standard from the Board's Gen. Mills v. Fage decision (which itself traces to Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., 3d Cir. 1991): if your identification is unrestricted, you are stuck with the least sophisticated buyer it describes, even if your actual clients are highly sophisticated.
Do sophisticated buyers prevent trademark confusion?
Not by themselves. Purchaser sophistication is one DuPont factor that can weigh against confusion, but Stone Lion holds that confusion is judged on the services as recited, not on a firm's actual high-dollar clientele. If the recitation reaches ordinary buyers, even careful, expensive purchasing won't defeat a refusal where the marks are similar and the services overlap — the court applied the rule from In re Shell Oil that even sophisticated purchasers can be confused by very similar marks.
How do you overcome a §2(d) refusal with a sophisticated-buyer argument?
Don't just assert your real customers are sophisticated — Stone Lion forecloses that. Instead, amend the identification of goods or services to limit the buyers or trade channels (for example, restricting to institutional or specialized purchasers), so the conditions-of-sale factor is measured against a recitation that actually describes a sophisticated audience. The argument only works if you narrow the recitation.
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
The §2(d) factors · 26.6% registered
Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC
Crowded field of weak marks · 22.6% registered
In re i.am.symbolic, llc
Marks compared in their entireties · 32.1% registered
Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
Foreign equivalents & fame · 41.7% registered
Jack Wolfskin Ausrüstung für Draußen GmbH v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.
Crowded field; weak design elements · 26.7% registered
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
Fame as a §2(d) factor · 33% registered
In re Gyulay
Mere descriptiveness · 53.6% registered
In re Abcor Development Corp.
Descriptiveness standard · 61.7% registered
In re Viterra Inc.
Similarity; standard-character display · 34.2% registered
In re Thor Tech, Inc.
Goods-relatedness coexistence · 21.4% registered
In re Shell Oil Co.
Relatedness of goods and services · 23.1% registered
In re National Data Corp.
Dominant feature; disclaimed matter · 41.1% registered
In re Detroit Athletic Co.
First-word dominance; similarity · 40.6% registered
In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft
Descriptiveness; internet evidence · 54.2% registered
GleanMark turns the same prosecution data behind this analysis into clearance, coexistence evidence, and a structured Office Action response draft — in minutes.
Start a Free Trial