"In this case, applicant’s proposed mark is “EXIGA” in standard format. Registration no. 3150440 is for the mark “EXIGE,” also in standard format. Applicant’s mark is nearly identical with regard to appearance and sound. Both marks consist of five letters, the first four being “EXIG” and the fifth letter being a vowel. In addition, there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark. In re Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 227 USPQ 483, 484 (TTAB 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv); see In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Assoc., 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983). The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See RE/MAX of Am., Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469, 471 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
The marks will confuse people into believing that the goods they identify come from the same source.
If the goods of the respective parties are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods and/or services. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b). ). In this case, the goods are identical, thus the degree of difference between the proposed mark, “EXIGA” and the already registered mark, “EXIGE,” is not enough to avoid the likelihood of confusion."