It’s the same situation as CFFC v. Adidas but more recent – prefer our evidence.

TTAB 17 – Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 6-21-2017, " Executive Coach Builders, Inc. v. SPV Coach Company, Inc.,” Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, https://casetext.com/admin-law/executive-coach-builders-inc-v-spv-coach-company-inc /$antiP/

SPV Coach Company, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks to register the mark ARMBRUSTER STAGEWAY (in standard characters) on the Principal Register for “vehicles, namely, customized limousines” in International Class 12.1 Executive Coach Builders, Inc. (“Opposer”) opposes registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), asserting priority and a likelihood of confusion with its pleaded common-law mark ARMBRUSTER/STAGEWAY, which, as can be seen, differs from Applicant’s mark by the use of a forward slash, rather than a space, between the two words. Applicant, in turn, asserts as an affirmative defense that Opposer “has abandoned its ARMBRUSTER/STAGEWAY mark and is without valid rights upon which it may state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”2 The parties in this opposition are secondary manufacturers of the types of specialty vehicles at issue in this case – stretch limousines and hearses, for the VIP and funeral markets – made from vehicle chassis manufactured by others, such as Cadillacs and Lincolns.