What the Board decided
TTABVUE lists Opposition No. 91263504, Mars, Incorporated v. PAGS Inc., against the mark PET-AGREE GROOMING SUPPLIES. The September 16, 2026 docket entry is a final decision sustaining the opposition. The opinion mailed that day states that it is not a precedent of the TTAB. It sustains Mars's res judicata (claim preclusion) claim and declines to reach likelihood of confusion, collateral estoppel, and dilution by blurring.
Why claim preclusion mattered
The opinion describes an earlier opposition, No. 91221462. In a non-precedential decision issued July 15, 2019, the Board sustained Mars's Section 2(d) claim against PAGS's mark PET-AGREE for wholesale and retail supply store services featuring pet grooming supplies, and for online wholesale and retail services featuring pet grooming supplies. PAGS later filed the application in this case for PET-AGREE GROOMING SUPPLIES. The new identification is limited to wholesale supply store services for pet grooming supplies in the business-to-business market, directed to pet professionals and commercial pet groomers, and it expressly excludes pet food, pet treats, products fed to pets, and bowls, cups, and containers for those goods.
The Board found that those changes did not avoid claim preclusion. It found that PET-AGREE GROOMING SUPPLIES creates the same continuing commercial impression as PET-AGREE, because PET-AGREE is the only source-indicating element and the added words GROOMING SUPPLIES are generic. It also found that the new identification narrows the earlier services rather than presenting a new set of transactional facts. On that ground the Board sustained the opposition.
What this decision is not
This is a non-precedential final decision in one opposition. It is not a precedent of the TTAB, and it is not a ruling on the likelihood-of-confusion or dilution claims the Board declined to reach. The opinion and the TTABVUE docket are the sources for what the Board did.