Ultimately, this decision reminds trademark owners that even identical marks are not enough to win a Section 2(d) claim without evidence showing the real-world relationship between the goods or services. The Board emphasized that each case rests on its own record and that assumptions about what “might” be related won’t suffice. This decision underscores several important trademark law doctrines, including the related goods doctrine, the natural zone of expansion, and how third-party evidence is weighed in establishing relatedness.