In the decision, the examining attorney wrote that "The similarity of the marks and relatedness of the services are so great as to create likelihood of confusion among consumers."

The refusal was mailed March 10, and notHarvard has six months to appeal the ruling. However, it has not yet done so, according to the trademark attorney dealing with the case.

But both Wrinn and Fisher say that the PTO decision, while notable, is unlikely to be crucial to the court case.

"There's no direct bearing [on the lawsuit], but it's one indication that the PTO is sensitive to the same kinds of concerns that Harvard is asserting," Fisher said.

Although Wrinn dismissed the importance of the PTO decision, he did say that the University would submit that evidence in the trial's discovery phase.

"It gives, we think, a strong indication that we're on the right track," Wrinn said.

NotHarvard refused repeated requests for comments on both lawsuits and the PTO's denial of the notHarvard.com trademark.