If there is any doubt as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the prior registrant. See In re Chatam Int'l, Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., Ser. No. 77369073, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 647, at *21-22 (2009); see also In re C.H. Hanson Co., Ser. No. 77983232, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 357 (2015) (noting that to the extent that the punctuation in registrant's identification of goods created ambiguity as to the scope of the identification, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the registrant).