A Deep Dive on the Relatedness of Goods and Services Factor

The relatedness of goods and services factor is very important in the likelihood of confusion analysis. Indeed, the fundamental inquiry mandated by Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision on New Year’s Eve that closely examined the essential characteristics of the goods because the marks at issue were identical.

Costa Farms, LLC applied to register the mark GROW WITH US (in standard characters) for “live flowers and living plants.” The Trademark Office refused registration based on a prior registration for the identical GROW WITH US mark for “distributorship services in the field of wholesale horticulture supplies and accessories.” Costa Farms eventually appealed the registration refusal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board primarily arguing that live flowers and living plants are unrelated goods to distributorship services in the horticulture field.

The Trademark Office compares the goods and services set forth in an application and a registration to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. Goods and services dealing with or related to those goods can be found to be related. Relatedness will not be found when the goods or services at issue only chare a relationship with a broad category of goods.

In the GROW WITH US case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found that “live flowers and living plants” on the one hand and “distributorship services in the field of wholesale horticulture supplies and accessories” on the other hand share only a relationship with horticulture, which is insufficient to find the goods and services are related. Costa Farms argued and presented evidence that “horticultural supplies” are “hard-good inputs needed in horticultural endeavors” not live plants and flowers. However, Costa Farms’ evidence also included that “horticultural endeavors” include growing live plants and flowers. It seems like hard-good inputs used to grow live plants and flowers have a commercial relationship with living plants and flowers, but apparently not according to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Trademark Dilution is Deciding Factor In Recent TTAB Case

Trademark dilution is one of three key likelihood of confusion factors that must be evaluated when conducting a trademark search and then re-evaluated if a registration refusal arises. Trademark dilution directly impacts the evaluation of the other likelihood of confusion factors. The weaker the senior user’s mark, the closer the junior user’s mark can come without causing a likelihood of confusion and thereby invading what amounts to its comparatively narrower range of protection.

I H W Management Limited d/b/a The Finchley Group applied to register the mark BLUE INDUSTRY for a variety of clothing items. The Trademark Office examined this application and approved it for publication. Pure & Simple Concepts, Inc. timely opposed the registration of the BLUE INDUSTRY mark.

To establish the strength (i.e., the broad scope of rights) in the INDUSTRY term, Pure & Simple argued it was the owner of a family of INDUSTRY marks for clothing. Generally, the common element in a family of marks is afforded a broad scope of protection, but establishing a family of marks is not easy.

The threshold issue is that the family feature must exist prior to the junior user’s use of its mark. The family feature also must be distinctive (excluding a highly suggestive term). Finally, the trademarks containing the family feature must be promoted together as a family. A mere intention to create a family of marks nor owning several registrations containing the alleged family feature is sufficient by itself to establish a family of marks.

Pure & Simple relied on eight registrations that contained the term INDUSTRY. Pure & Simple also included its licensee’s website, but this website does not promote the INDUSTRY term as a family feature. It simply identifies the brands this company distributes. Therefore, the evidence offered by Pure & Simple did not establish INDUSTRY as a family element.

Additionally, The Finchley Group offered 74 third-party registrations (far in excess of the 10 third-party registration minimum) that included the term INDUSTRY for clothing. This evidence not only further supported that finding that Pure & Simple did not own a family of INDUSTRY marks, but it also demonstrated that the INDUSTRY term was diluted for clothing. “The purpose of a defendant introducing third-party uses is to show that customers have become so conditioned by a plethora of such similar marks that customers have been educated to distinguish between different such marks on the bases of minute distinctions.” As such, The Finchley Group’s addition of the word BLUE was sufficient to distinguish its mark from Pure & Simple’s INDUSTRY marks.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed Pure & Simple’s opposition finding there was no likelihood of confusion. On December 4, 2019, Pure & Simple filed a Notice of Appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This is a curious decision by Pure & Simple because the record on appeal to the Federal Circuit cannot be supplemented whereas an appeal to the United States District Court is reviewed de novo. Seems like in this case it would have been preferable to go the District Court route given all the dilution evidence that was offered.

Infringing LIL’ BEANIES is not Like Taking Candy from a Baby

The Willamette Week reported that a Portland vegan ice cream company changed its name to Little Chickpea after Gerber complained that the company’s proposed LITTLE BEAN name was likely to cause confusion with its registered mark LIL’ BEANIES. Little Chickpea said in the story that Gerber insisted that the company change its name even though it had decided to discontinue the LIL’ BEANIES brand. It is questionable whether this is true, but if it is then Little Chickpea formerly Little Bean made a mistake prosecuting its application.

Nestle – the parent corporation to Gerber – owns a federal trademark registration for LIL’ BEANIES in connection with “bean-based snack foods; grain-based snack foods.” In the article, Mitch Camden said that “when he applied for a trademark he was initially told ‘everything looked good.'” This means that his trademark lawyers did a trademark search and told him LITTLE BEAN mark was available for him to register. The Trademark Office disagreed and issued a registration refusal asserting that the LITTLE BEAN mark was likely to cause confusion with the LIL’ BEANIES prior registration.

We have to assume that Little Chickpea’s attorneys searched for goods identified in the LITTLE BEAN trademark application, which included “processed chickpeas.” A chickpea is a bean, so it is difficult to understand how Little Chickpea’s attorneys would have concluded that chickpeas are unrelated to “bean-based snacks.” Nevertheless, Little Chickpea’s attorneys attempted to overcome the registration refusal and were unsuccessful. In a last-ditch effort to overcome the refusal, it appears that Little Chickpea’s attorneys reached out to Gerber to obtain consent to the registration of the LITTLE BEAN mark and Gerber refused.

Willamette Week also reported that Mr. Camdem was told Gerber has discontinued the LIL’ BEANIES product line and had no intention of doing anything with it. If this is true, then Little Chickpea had a good claim for abandonment. A trademark is abandoned with the use of the mark has discontinued with no intent to resume use of the mark. Abandonment is a ground for cancellation, which would have cleared the way for Little Chickpea to obtain a federal registration for its mark without having to go through what it described as an expensive rebrand.

The old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is often true for any legal issue but it is especially true in the context of trademark law. A proper and thorough trademark is essential to avoiding costly disputes and rebrands.

Connotation is the Deciding Factor in Registration Refusal

The analysis of the similarity of the marks involves the consideration of three factors: (1) visual similarity; (2) sound similarity; and (3) similar connotation. Generally, the visual similarity of the marks factor trumps the other two factors. But for the second time in about three months, the connotation factor has been the dispositive factor.

Don’t Run Out, Inc. applied to register the mark PUBLIC GOODS (in standard characters with GOODS disclaimed) for a variety of goods including “shampoos.” The Trademark Office refused registration of the PUBLIC GOODS mark on the ground that it was likely to cause confusion with the prior registered mark PUBLIX also for “hair shampoo.” With the goods legally identical and the descriptions unrestricted, the registration refusal turned on the similarity of the marks.

The Trademark Office argued that PUBLIX was the plural version of PUBLIC, and with GOODS disclaimed it was appropriate to compare the dominant portion of the marks. While more weight can be given to the dominant portions of the marks at issue, the final decision still needs to be made based on the marks in their entireties. In this case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found that the addition of the term GOODS materially changed the commercial impression of the mark.

“The proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression’ such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” The words PUBLIC GOODS were taken together project the connotation and commercial impression that Don’t Run Out personal care products are available to all consumers due to their affordability, and beneficial to the public because they are environmentally safe. By contrast, the PUBLIX mark has no well-recognized meaning. As a result, when confronted with both marks, prospective consumers are unlikely to assume the respective goods originate from the same source, despite use in part on identical and highly related goods.

Do You Believe in Miracles … Trade Channels Decide TTAB Case

Before you get too excited about the headline, this most recent TTAB decision may be another curveball and something that will not become the norm. On the other hand, it could be the start of something so we will be watching to see if another trend develops. The trend that may be starting is whether the introduction of uncommon trade channels to the goods or services description can defeat goods or services descriptions that are unrestricted as to channels of trade.

Minibar North America, Inc. filed a trademark application to register the mark MINIBAR SMARTSNAX (in standard characters) for “packaged snack foods, namely, candies, nuts, pretzels, popcorn, and cookies.” The Trademark Office refused registration of the MINIBAR SMARTSNAX mark on the ground that is was likely to cause confusion with two prior registered marks: SMART SNACKS (in standard characters) for “candy, caramels, chocolate and chewing gum” and THE SMART SNACK (in standard characters) for “dried fruits; dried fruit mixes; dried fruit snack foods; snack mix consisting primarily of processed fruit, processed nuts and/or raisins; shelled, roasted or otherwise processed nuts; candied nuts; raisins.” None of the goods descriptions in any of the marks at issue identified trade channel or class of consumer restrictions.

We also see again a trademark owner attempting to register the broadest goods description as possible. This is another example supporting the trademark search theory that you need to start broad with your search descriptions. Starting with a narrow description will result in missed registrations.

In response to the Office Action, Minibar North America did the smart thing and voluntarily amended its goods description to include a trade channel limitation. Minibar North America amended the goods description in its MINIBAR SMARTSNAX application to: “packaged snack food, namely, candies, pretzels, popcorn, and cookies packaged for sale to hotels, motels, and temporary stay facilities for distribution through refrigerators and food storage cabinets having sensors to detect presence and removal of packages” in International Class 30 and “packaged snack food, namely, processed nuts packaged for sale to hotels, motels, and temporary stay facilities for distribution through refrigerators and food storage cabinets having sensors to detect presence and removal of packages” in International Class 29. The Trademark Office maintained the refusal and Minibar North America appealed.

Minibar North America did not take the next step to petition to partially cancel the SMART SNACKS and THE SMART SNACK registrations to exclude “sale to hotels, motels, and temporary stay facilities for distribution through refrigerators and food storage cabinets having sensors to detect presence and removal of packages.” Ordinarily, the failure to obtain this corresponding amendment in the cited mark registrations would have been the final nail in the coffin for the MINIBAR SMARTSNAX application, but not this time.

The TTAB restated its settled precedent that unrestricted goods descriptions are presumed to travel through all usual channels of trade and are offered to all normal potential purchasers.” The TTAB took the opportunity to conclude that distribution through refrigerators and food storage cabinets having sensors to detect presence and removal of packages was not a “usual” trade channel for candy, cookies, nuts, etc. Rather, vending machines, convenience stores, grocery stores, and the like were the usual trade channels for candy, cookies, nuts, etc.

The TTAB’s analysis, which was correctly pointed out by the dissent, completely ignored the TTAB’s precedent that the owner of an unrestricted trademark registration is entitled to change its trade channels at any time and that trademark owners often expand into new trade channels.

Moreover, because the amended description included “sale to hotels, motels, and temporary stay facilities,” the TTAB inferred a sophisticated consumer. However, this analysis completely ignored the end consumer of the candy, cookies, nuts, etc. from the hotel, motel, or temporary stay facility. This is individual is not sophisticated like the snack food buyer at a hotel, motel, or temporary stay facility and this person needed to be taken into account by the TTAB. The applicable standard of care for a likelihood of confusion analysis is that of the least sophisticated consumer.

Strength Argument Done the Right Way Wins at TTAB

Simpson Industries recently won an appeal before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board – one of the few reversals that occurred this year – by properly making the strength argument. Because it executed the strength argument well, Simpson Industries was able to narrow the scope of rights in the cited mark, which allowed the differences in the marks to determine the likelihood of confusion test. Here’s how Simpson Industries executed the strength argument.

Simpson Industries applied to register the mark RAINFOREST NUTRITION (in standard characters, NUTRITION disclaimed) for “dietary and nutritional supplements.” The Trademark Office refused registration of this mark on the ground that it was likely to cause confusion with the prior registered mark RAINFORST ANIMALZ (in standard characters) for “nutritional supplements.” The goods were legally identical and did not contain any limitations; therefore, Simpson Industries’ only path to success was to win the similarity of the marks likelihood of confusion factor.

Simpson Industries offered 11 third-party registrations for marks containing RAINFOREST, one registration over the 10 minimum. If there was one flaw in the strength argument it was that not all of the third-party registrations identify nutritional supplements and nothing in the decision addressed the relatedness of the food and beverage products and nutritional supplements. Nevertheless, in this case, the Board gave weight to all 11 third-party registrations.

Simpson Industries also offered evidence of third-party use of the term RAINFOREST on a variety of nutritional supplements. The use evidence included not only trademark use, but also descriptive use. The descriptive use was even more persuasive because of the prior position the owner of the cited mark took during the prosecution of its application. Generally, the Trademark Office takes the position that each application must stand on its own facts and rarely relies on statements made by trademark applicants in other applications.

The 11 third-party registrations, third-party trademark use, descriptive use, and prior statements of the owner of the cited lead to the conclusion that the RAINFORST term is conceptually and commercially weak for “nutritional supplements. Because of this weakness finding, the use of NUTRITION – even though it was disclaimed – was enough to distinguish Simpson Industries mark from the cited RAINFOREST ANIMALZ mark.

Where Font Stylization Stops and Design Begins

Trademark applications for words are generally filed with a standard character drawing. A trademark registration issued with a standard character drawing extends protection in the words to all forms of stylization, size, and color. A standard character drawing does not extend protection to all possible design elements in a mark. A recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision did not help to determine when font stylization stops and design begins.

Anthony Fisher filed a trademark application for bumper stickers and clothing and submitted the following drawing of his trademark:

In his application, Mr. Fisher identified the letters “VF” as the literal element of the mark and described his mark as “two fish hooks connecting in the middle to form the stylized letters ‘VF’.” Mr. Fisher’s trademark application sailed through examination by the Trademark Office and was published for opposition where it was promptly opposed by V.F. Corporation.

V.F. Corporation alleged that Mr. Fisher’s stated “VF” stylized mark was likely to cause confusion with its prior registered VF marks, two of which are for standard character drawings. V.F. Corporation’s registrations were for retail store services featuring apparel, backpacks, and outdoor gear and equipment. The Board found that Mr. Fisher’s clothing was related to V.F. Corporation’s retail store services, but not his bumper stickers. Nevertheless, the salient issue, in this case, was the similarity of the marks.

The Board gave no consideration to the words used by Mr. Fisher when preparing his trademark application. The Board said that it is not the description of the mark but the drawing that depicts the mark for which registration is sought. Against this backdrop, the Board proceeded to tell Mr. Fisher what his mark is. The Board said “we do not discern the letter ‘F’ and it is highly unlikely that prospective consumers would. In fact, consumers likely would not perceive any letters in [Mr. Fisher’s] design mark, but instead may only perceive a stylized checkmark.” As demonstrated by the Board, the question of whether something is stylization or design is subjective.

Under the circumstances, the Board telling Mr. Fisher what his mark is benefitted him, but it highlights a possibly troubling practice. The Board’s precedent is settled that it should not substitute its judgement on confusion for those parties on the firing lines in the marketplace. This rationale should extend to trademark applicants as well. The descriptions offered by the trademark applicant should be given more weight than the treatment the description received in this case.

Single Word Defeats Entire Whiskey Distillery Logo

"whiskey in a glass"

When it came to the similarity of the marks likelihood of confusion factor, a whiskey distillery threw the kitchen sink at the Trademark Office and still lost because of a single word. Unfortunately for the applicant, this was a situation where the Trademark Office should have exercised its discretion to look at the two marks in the real world marketplace to determine if a likelihood of confusion exists. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has time and time again stated that the literal portion of a mark is entitled to more weight in the analysis of the marks than any designs. But should a single word – absent a showing of fame – be afforded so much weight that it can bring down an entire logo?

Mystic Mountain Distillery LLC filed a trademark application to register its logo on the Principal Register for “whiskey”:

The Trademark Office refused registration of Mystic Mountain’s mark on the ground that it was likely to cause confusion with the prior registered mark OUTLAW (in standard characters) for “alcoholic beverages.” Because of the identical nature of the goods, less similarity between the marks is necessary for a likelihood of confusion exists. Mystic Mountain did nothing to narrow the goods descriptions and failed to demonstrate that the OUTLAW term was weak.

Without a doubt, there were significant headwinds to Mystic Mountain’s trademark application. About a year ago, the Board in Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Christopher Webb stated that it may take into account the real-world use of the marks to determine if they create confusingly similar impressions. The unanswered question is when will the Board take into consideration the real-world use of the mark and the answer may be that as a party you have to ask for it. If the Board would have considered the specimens and real-world use of the OUTLAW mark, it would have seen that the overall commercial impression is different than the impression given by Mystic Mountain’s logo.

Smith & Wesson House Mark Can’t Distinguish Shared Terms

Years ago it was a successful strategy to avoid a likelihood of confusion by adding a house mark to a proposed mark regardless of whether the shared term was conceptual weak. However, times changed and what used to be a successful strategy now only works under certain circumstances.

According to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, a house mark does not identify particular goods or services, rather a house mark identifies the provider of a wide variety of goods and services. The specific goods or services are often identified by a separate trademark or service mark. Because house marks appear on a wide variety of goods and services, they generally are afforded a broader scope of protection. The theory is that the more goods or services the mark appears on or in connection with, the more exposure consumers have to the mark, and the more recognizable the mark will become.

Smith & Wesson Corp. recently, unsuccessfully attempted to revive the old add the house mark strategy. Smith & Wesson filed an application to register the mark M&P SHIELD (in standard characters) for, among other goods, “knives.” The Trademark Office refused registration of this mark on the ground that is was likely to cause confusion with the prior registered mark SHIELD also for “knives.” Because the identifications of goods descriptions were identical, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found that the channels of trade and classes of consumers overlapped.

When it came to the similarity of the marks, the Board stated that the addition of a house mark has been found sufficient to distinguish marks under circumstances where the appropriated matter is highly suggestive, merely descriptive, or has been frequently used or registered by others in the field for the same or related goods or services. The Board found that SHIELD is “slightly suggestive” for knives.

With respect to the frequent use or registration of the term SHIELD, the Board found that Smith & Wesson offered only one third-party registration that included the SHIELD term for a related good. This was far less than the 10 minimum the Board has required in other cases. Therefore, the Board concluded that Smith & Wesson’s inclusion of the M&P house mark was incapable of distinguishing the SHIELD term.

Breathable, Waterproof Fabric is Related to Clothing

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently found that breathable, waterproof fabric used to create clothing is related to clothing in general. A general rule for assessing whether goods are related is whether the goods are or can be used together. If the goods can be or are used to together like fabric and clothing, then the goods at issue are related.

Striker Brands LLC filed an application to register the mark HYDRAPORE (in standard characters) for “breathable waterproof fabric sold as an integral component of fishing and hunting apparel, namely, coats, jackets, [etc.]” The Trademark Office refused registration based on a prior registration for HYDRO PORE (in standard characters) in connection with “clothing, namely, tops, bottoms, jackets, headwear, and footwear.”

To demonstrate the relatedness of the goods the Trademark Office offered 20 third-party registrations for marks that identify fabric as a component of clothing, and finished articles of clothing. These third-party registrations demonstrated that consumers expect fabric and finished clothing articles to emanate from the same source. Additionally, although not forcefully made in the opinion, the Board found that consumers could mistakenly believe that the HYDRO PORE clothing was made from the HYDRAPORE fabric.

Striker Brands made the classic mistake of leaving the identification of goods description in the HYDRO PORE mark undisturbed. It should have focused on narrowing the description to exclude a type of fabric along with the hunting and fishing channels of trade before pursuing the appeal.

When it came to the conceptual strength of the HYDRO PORE mark, Striker Brands offered 33 third-party registrations for HYDRO- formative marks in connection with various types of apparel or fabric. The Board noted that none of the third-party registrations contained a second term similar to PORE or for PORE. Moreover, Striker Brands did not offer any evidence of use for the 33 third-party registrations. Nevertheless, although the Board found that HYDRO PORE is a suggestive mark, it was entitled to a slightly narrower scope of protection because of the third-party registrations.

This conceptual strength analysis is similar to the Board’s decision in HULA DELIGHTS, and is even more difficult to square with its decision in the LUNA CYCLE case. In the LUNA CYCLE case, 100 third-party registrations for marks displaying LUNA (like those displaying HYDRO in this case) were offered for some form of apparel (like the various clothing items and fabric in this case). The difference though is that the Board discounted all 100 third-party registrations because they were not for women’s bicycle apparel.