In Re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358

Viterra filed an intent-to-use application to register XCEED for agricultural seed in standard character form.
X-Seed, Inc. holds U.S. Registration No. 3,339,424 for X-Seed (word and design) for agricultural seeds, including distinctive color features.
The examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) for likelihood of confusion with X-Seed, Inc.'s mark.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed, emphasizing identical goods, overlapping trade channels, and similar marks as bases for confusion.
On appeal, the court applies the DuPont factors and, post-Citigroup, analyzes the similarity of the marks and related issues.
The court affirms the Board’s decision, holding substantial evidence supports likelihood of confusion between XCEED and X-Seed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are XCEED and X-Seed confusingly similar?	Viterra argues marks differ in appearance, sound, connotation	X-Seed argues marks are similar in overall impression	Yes, likelihood of confusion supported
Does Citigroup apply to standard-character vs. design comparisons and ex parte examination?	Viterra urges Citigroup does not apply to this case and disputes standard comparison	X-Seed supports Citigroup's broader DuPont analysis	Citigroup applies; broader DuPont analysis governs here

SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (word/design marks; verbal portion typically dominant)
CBS, Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (dominance of verbal portion in word/design marks)
In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (DuPont factors; substantial evidence standard)
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (lesser degree of similarity required when goods identical)
Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (disclaimed matter can remain part of mark for likelihood analysis)
Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., 637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discarded 'reasonable manners' approach; broadened DuPont scope)
Ch. In re Cont'l Graphics Corp., 52 USPQ2d 1374 (TTAB 1999) (case cited for standard-character vs. design considerations (TTAB) [not a reporter citation; included for context only])
In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (entireties approach to marks containing words and designs)
In re White Rock Distilleries, Inc., 2009 WL 4081675 (TTAB 2009) (contrast on design elements in standard-character comparisons)