Odom’s Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. (“Odom’s”) appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial аnd Appeal Board granting summary judgment in favor of FF Acquisition, L.L.C. (“FF”) and dismissing Odom’s opposition to a trademark application filed by FF.
Odom’s Tenn. Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF Acguisition, L.L.C.,
Opposition No. 91/182,173,
BACKGROUND
Odom’s produces food items, such as sausages and breakfast sandwiches, distributed primarily through retail grocery stores. Over the past forty years it has obtained a number of trademark registrations depicting farm boys to designate its products. * The farm boys in the various marks resemble the examples below.
FF does business as Farm Fresh Supermarket and operates grocery stores. In 1983, FF registered a design of the head and shoulders of a farm boy with a piece of straw in his mouth to designate its supermarket services. See U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,222,958 (Jan. 4, 1983). It altered the design in a 2003 renewal of the registration, but the mark still depicted the upper portion of a farm boy with a piece of straw in his mouth. In 2007, FF filed an application for a new mark for use in its retail grocery store services. See U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 77/148,503 (Apr. 4, 2007). The new mark uses the head and shoulders of the farm boy depicted in the existing mark and added the remainder of the boy’s body, as reproduced here.
[[Image here]]
Odom’s opposed FF’s new mark on the ground that it resembles the marks registered and used by Odom’s and would therefore be likely to cause prospective consumers to be confused, mistaken, оr deceived within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) (2006). FF moved for summary judgment, arguing that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The board found that FF’s applied-for mark was so dissimilar to Odom’s pleaded marks that no likelihood of confusion could exist as a matter of law. The board therefore granted summary judgment in favor of FF and dismissed Odom’s opposition. Odom’s appeals. We have jurisdiction рursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant has established that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact аnd that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc.,
As an initial matter, Odom’s argues that thе board’s analysis inappropriately considered only its registered marks and failed to consider uses of its marks that
While it is correct that a mark need not be registerеd in order to grant its owner trademark protection, Odom’s did not plead before the board that FF’s applied-for mark was confusingly similar tо unregistered marks owned by Odom’s. Instead, its notice of opposition discussed only registered marks. The board was therefore not required tо consider any unregistered marks in its analysis. Odom’s argues that it relied on the mascot in its response in opposition to FF’s motion for summary judgment and that the board should have deemed the pleadings amended by consent of the parties. The board’s procedures allow it to dеem the pleadings to have been amended to include unpled issues under certain circumstances, but the language is permissive and dоes not require the board to do so. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedures § 528.07(b) (“[T]he Board may deem the pleadings to have been amended, by agreement of the parties, to allegе the matter.” (emphasis added)).
Sufficient distinctions exist between the registered marks considered by the board and the applied-for mark tо create a different commercial impression. The marks differ in the size and shape of the boys’ hands and feet, the shape and style of then- hats, and the fact that FF’s boy has a piece of straw in his mouth and shoes on his feet while Odom’s has neither. Odom’s complains that the bоard inappropriately dissected the marks into these components in performing its analysis, but it is these individual aspects that collеctively create a difference in the overall impressions made by the marks.
In re Nat’I Data Corp.,
Odom’s also argues that the board errеd in basing its decision on the dissimilarity of the marks alone and not giving appropriate consideration to the other factors constituting thе test for likelihood of confusion set forth in
In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.,
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the decision of the board is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Notes
In its Notice of Opposition, Odom’s relied on еleven trademark registrations, U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 885,136 (Jan. 27, 1970); 887, 577 (Mar. 10, 1970); 1,859,824 (Oct. 25, 1994); 1,861,064 (Nov. 1, 1994);
The
DuPont
factors are: (1) the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression; (2) the similarity or dissimilarity аnd nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use; (3) the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels; (4) the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made; (5) the famе of the prior mark; (6) the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods; (7) the nature and extent of any actual confusion; (8) the length of time during аnd conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion; (9) the variety of goods on which a mark is or is not