Cross Country Paper Products, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2001

No. 75508058re (T.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2001)

1/31/01
Paper No. 13
JQ
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Cross Country Paper Products, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/508,058
_______
Request for Reconsideration
________
Myron Amer for applicant.
Tarah K. Hardy, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
110 (Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Quinn, Bucher and Bottorff, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Board, on December 12, 2000, affirmed the refusal
to register under Section 2(d). Applicant, on December 28,
2000, filed a request for reconsideration.
The request is not persuasive. Insofar as
registrant’s identification of goods is concerned, it is
well settled that the issue of likelihood of confusion must
be determined on the basis of the goods as they are set
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
forth in the involved application and cited registration.
Thus, where the goods in the cited registration are broadly
described as to their nature and type, it is presumed that
the registration encompasses not only all goods of the
nature and type described therein, but that the identified
goods move in all channels of trade which would be normal
for such goods and that they would be purchased by all
potential buyers thereof. See, e.g., In re Elbaum, 211
USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981). In this connection, there was
no error in finding that registrant’s surgical instruments,
as broadly identified, encompass such goods to be used in
the dental field by oral surgeons.
With respect to the sophistication of purchasers, we
stand by our assessment that this would not ensure against
confusion given the closeness between the marks involved
here.
In finding confusion between applicant’s mark EXCEL
and the registrant’s marks EXCEL and EXCEL DR, we
acknowledged that these marks are laudatorily suggestive.
We again would make the point, however, that the marks
convey the same meaning, namely, that the goods sold
thereunder are superior in quality.
Finally, applicant’s criticism of the Board’s reliance
on the third-party registrations submitted by the Examining
Attorney is not entirely understood. This evidence does
not bear on the factor of the similarity between the marks,
but rather on the similarity between the goods. And, as we
indicated in our decision, the registrations have probative
value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the
goods listed therein, including medical gloves and surgical
instruments, are of a kind which may emanate from a single
source.
The request for reconsideration is denied, and the
decision dated December 12, 2000 stands.