Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2000

No. 75270695 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2000)

Paper No. 10
ejs
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE
AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MARCH 1, 00
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/270,695
_______
Ben C. Fetherston, Jr. for Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc.
Darlene D. Bullock, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 101 (Jerry Price, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Seeherman, Chapman and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc. has appealed the refusal
of the Trademark Examining Attorney to register STAHLBUSH
ISLAND FARMS, INC. and design, as shown below, for
“agricultural products, namely, frozen fruit and vegetables
Ser. No. 75/270,695
2
and cooked fruit and vegetable purees.”1 The word INC. has
been disclaimed.
Registration has been refused pursuant to Section 2(d)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d), on the ground that
applicant’s mark so resembles the mark ISLAND FARM (FARM
disclaimed), shown below, and registered for canned
asparagus and peas that, if applicant’s mark were to be
used on its identified goods, it would be likely to cause
confusion or mistake or to deceive.
Both applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed
briefs; an oral hearing was not requested.
We reverse the refusal of registration.
Our determination is based on an analysis of all of
the probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the

1 Application Serial No. 75/270,695, filed April 8, 1997, based
on an asserted bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser. No. 75/270,695
3
factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In any likelihood
of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the
similarities between the marks and the similarities between
the goods. Federated Food, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,
544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
Turning first to the goods, we find that applicant’s
frozen fruit and vegetables and cooked fruit and vegetable
purees are related to the canned peas and asparagus
identified in the cited registration. The frozen
vegetables and cooked vegetable purees identified in
applicant’s application may include peas and asparagus.
Consumers encountering these vegetables in frozen and
canned form might well think, if they were sold under the
same or a confusingly similar mark, that the same source
was processing the vegetables in both ways. Moreover,
there is nothing inherent in the preparation of cooked
vegetable purees that would prevent them from being sold in
canned form. Thus, we find that applicant’s goods are
related to the goods identified in the cited registration.
The marks, though, present sufficiently differently
commercial impressions such that, even when used with
related goods, there is no likelihood of confusion. We
disagree with the Examining Attorney’s assessment that
Ser. No. 75/270,695
4
ISLAND FARMS is the dominant portion of applicant’s mark.
Rather, we think consumers would view STAHLBUSH, which is
the first word of the mark, and is depicted separate from
and larger than the other wording, as the dominant part of
the mark. This word, as well as the significant stylized
design element, give applicant’s mark a very different
appearance from that of the cited mark. The marks are also
different in pronunciation, since the first word of
applicant’s mark is STAHLBUSH, a word not present in the
registered mark. Moreover, contrary to the Examining
Attorney’s position, applicant has not merely added the
term STAHLBUSH to the registrant’s mark. As stated above,
applicant’s mark also contains a significant design element
and, because of the total manner in which it is depicted,
the impression conveyed by applicant’s mark does not bring
to mind the cited mark, but conveys an entirely different
impression.
When compared in their entireties, we find that the
marks are different, and as a result we find that confusion
is not likely.
Decision: The refusal of registration is reversed.
E. J. Seeherman
Ser. No. 75/270,695
5
B. A. Chapman
H. R. Wendel
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board