American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, Inc.v.Child Health Research Institute

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2011

No. 91190710 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2011)

Mailed: August 30, 2011

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______

American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, Inc.
v.
Child Health Research Institute
_____

Opposition No. 91190361
to application Serial No. 77583016

Opposition No. 91190708
to application Serial No. 77636727

Opposition No. 91190710
to application Serial No. 77450517

Opposition No. 91190787
to application Serial No. 77513164

Opposition No. 91190795
to application Serial No. 77513483
_____

Virginia S. Taylor and Sabina A. Vayner of Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton LLP for American Lebanese Syrian
Associated Charities, Inc.

Alfred C. Frawley of Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP
for Child Health Research Institute.
______

Before Bucher, Cataldo and Bergsman,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

THIS OPINION IS A
PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
2
Child Health Research Institute (“applicant”) filed
applications for the “Cure Kids” marks shown below.1
1. Serial No. 77583016 for the mark CHILD HEALTH
RESEARCH INSTITUTE CURE KIDS and design, shown below, for
“charitable services, namely, medical and scientific
research in the field of children’s health,” in Class 42.
Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right to use the term
“Child Health Research Institute” and the word “Kids”;

2. Serial No. 77636727 for the mark CHILD HEALTH
RESEARCH INSTITUTE CURE KIDS TURNING HOPE INTO REALITY and
design, shown below, for “fund raising in support of funding
research into cures for childhood diseases,” in Class 36.
Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right to use the terms
“Cure Kids” and “Child Health Research Institute”;

1 As will be seen in the five applications, infra, there is no
discernable pattern to the disclaimer practice as to whether
applicant disclaims the exclusive right to use “Cure Kids” or
“Kids.” In Serial No. 77583016 and 77513483, the examining
attorney required applicant to disclaim the exclusive right to
use the word “Kids.” In Serial Nos. 77450517 and 77636727, the
examining attorney required applicant to disclaim the exclusive
right to use the term “Cure Kids.” In Serial No. 77513164, the
examining attorney required applicant to disclaim the exclusive
right use the term “Kids USA.”
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
3

3. Serial No. 77450517 for the mark CURE KIDS TURNING
RESEARCH INTO HOPE and design, shown below, for “medical and
scientific research in the field of pediatric diseases;
medical research,” in Class 42. Applicant disclaimed the
exclusive right to use the term “Cure Kids”;

4. Serial No. 77513164 for the mark Cure Kids USA, in
standard character form, for “charitable fundraising in
support of funding research on childhood diseases,” in Class
36. Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right to use the
term “Kids USA”; and
5. Serial No. 77513483 for the mark Cure Kids, in
standard character form, for “charitable fundraising in
support of funding research on childhood diseases,” in Class
36. Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right to use the
word “Kids.”
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
4
American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, Inc.
(“opposer”) opposed the registration of applicant’s marks on
the ground of priority and likelihood of confusion under
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1025(d). Opposer alleged ownership
of the two registered marks, shown below, both for
“charitable fund raising in the field of children’s
healthcare,” in Class 36, and “providing medical information
concerning the treatment of children’s cancer and other
diseases to educate doctors and other health care
providers,” in Class 44.
1. Registration No. 3329145 for the mark CURE4KIDS
and design, show below.2

2. Registration No. 3706636 for the mark CURE4KIDS,
in standard character form.3
Opposer specifically alleged that applicant’s CURE KIDS
marks for fund raising for medical research in the field of
childhood diseases and medical research in the field of
pediatric diseases so resemble opposer’s CURE4KIDS marks for

2 Issued November 6, 2007.
3 Issued November 3, 2009.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
5
charitable fund raising and educational services in the
field of childhood diseases as to be likely to cause
confusion.
Applicant denied the salient allegations in the notices
of opposition.
Evidentiary Issues
In its notice of reliance, applicant submitted “[t]rue
and correct copies of historical archive of cure4kids.org
website” (Exhibit H) and copies of four third-party
registrations. Opposer objected to the introduction by
applicant of pages from opposer’s own website and the third-
party registrations on the grounds that applicant failed “to
provide any explanation as to the ‘relevance of the material
being offered’ … nor does [applicant] specify the website
from which materials in Exhibit H were obtained or the
source of the documents contained in Exhibit I.”4
The pages from opposer’s website introduced by
applicant through the notice of reliance include the URL and
the date the pages were printed. “If a document obtained
from the Internet identifies its date of publication or date
that it was accessed and printed, and its source (e.g., the
URL), it may be admitted into evidence pursuant to a notice
of reliance in the same manner as a printed publication in
general circulation in accordance with Trademark Rule

4 Opposer’s Brief, p. 9.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
6
2.122(e).” Safer Inc. v. OMS Investments Inc., 94 USPQ2d
1031, 1039 (TTAB 2010) (Emphasis in the original). However,
the Board also noted in the Safer decision that because it
was liberalizing the practice under Rule 2.122(e) to permit
the introduction of material from the Internet, the Board
was also requiring that the proffering party indicate the
relevance of the material being offered (e.g., that merely
indicating that the material was relevant to the issue of
likelihood of confusion was not acceptable, but the specific
du Pont factor should be indicated). Id. Applicant did not
indicate even generally the relevance of opposer’s archival
website and it is not clear on its face why applicant
proffered into evidence pages from opposer’s website,
especially because opposer had previously introduced a copy
of its website during its testimony period. Thus, applicant
failed to meet the requirements for submitting the website
through a notice of reliance and, therefore, opposer’s
objection is sustained. We will give no consideration to
the archival website submitted by applicant.
Nevertheless, as noted above, opposer introduced a copy
of its website as Exhibit 5 of the Dr. Yuri Quintana
deposition. In this regard, once a document is admitted
into evidence, it may be relied on by an adverse party and
considered by the Board for any relevant purpose. Anheuser-
Busch, Inc. v. Major Mud & Chemical Co., Inc., 221 USPQ
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
7
1191, 1192 n.7 (TTAB 1984). Accordingly, applicant may rely
on the copy of the website introduced into evidence by
opposer.
With respect to the third-party registrations, as is
generally the case in Board proceedings, applicant
introduced the third-party registrations to challenge the
strength of opposer’s marks. In this regard, we note that,
without waiving the objection, opposer addressed the
probative value of the third-party registrations, thus
indicating that opposer knew the purpose for which they were
submitted. With respect to the source of the registrations,
they are photocopies of certificates of registrations issued
by the Office. In view of the foregoing, opposer’s
objection is overruled and we consider the third-party
registrations for whatever probative value they may have.
The Record
By rule, the record includes applicant’s application
files and the pleadings. Trademark Rule 2.122(b),
37 CFR §2.122(b).
A. Opposer’s testimony and evidence.
1. Notice of reliance on the following items;
a. Certified copies of opposer’s pleaded
registrations prepared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office showing the current status of and title to the
registrations;
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
8
b. The discovery deposition of Neil J. Campbell,
the Chairman of the Board of Directors of applicant, with
attached exhibits;
c. Applicant’s responses to opposer’s first and
second set of interrogatories;
d. Applicant’s responses to opposer’s requests
for admission; and
e. A copy of applicant’s website as of July 16,
2010, the date that appears on the pages as they were
printed.
2. The testimony deposition of Dr. Yuri Quintana,
opposer’s Director of Education and Informatics in the
International Outreach Program, with attached exhibits; and
3. The testimony deposition of Brenda Abshure,
opposer’s Senior Vice President of Gift Planning, with
attached exhibits.
B. Applicant’s evidence.
Applicant filed a notice of reliance on the following
items:5

5 Applicant referenced in its notice of reliance the testimony
and evidence submitted by opposer’s notice of reliance. As
indicated above, when evidence is made of record by one party it
may be referred to by any other party for any purpose permitted
by the Rules of Evidence. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Major Mud &
Chemical Co., Inc., 221 USPQ at 1192 n.7. Therefore, it was not
necessary for applicant to state its reliance on opposer’s
evidence in applicant’s own notice of reliance.

Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
9
1. Copies of three third-party registrations for CURE
KIDS CANCER owned by the same entity and one third-party
registration for COACHES CURING KIDS CANCER; and
2. Opposer’s responses to applicant’s
interrogatories.
Standing and Priority
Because opposer has properly made its pleaded
registrations of record, opposer has established its
standing, Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943,
55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Lipton Industries,
Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189
(CCPA 1982), and Section 2(d) priority is not an issue in
this case as to the marks and the services covered by the
registrations. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen,
Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974).
Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an
analysis of all of the probative facts in evidence that are
relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of likelihood
of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973); see also,
In re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311,
65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
10
A. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the
services as described in the applications and
registrations.

When determining whether services are related, we must
consider the services as they are identified in the
respective descriptions of services. Paula Payne Products
v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76, 77
(CCPA 1973) (“Trademark cases involving the issue of
likelihood of confusion must be decided on the basis of the
respective descriptions of goods” or services). See also
Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computers Services Inc.,
918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The
authority is legion that the question of registrability of
an applicant’s mark must be decided on the basis of the
identification of goods set forth in the application
regardless of what the record may reveal as to the
particular nature of an applicant’s goods, the particular
channels of trade or the class of purchasers to which the
sales of goods are directed”).
A comparison of the services is illustrated in the
table below.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
11

Opposer Applicant

Charitable fund raising in
the field of children’s
healthcare
CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH
INSTITUTE CURE KIDS and
design (Serial No. 77583016)
charitable services, namely,
medical and scientific
research in the field of
children’s health

CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH
INSTITUTE CURE KIDS TURNING
HOPE INTO REALITY and design
(Serial No. 77636727) fund
raising in support of funding
research into cures for
childhood diseases

Cure Kids USA (Serial No.
77513164) and Cure Kids
(Serial No. 77513483)
charitable fundraising in
support of funding research
on childhood diseases

Providing medical information
concerning the treatment of
children’s cancer and other
diseases to educate doctors
and other health care
providers
CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH
INSTITUTE CURE KIDS and
design (Serial No. 77583016)
charitable services, namely,
medical and scientific
research in the field of
children’s health

CURE KIDS TURNING RESEARCH
INTO HOPE and design (Serial
No. 77450517) medical and
scientific research in the
field of pediatric diseases;
medical research

Applicant’s fund raising in support of funding research
into cures for childhood diseases and charitable fundraising
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
12
in support of funding research on childhood diseases are
legally identical to opposer’s charitable fund raising in
the field of children’s healthcare.
With respect to applicant’s “charitable services,
namely, medical and scientific research in the field of
children’s health,” applicant prefaced the research services
as falling within the ambit of charitable services. The
qualifying term “charitable services” is broad, and it
encompasses both charitable fundraising to support research
and the distribution of collected funds to support research.
Accordingly, we have construed applicant’s services as
including fundraising for medical research in the field of
children’s health. In view of the foregoing, we find that
applicant’s charitable services, namely, medical and
scientific research in the field of children’s health, is
related to opposer’s charitable fundraising in the field of
children’s healthcare.
Also, we find that applicant’s charitable services,
namely, medical and scientific research in the field of
children’s health and medical and scientific research in the
field of pediatric diseases are related to opposer’s
services of providing medical information concerning the
treatment of children’s cancer and other diseases to educate
doctors and other health care providers. One purpose of
medical research is to provide information for treating
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
13
diseases. In its “Case for Support of Mission” document (FY
2009), applicant identifies its mission, inter alia, as
finding cures for pediatric diseases and “to accelerate
development and commercialization of strongly needed
products. … Ultimately, new therapies and diagnostics that
allow children to live longer and healthier lives are the
key deliverables.”6 Also, medical researchers may need
access to medical information and, therefore, applicant’s
researchers may access sources of medical information such
as those provided by opposer. In this regard, through its
CURE4KIDS services, opposer “brings online collaboration
tools to health care providers worldwide and provides them
with medical knowledge on pediatric catastrophic diseases,
with a focus on cancer. The Cure4Kids Web site
(www.cure4Kids.org) offers a digital research library.”7
Thus, opposer’s services of providing medical information
may be rendered in connection with medical research. In
addition, opposer’s CURE4KIDS website offers educational
content8 and it also offers an open “virtual community”
where health professionals can “share innovations that will

6 Campbell Dep., Exhibit 6, Bates Nos. 0026 and 0028.
7 Quintana Dep., Exhibit 2, Bates No. ALSAC000055. See also
Exhibit 3, Bates No. ALSAC000024 (“Cure4Kids … has become … a
research library”).
8 Id. at Bates No. ALSAC000056.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
14
inspire new applications of tools and methodologies and
catalyze new collaborations among members.”9 Thus,
opposer’s services for providing medical information may be
used as a tool for sharing medical research innovations.
Accordingly, consumers are likely to assume that medical
research services and providing medical information when
rendered under similar marks are likely to emanate from a
single source.
B. The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-
to-continue trade channels and classes of consumers.

Because applicant’s fund raising services in support of
funding research into cures for childhood diseases and
charitable fundraising in support of funding research on
childhood diseases are legally identical to opposer’s
charitable fund raising in the field of children’s
healthcare, the marketing channels of trade and targeted
classes of consumers and donors are the same. See Genesco
Inc. v. Martz, 66 USPQ2d 1260, 1268 (TTAB 2003) (“Given the
in-part identical and in-part related nature of the parties’
goods, and the lack of any restrictions in the
identifications thereof as to trade channels and purchasers,
these clothing items could be offered and sold to the same
classes of purchasers through the same channels of trade”);
In re Smith and Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531, 1532 (TTAB 1994)
(“Because the goods are legally identical, they must be

9 Id. at Bates No. ALSAC000060.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
15
presumed to travel in the same channels of trade, and be
sold to the same class of purchasers”).
As indicated above, applicant’s charitable fundraising
services, namely, supporting research on childhood diseases
and cures therefor, and opposer’s charitable fund raising in
the field of children’s healthcare are both charitable
fundraising services in the field of children’s healthcare.
Because there are no limitations in the description of
services in opposer’s registration or applicant’s
application, it is presumed that the charitable fundraising
services of both parties move in all marketing channels
normal for those services, and that they are available to
all classes of purchasers and donors. See Jansen
Enterprises Inc. v. Rind, 85 USPQ2d 1104, 1108 (TTAB 2007);
Toys R Us v. Lamps R Us, 219 USPQ 340, 343 (TTAB 1983).
Finally, we find that the channels of trade and classes
of consumers overlap with respect to opposer’s services of
providing medical information concerning the treatment of
children’s cancer and other diseases to educate doctors and
other health care providers and applicant’s charitable
services, namely, medical and scientific research in the
field of children’s health and medical and scientific
research in the field of pediatric diseases. As noted in
the previous section, opposer’s CURE4KIDS website offers a
digital research library which may be used for medical
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
16
research. Furthermore, opposer’s CURE4KIDS website offers a
forum where health professionals can share innovations.
C. The strength of opposer’s marks.
Applicant argues that opposer’s marks are not
inherently distinctive because they are comprised of common
words (i.e., “cure” and “kids”). Because applicant did not
file counterclaims to cancel opposer’s pleaded
registrations, we do not construe applicant’s argument as an
attack on the validity of the registrations; rather,
applicant’s argument is simply the contention that opposer’s
marks are weak and, therefore, entitled to only a narrow
scope of protection or exclusivity of use. Trademark Rule
2.106(b)(2)(ii) (“An attack on the validity of a
registration pleaded by an opposer will not be heard unless
a counterclaim or separate petition is filed to seek
cancellation of such registration”).
In determining the strength of a mark, we consider both
its inherent strength based on the nature of the mark itself
and its commercial strength, based on the marketplace
recognition value of the mark. See Tea Board of India v.
Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1899 (TTAB 2006);
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11:83 (4th
ed. 2011) (“The first enquiry focuses on the inherent
potential of the term at the time of its first use. The
second evaluates the actual customer recognition value of
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
17
the mark at the time registration is sought or at the time
the mark is asserted in litigation to prevent another’s
use.”)
1. The inherent strength of opposer’s marks.
Applicant has submitted four third-party registrations
owned by two entities that use variations of the words
“Cure” and “Kids” in connection with health care and
fundraising. The third-party registrations are listed
below.
a. Children’s Miracle Network owns three
registrations for the mark CURE KIDS CANCER and design shown
below.

1. Registration No. 3691050 for “radio and
television broadcasting in the field of children and
children’s issues,” in Class 38.10 Registrant disclaimed
the exclusive right to use the word “Kids.”
2. Registration No. 3618210 for “providing
health care information,” in Class 44.11 Registrant
disclaimed the exclusive right to use the term “Cure Kids
Cancer.”

10 Issued October 6, 2009.
11 Issued May 12, 2009.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
18
3. Registration No. 3168209 for “radio and
television programming and production of radio and
television programs in the field of children and children’s
issues,” in Class 41.12 Registrant disclaimed the exclusive
right to use the term “Cure Kids Cancer.”
b. Curing Kids’ Cancer Inc. owns Registration No.
3201854 for the mark COACHES CURING KIDS’ CANCER, in
standard character form, for “fundraising services, namely
fundraising for childhood cancer research,” in Class 36.13
While not evidence of use, the third-party
registrations may be used in the manner of a dictionary to
show that a mark or a portion of a mark is descriptive or
suggestive of the oposer’s services. Tektronix, Inc. v.
Daktronics, Inc., 187 USPQ 588, 592 (TTAB 1975) (the third-
party registrations may be considered in the same manner as
a dictionary to show a possible meaning or significance in
a particular trade). These registrations corroborate the
common sense conclusion that the term “Cure4Kids” when used
in connection with “medical and scientific research in the
field of children’s health” and “fund raising in support of
funding research into cures for childhood diseases” is
highly suggestive, if not descriptive, because it describes
the purpose of the fund raising and medical research (i.e.,

12 Issued May 12, 2009.
13 Issued January 23, 2007.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
19
to cure children). However, because opposer’s marks have
been registered and they are not subject to a counterclaim
for cancellation, the registrations are entitled to the
presumptions accorded by Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) (i.e., prima facie evidence of the
validity of the registered mark and of the registration of
the mark, of the ownership of the mark, and of the owner’s
exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or
in connection with the goods or services specified in the
registration). Thus, opposer’s marks cannot be treated as
merely descriptive; at worst the wording in opposer’s marks
must be viewed as highly suggestive. Further, even if we
agreed that opposer’s marks were inherently weak marks, that
would not be fatal to finding likelihood of confusion
because even weak marks are entitled to protection against
confusion. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc.,
496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (CCPA 1974).
b. The commercial strength of opposer’s marks.
With respect to the commercial or market strength of
opposer’s CURE4KIDS marks, the evidence shows that opposer
has raised substantial amounts of money for medical research
from donors and through special events for medical research.
Furthermore, opposer’s educational outreach programs have
provided services to many medical professionals, parents and
patients. However, opposer’s CURE4KIDS marks are generally
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
20
used in connection with ST. JUDE’S CHILDREN’S RESEARCH
HOSPITAL. See, e.g., opposer’s website shown below.14

See also Quintana Exhibit 6, opposer’s CD-ROM “developed to
help promote awareness of [opposer’s] program.”15 The title
is displayed in the following manner:
International Outreach
St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital

The St. Jude’s logo is prominently displayed on the left-
hand side of the disc and CURE4KIDS appears at the bottom as
follows:
Finding cures. Saving …
www.stjude.org/inte …
www.Cure4Kids
Thus, it is not clear to what extent consumers have had an
opportunity to disassociate CURE4KIDS from ST. JUDE’S
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL. While consumers have been frequently
exposed to the CURE4KIDS mark, it has not been as a stand
alone mark. In this regard, opposer failed to introduce any

14 Quintana Dep., Exhibit 5.
15 Quintana Dep., p. 61. The CD-ROM cannot be legibly reproduced.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
21
independent media articles referencing and/or highlighting
the renown of opposer’s CURE4KIDS marks. Cf. Bose Corp. v.
QSC Audio Products Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1308
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“those who claim fame for product marks
that are used in tandem with a famous house mark can
properly be put to tests to assure their entitlement to the
benefits of fame for the product marks”). On the record
before us, the evidence does not support finding that
opposer’s CURE4KIDS marks are commercially strong marks.
On the other hand, as part of its defense, applicant
argued that opposer’s marks are weak marks. However,
applicant has not demonstrated that opposer’s marks are
commercially weak. The third-party registrations introduced
by applicant are not evidence that those marks have been
used at all, let alone used so extensively that consumers
have become sufficiently conditioned by their usage that
they can distinguish between such marks on the bases of
minute differences. The probative value of third-party
trademarks depends entirely upon their usage. E.g., Scarves
by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports, Ltd., 544 F.2d 1167, 192 USPQ
289, 294 (2d Cir. 1976) (“The significance of third-party
trademarks depends wholly upon their usage. Defendant
introduced no evidence that these trademarks were actually
used by third parties, that they were well promoted or that
they were recognized by consumers.”). As the Court pointed
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
22
out in Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d
324, 153 USPQ 406, 407 (C.C.P.A. 1967), “the existence of
these registrations is not evidence of what happens in the
market place or that customers are familiar with their use.”
Where, as here, the “record includes no evidence about the
extent of [third-party] uses … [t]he probative value of this
evidence is thus minimal.” See also Olde Tyme Foods Inc. v.
Roundy’s Inc., 961 F.2d 200, 22 USPQ2d 1542, 1545 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (“As to strength of a mark, however, registration
evidence may not be given any weight”).
In view of the foregoing, we find on this record that
the term CURE4KIDS is highly suggestive but that the
evidence regarding the commercial strength of that term is
neutral.
D. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their
entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression.

We now turn to the du Pont likelihood of confusion
factor focusing on the similarity or dissimilarity of the
marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. du Pont
De Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ at 567. In a particular case,
any one of these means of comparison may be critical in
finding the marks to be similar. In re White Swan Ltd.,
8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co.,
6 USPQ2d 1041, 1042 (TTAB 1988).
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
23
In determining the similarity of the marks, we are
mindful that the marks are to be compared in their
entireties. However, “there is nothing improper in stating
that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been
given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the
ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in
their entireties. … That a particular feature is descriptive
or generic with respect to the involved goods or services is
one commonly accepted rationale for giving less weight to a
portion of a mark.” In re National Data Corporation, 753
F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also
Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ
693, 694 (CCPA 1976) (“the mere presence of a common, highly
suggestive portion [of a mark] is usually insufficient to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion”); Knight
Textile Corp. v. Jones Investment Co., 75 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-
17 (TTAB 2005) (even though there are no discernible
differences between “essentials” portions of parties'
respective marks [NORTON McNAUGHTON ESSENTIALS vs.
ESSENTIALS], since the word “essentials” is highly
suggestive, consumers will be able to distinguish the marks
by looking at other elements of the marks); Alpha
Industries, Inc. v. Alpha Microsystems, 227 USPQ 67, 71
(TTAB 1983) (“Since the testimony and other evidence
establishes to our satisfaction that the term “micro” has
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
24
descriptive or highly suggestive significance in the
computer field, this part of applicant's mark is entitled to
less significance since potential purchasers are likely to
look to the remainder of the mark for origin-indicating
significance”).
1. Cure Kids USA (Serial No. 77513164) and Cure Kids
(Serial No. 77513483) v. CURE4KIDS, in standard
character form.

Applicant’s marks Cure Kids USA and Cure Kids are
similar to opposer’s mark CURE4KIDS, in standard character
form, because they look alike and sound alike. Furthermore,
they have the same meaning and engender the same commercial
impression (i.e., to cure children).
2. Cure Kids USA (Serial No. 77513164) and Cure Kids
(Serial No. 77513483) v. CURE4KIDS and design.

Applicant’s marks Cure Kids USA and Cure Kids are
similar to opposer’s mark CURE4KIDS and design mark to the
extent that they share the words “Cure” and “Kids.”
Accordingly, the marks are similar in terms of appearance,
sound, meaning and commercial impression. Unlike
applicant’s compound marks discussed below, there is nothing
in applicant’s standard character marks to distinguish them
from opposer’s compound mark. While we acknowledge that
opposer’s mark has a design element, it is the term
CURE4KIDS that is the dominant element of opposer’s compound
mark, both because of its visual prominence and because it
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
25
would be used to reference the services of opposer by those
who would speak of them. Accordingly, we find that
applicant’s standard character marks Cure Kids USA and Cure
Kids are similar to opposer’s compound mark.
3. CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE CURE KIDS and
design (Serial No. 77583016), CHILD HEALTH
RESEARCH INSTITUTE CURE KIDS TURNING HOPE INTO
REALITY and design (Serial No. 77636727) and CURE
KIDS TURNING RESEARCH INTO HOPE and design (Serial
No. 77450517) vs. opposer’s CURE4KIDS and
CURE4KIDS and design marks.

As stated in the preceding sections, applicant’s marks
are similar to opposer’s marks because they share the words
“Cure” and “Kids.” On the other hand, the marks are
different because applicant’s marks include other source
identifying words and designs. The similar terms “Cure
Kids” and “CURE4KIDS” are highly suggestive and, therefore,
contribute relatively less to the marks’ commercial
impression. When encountering the marks of the parties, the
relevant public will recognize these suggestive terms for
what they are, the purpose of the fund raising and medical
research. The design elements of applicant’s compound
marks, as well as the additional wording in applicant’s
marks, are sufficient to distinguish applicant’s marks from
both of opposer’s marks. The relevant public is not likely
to assume a relationship between the parties or services
because of the use of these highly suggestive terms in their
respective marks. The additional matter, both words and
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
26
designs, in applicant’s marks distinguish them from
opposer’s marks when they are viewed in their entireties.
Thus, when considering the totality of the marks and the
nature of the terms CURE KIDS and CURE4KIDS in connection
with their respective services, we find that applicant’s
marks (1) CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE CURE KIDS and
design, (2) CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE CURE KIDS
TURNING HOPE INTO REALITY and design, and (3) CURE KIDS
TURNING RESEARCH INTO HOPE and design, are not similar to
opposer’s CURE4KIDS marks.
E. Balancing the factors.
1. Opposition Nos. 91190787 and 91190795

With respect to applicant’s marks Cure Kids USA (Serial
No. 77513164) and Cure Kids (Serial No. 77513483), because
those marks are similar to opposer’s CURE4KIDS mark, in
standard character form (Registration No. 3706636), the
services are in part identical, and the presumption that the
channels of trade and classes of consumers are the same, we
find that applicant’s marks Cure Kids USA and Cure Kids for
“charitable fundraising in support of funding research on
childhood diseases,” so resemble CURE4KIDS and CURE4KIDS and
design both for “charitable fund raising in the field of
children’s healthcare” and “providing medical information
concerning the treatment of children’s cancer and other
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
27
diseases to educate doctors and other health care providers”
as to be likely to cause confusion.
2. Opposition Nos. 91190361, 91190708 and 91190710

Despite the similarity of the services, channels of
trade and classes of consumers, we find that the
dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties outweighs
these other factors. The highly suggestive terms CURE KIDS
and CURE4KIDS in the respective marks of the parties are not
a sufficient basis upon which to find that there is a
likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, we find that
applicant’s marks CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE CURE KIDS
and design for “charitable services, namely, medical and
scientific research in the field of children’s health”
(Serial No. 77583016), CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE CURE
KIDS TURNING HOPE INTO REALITY and design for “fund raising
in support of funding research into cures for childhood
diseases” (Serial No. 77636727), and CURE KIDS TURNING
RESEARCH INTO HOPE and design for “medical and scientific
research in the field of pediatric diseases; medical
research” (Serial No. 77450517) are not likely to cause
confusion with opposer’s CURE4KIDS marks.
Decision:
Opposition No. 91190787 is sustained and application
Serial No. 77513164 is refused registration.
Opposition No. 91190361, et. al.
28
Opposition No. 91190795 is sustained and application
Serial No. 77513483 is refused registration.
Opposition No. 91190361 is dismissed and a notice of
allowance for application Serial No. 77583016 will issue in
due course.
Opposition No. 91190708 is dismissed and application
Serial No. 77636727 will register in due course.
Opposition No. 91190710 is dismissed and application
Serial No. 774505517 will register in due course.