Eddy Packing Co., Inc.v.HEB Grocery Company

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2010

No. 92041545 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2010)

Hearing: Mailed:
January 20, 2010 April 15, 2010

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Eddy Packing Co., Inc.
v.
HEB Grocery Company
_____

Cancellation No. 92041545
_____

Ted D. Lee of Gunn, Lee & Cave, P.C. for Eddy Packing Co.,
Inc.

Kirt S. O’Neill of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP for
HEB Grocery Company.
_____

Before Bucher, Mermelstein and Bergsman,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

HEB Grocery Company (“respondent”) is the owner of
Registration No. 2633427 on the Supplemental Register for
the mark FULLY COOKED, in typed drawing form, for “prepared
entrees consisting primarily of meat,” in Class 29.
Eddy Packing Co., Inc. (“petitioner”) filed a petition
to cancel respondent’s registration on the ground that the
term FULLY COOKED when used in connection with “prepared
entrees consisting primarily of meat” is generic.
Petitioner also alleged that respondent committed fraud when
it filed its application to register FULLY COOKED, as well
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B.
Cancellation No. 92041545
2
as alleging priority of use and likelihood of confusion.1
Respondent denied the salient allegations in the petition
for cancellation.
Preliminary Issues
A. Improper designation of confidential information.
The stipulated protective order applicable in this
proceeding covers information that “may be considered
confidential, a trade secret, or commercially sensitive by a
party or witness.”2 The order provides for three levels of
protection:
1. Confidential;
2. Highly confidential; and
3. Trade secret/commercially sensitive.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) protects confidential, trade
secret, and commercially sensitive information by allowing a
party to limit the access to trade secret or other
confidential information or by permitting the information to
be revealed only in a designated way. The Advisory
Committee Notes to the 1970 Amendment explain that the Rule
does not provide complete immunity against disclosure;
rather, in each case, the need for privacy must be weighed

1 Because petitioner presented no arguments in support of its
priority of use and likelihood of confusion claim in its brief,
we deem petitioner to have waived it, and we have given it no
consideration. See Liberty & Co., Ltd. v. Liberty Trouser Co.,
Inc., 216 USPQ 65, 66, n.9 (TTAB 1982).
2 August 19, 2004 stipulated protective agreement between the
parties.
Cancellation No. 92041545
3
against the need for disclosure. Accordingly, information
that is confidential or that imparts private information may
require a different level of protection than information
that may be considered a trade secret or commercially
sensitive.3 In this regard, the parties were specifically
advised that only confidential and trade secret information
should be designated confidential.4
Nevertheless, during discovery and trial, respondent
improperly designated testimony and exhibits as
“confidential” or as “trade secret/commercially sensitive.”
For example, petitioner’s exhibit No. 61, respondent’s
responses and objections to petitioner’s second set of
interrogatories, included the following questions the
answers to which were designated by respondent as “trade
secret/commercially sensitive”:
Interrogatory No. 29: Please state
whether Registrant is aware of the sale,
distribution, or otherwise availability
of third party (sic) products with
labels, advertisements, packaging, or
promotional goods bearing the terms
(sic) FULLY COOKED in Registrant’s
stores.

Interrogatory No. 30: Please identify
each third party whose products are
sold, distributed, or otherwise made

3 A “trade secret” is defined as “a formula, process, device, or
other business information that is kept confidential to maintain
an advantage over competitors.” In essence, a “trade secret”
derives its value “from not being generally known or readily
ascertainable by others who can obtain economic value from its
disclosure or use.” Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).
4 The Board’s November 29, 2004 order.
Cancellation No. 92041545
4
available in any of Respondent’s stores
with labels, advertising, packaging, or
promotional goods with such products
bearing the terms (sic) FULLY COOKED.

Interrogatory No. 31: Please indicate
how long Registrant has been selling,
distributing, or otherwise making
available in any of Respondent’s stores
third party (sic) products with labels,
advertisements, packaging, or
promotional goods bearing the terms
(sic) FULLY COOKED.

Interrogatory No. 33:5 Please state
whether Registrant is aware of any third
parties using or having used the terms
(sic) FULLY COOKED in association with
any food products. If so, for each
usage (A) identify the third party; (B)
identify the product; (C) identify the
date of first use by the third party;
(D) identify the date Registrant first
became aware of such usage; (E) state
whether Registrant contends that such
usage causes a likelihood of confusion
with Registrant’s alleged FULLY COOKED
mark; (F) identify any action taken
against third party; (G) identify all
documents relating to or referring to
such usage, including but not limited to
letters sent to/from the third party.

We fail to see how interrogatory Nos. 29-31 and 33 involve
“confidential,” let alone “trade secret/commercially
sensitive,” information. These interrogatories simply
inquire as to whether respondent is aware of its sales of
third-party “fully cooked” products and, if so, identify the
third parties, the time period for which respondent sold the

5 Interrogatory No. 32 inquired about respondent’s sales of
third-party products with labels displaying the term FULLY
COOKED. While sales information may be designated as
confidential, we fail to see how it comprises a trade secret.
Cancellation No. 92041545
5
third-party “fully cooked” products, and whether respondent
believed that any of the third-party uses of “fully cooked”
products were likely to cause confusion.
Another example of overzealous designation occurred
during the discovery deposition of Dr. Molly McAdams, one of
respondent’s vice presidents. Respondent designated Dr.
McAdams’ testimony regarding the organizational structure of
respondent as “trade secret/commercially sensitive” and
required petitioner’s corporate representative to leave the
deposition. Even though respondent is not a publicly traded
corporation, we fail to see how the organizational structure
of the company is commercially sensitive. Respondent also
designated as “confidential” Dr. McAdams’ testimony
regarding protests respondent made regarding the use of the
term FULLY COOKED, including the protest letter to
petitioner. We fail to see how nonprivileged communications
to a party and to third parties rises to the level of
confidential matter.
Respondent’s over-designation of testimony and evidence
as confidential and commercially sensitive is a recipe for
disaster because it is not clear to us what is intended to
be truly confidential or a trade secret. Therefore, in
rendering our decision, we will not be bound by respondent’s
designations. Board proceedings are designed to be public
and the improper designation of materials as confidential
Cancellation No. 92041545
6
thwarts that intention. It is more difficult to make
findings of fact, apply the facts to the law, and write
decisions that make sense when the facts may not be
discussed. The Board needs to be able to discuss the
evidence of record, unless there is an overriding need for
confidentiality, so that the parties and reviewing court
will know the basis of the Board’s decision. Therefore, in
this opinion, we will treat only testimony and evidence that
is truly confidential and commercially sensitive as such.
B. Respondent’s motion to strike petitioner’s sixth notice
of reliance.

During its testimony period, respondent introduced
excerpts from the discovery deposition of Ronald Beeman,
petitioner’s President and Rule 30(b)(6) witness. During
rebuttal, petitioner introduced excerpts from that same
deposition pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.120(j) asserting
that the portions proffered by petitioner “should be in
fairness considered so as to make not misleading the
portions offered by Registrant.”
Respondent filed a motion to strike petitioner’s notice
of reliance on excerpts from Mr. Beeman’s discovery
deposition because petitioner’s notice of reliance “merely
parrots the language of Rule 2.120(j)(4) and makes the
vague, conclusory, and generalized assertion that all
portions of the deposition submitted by Registrant ‘may be
Cancellation No. 92041545
7
taken out of context.’”6 (Emphasis in the original). In
addition, respondent asserts that some of the testimony
petitioner proffered is unrelated to the testimony
introduced by respondent.
In opposition to respondent’s motion, petitioner
contends that its excerpts provide the background necessary
to review the testimony introduced by respondent.
Trademark Rule 2.120(j)(4) provides that if only part
of a deposition is introduced into evidence by the party
entitled to offer the deposition into evidence, the adverse
party may introduce any other part of the deposition which
should in fairness be considered so as to make not
misleading what was originally offered. In such a case, the
“notice of reliance filed by the adverse party must be
supported by a written statement explaining why the adverse
party needs to rely on each additional part listed in its
notice of reliance, failing which the Board may refuse to
consider the additional parts.” Trademark Rule 2.120(j)(4);
see also TBMP §704.09 (2nd ed. rev. 2004).
Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of
the rule because it did not explain why it needed to rely on
the additional excerpts of Mr. Beeman’s deposition.
Furthermore, having reviewed petitioner’s designated
excerpts, we fail to see how they clarify the excerpts

6 Respondent’s motion, p. 2.
Cancellation No. 92041545
8
introduced by respondent and how they are relevant to the
issues before us.
In view of the foregoing, respondent’s motion to strike
petitioner’s sixth notice of reliance is granted and we will
not give the excerpts of Mr. Beeman’s deposition designated
by petitioner any further consideration.
The Record
By operation of Trademark Rule 2.122, 37 CFR §2.122,
the record includes the pleadings and the registration file
of respondent’s mark.7 The record also includes the
following testimony and evidence:
A. Petitioner’s Evidence.

1. Testimony deposition of Dr. Barbara J. Masters,
DVM, an expert witness in the field of federal regulations
regarding meat and poultry, with attached exhibits.
2. Testimony deposition of Jason E. McKinnie, a law
clerk for petitioner’s counsel, with attached exhibits.
3. Testimony deposition of Ronald Beeman,
petitioner’s President, with attached exhibits.
4. A notice of reliance pursuant to Rule 2.122(e)
introducing state statutes and federal rules and regulations
purporting to show the generic use of the term FULLY COOKED.

7 Thus, it was unnecessary for petitioner to introduce the
registration file through a separate notice of reliance.
Cancellation No. 92041545
9
5. A notice of reliance pursuant to Rule
2.120(j)(3)(i) introducing respondent’s responses and
objections to petitioner’s written discovery.8
6. A notice of reliance pursuant to Rule 2.122(e)
introducing the following items:
a. The file history for respondent’s
Registration No. 2653225 for the mark FULLY
COOKED and design for “prepared entrees
consisting primarily of meat”;
b. Copies of third-party registrations and
applications with the term “fully-cooked”
used to modify food products in the
description of goods;
c. Copies of third-party registrations and
applications where the mark includes the term
“fully cooked” with a disclaimer of the
exclusive right to use the term “fully
cooked”;
d. Copies of three registrations owned by
respondent where the mark includes the term

8 Petitioner’s attempt to rely on responses to requests for the
production of documents is half-baked. Trademark Rule
2.120(j)(3)(ii) prohibits the introduction of documents obtained
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 through a notice of reliance alone,
except to the extent that they are admissible pursuant to Rule
2.122(e).
Cancellation No. 92041545
10
“fully cooked” with a disclaimer of the
exclusive right use that term;
e. A copy of an opposition file (91183597) in
which respondent filed a notice of opposition
against the registration of the mark FULLY
COOKED and design for “frozen, prepared or
packaged entrees consisting primarily of
meat, fish, poultry or vegetables”;
f. Copies of two patents that use the term
“fully cooked”;
g. Excerpts from various dictionaries, trade
periodicals and magazines that use the term
“fully cooked.”
7. A notice of reliance on respondent’s responses to
petitioner’s requests for admission pursuant to Rule
2.120(j)(3)(i) comprising photographs of third-party labels
for products displaying the term “fully cooked” sold in
respondent’s stores.
8. A notice of reliance on excerpts from the
discovery deposition of Dr. Molly McAdams, one of
respondent’s vice presidents and a designated Rule 30(b)(6)
witness, with attached exhibits.
B. Respondent’s testimony and evidence.
1. A notice of reliance on copies of the following
registrations owned by respondent prepared by the U.S.
Cancellation No. 92041545
11
Patent and Trademark Office showing the current title to and
status of the registrations listed below:9
a. Registration No. 2574425 for the composite
mark shown below, for “cooked ground beef
prepared with sloppy joe sauce.” Respondent
disclaimed the exclusive right to use “fully
cooked sloppy joes.”

b. Registration No. 2653225 for the composite
mark shown below for “prepared entrees
consisting primarily of meat.” Respondent
disclaimed the exclusive right to use “fully
cooked.”

c. Registration No. 2727628 for the mark H-E-B
FULLY COOKED SEASONED BEEF CRUMBLES, in typed
drawing form, for “cooked ground beef.”

9 Because Registration No. 2633427 for the mark FULLY COOKED is
automatically of record, it was not necessary for respondent to
introduce it into evidence.
Cancellation No. 92041545
12
Respondent disclaimed the exclusive right to
use “fully cooked seasoned beef crumbles.”
2. A notice of reliance on a copy of Registration No.
2285564 registered under the provisions of Section 2(f) of
the Trademark Act and owned by petitioner for the mark TASTY
BRAND for “processed meats, fresh sausage, and smoked
sausage” prepared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
showing the current title and status to the registration.
Petitioner disclaimed the exclusive right to use “brand.”
3. A notice of reliance pursuant to Trademark Rule
2.122(e) on a copy of the file history for Registration No.
2727628 for the mark H-E-B FULLY COOKED SEASONED CRUMBLES.
4. A notice of reliance on petitioner’s response to
respondent’s interrogatory No. 9.
5. A notice of reliance on excerpts from the
discovery deposition of Ronald Beeman, petitioner’s
President and a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, with attached
exhibits.
6. A notice of reliance pursuant to Rule 2.120(j)(5)
on documents respondent produced in response to
interrogatories that petitioner did not include in its
notices of reliance which respondent contends should in
fairness be considered so as to not make respondent’s
interrogatory answers misleading.
Cancellation No. 92041545
13
7. Testimony of Judith Quick, an expert witness on
federal food labeling requirements, with attached exhibits.
Standing
“The facts regarding standing . . . are part of a
petitioner’s case and must be affirmatively proved.
Accordingly, [petitioner] is not entitled to standing solely
because of the allegations in its petition.” Lipton
Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024,
213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982). To prove its standing to
cancel the registration of an allegedly generic term, a
plaintiff need only show it is engaged in the manufacture or
sale of the same or related goods as those listed in the
respondent’s registration; that is, that plaintiff has the
right to use the term in a descriptive or generic manner.
Nature’s Way v. Nature’s Herbs, 9 USPQ2d 2077, 2080 (TTAB
1989); Ferro Corp. v. SCM Corp., 219 USPQ 346, 352 (TTAB
1983); see also Binney & Smith Inc. v. Magic Marker
Industries, Inc., 222 USPQ 1003, 1010 (TTAB 1984). Inasmuch
as petitioner sells processed meats, such as smoked sausage,
smoked meats, smoked turkey, and barbecue and marinated
meats, and has been displaying the term “fully cooked” on
labels to describe some of its products since the 1970s,
petitioner has established its standing.10

10 Beeman Testimony Dep., p. 14.
Cancellation No. 92041545
14
Genericness
There is a two-part test used to determine whether a
designation is generic: (1) what is the genus of goods at
issue? and (2) does the relevant public understand the
designation primarily to refer to that genus of goods?
H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Assn. of Fire Chiefs, Inc.,
782 F.2d 987, 990, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
public’s perception is the primary consideration in
determining whether a term is generic. Loglan Inst. Inc. v.
Logical Language Group Inc., 902 F.2d 1038, 22 USPQ2d 1531,
1533 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Evidence of the public’s
understanding of a term may be obtained from any competent
source, including testimony, surveys, dictionaries, trade
journals, newspapers and other publications. Loglan Inst.
22 USPQ2d at 1533; Dan Robbins & Associates, Inc. v. Questor
Corp., 599 F.2d 1009, 202 USPQ 100, 105 (CCPA 1979).
A. The genus of goods at issue.
The broad general category of goods involved here is
food; specifically, prepared foods. While the goods
identified in the subject application are “prepared entrees
consisting primarily of meat,” the evidence of record shows
that the term “fully cooked” has been used to describe a
wide variety of prepared food products, including meat,
poultry, vegetables, fish, pasta and rice.11 In fact, Dr.

11 See e.g., Quick Dep., pp. 82-87; Masters’ Dep., pp. 187-191.
Cancellation No. 92041545
15
McAdams, one of respondent’s vice presidents, testified that
respondent’s products that display the term “fully cooked”
are not exclusively meat products.12
A. Our HEB FULLY COOKED products are
primarily cooked meat products but
not exclusively.

* * *

Q. Are they fully-cooked-type
products?

A. As I said, under the HEB FULLY
COOKED brand, we sell fully cooked
meats, which would be fully-cooked-
type products. But we also sell
other products under that brand, so
it’s not exclusively.

Q. Okay. Going to switch subjects.
What other type products do you
have that you label as fully cooked
that is (sic) not a fully-cooked-
type product?

A. One of the other products that you
looked at was - - we have HEB FULLY
COOKED sausage, egg, and cheese
biscuits that include bread, eggs,
meat.13

Also, we note respondent’s objection to written
discovery requests regarding its use of the term “fully
cooked” on the ground that they were unduly burdensome.
Respondent explained that it “has used the FULLY COOKED mark
on a wide variety of goods and cannot, without undue burden,

12 McAdams Dep., p. 147.
13 McAdams Dep., p. 147.
Cancellation No. 92041545
16
determine each and every type or article of merchandise on
which the mark has ever been used.”14
With respect to our finding that the genus of the goods
at issue is prepared foods, respondent contends that the
genus of the goods falls within the narrower category of
“prepared entrees consisting primarily of meat” as set forth
in its description of goods. However, the identification of
goods in the registration does not necessarily dictate the
genus of the goods in the genericness analysis. The
description of goods in the registration or application may
fall within a broader or narrower category. In re A La
Vieille Russie Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 2001)
(RUSSIANART for “dealership services in the field of fine
art, antiques, furniture and jewelry” falls within the
category of Russian art); In re Central Sprinkler Co.,
49 USPQ2d 1194, 1197 (TTAB 1998) (ATTIC for “automatic
sprinklers for fire protection” falls within the narrower
category of sprinklers for fire protection of attics);
Stromgren Supports Inc. v. Bike Athletic Co.,
43 USPQ2d 1100, 1106 (TTAB 1997) (COMPRESSION for “elastic
athletic garments and outerwear, namely, sports girdles”
falls within the category of sports medicine products
including compression shorts or girdles); In re Analog

14 Respondent’s responses to petitioner’s interrogatory Nos. 5-8,
11.
Cancellation No. 92041545
17
Devices, Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1808, 1810 (TTAB 1988), aff’d,
871 F.2d 1097, 10 USPQ2d 1879 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (unpublished)
(ANALOG DEVICES for a laundry list of electronic products
falls within the category or class of goods having analog
capability). The key in the analysis is that the term at
issue must be generic for the items in the description of
goods.
Respondent’s reliance on Henri’s Food v. Tasty Snacks,
817 F.2d 1303, 2 USPQ2d 1856 (7th Cir. 1987) is misplaced.
In Henri’s Food, the Court of Appeals held that “tasty” is
not a category of salad dressing; that is, it does not
“classify the noun to which it is attached.” 2 USPQ2d at
1858. On the other hand, in this case, Judith Quick,
respondent’s expert witness consistently testified that
“fully cooked” describes how food has been processed,15
thus, likening “fully cooked” to “light” or “lite” which
denotes a type of beer.
In view of the foregoing we find that the genus of the
goods involved is prepared foods.
B. The relevant public.
The second part of the generic test is whether the
relevant public understand the designation primarily to
refer to that class of goods. The relevant public for a

15 Quick Dep., pp. 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 84, 85, 88, 146,
169.
Cancellation No. 92041545
18
genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming
public for the identified goods. Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB
Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Respondent’s description of goods is “prepared entrees
consisting primarily of meat.” Because there are no
restrictions or limitations to the channels of trade or
classes of consumers, the relevant or consuming public
comprises ordinary consumers, as well as food retailers,
such as grocery stores. In this regard, we note that
respondent is a chain of retail grocery stores that sells
food products labeled as “fully cooked” purchased from third
parties.16 Thus, respondent is a purchaser of food products
labeled as fully cooked. With respect to petitioner, Mr.
Beeman, petitioner’s President, testified that petitioner
sells its prepared meat products to retailers, such as
Kroger’s, Brookshire Brothers, F & S Gourmet, Golden Valley
and respondent, to other meat companies, and to
institutional food service companies, such as hotels,
restaurants, schools, and hospitals.17
In view of the foregoing, we find that the relevant
public comprises ordinary consumers, institutional
purchasers, food retailers and meat companies.

16 McAdams Dep., pp. 95-96; respondent’s responses to petitioner’s
interrogatory Nos. 29-33.
17 Beeman Testimony Dep., pp. 17-19, 91-95.
Cancellation No. 92041545
19
C. Public perception.
1. Dictionary and Glossary Definitions.
At the outset of our analysis regarding public
perception, we take judicial notice of the definitions of
the words comprising the term “fully cooked.”
fully adv. 1. entirely or wholly.18
cook v.t. 1. to prepare (food) by the
use of heat, as by boiling, baking or
roasting.19

We find that the term “fully cooked” retains the
meaning of its component parts. This conclusion finds
support in the testimony of Judith Quick, respondent’s
expert witness, who testified unequivocally that the meaning
of the term “‘fully cooked’ is self-evident. ‘Fully cooked’
means fully cooked.”20 “The words ‘fully cooked’ means
(sic) that the product has been cooked sufficiently to
render it safe to eat. I think that’s well understood by
people in general.”21
We also not the following definitions made of record:
ham . . . Hams are available fully
cooked, partially smoked or uncooked.
Those that are fully-cooked are heated
to an internal temperature of 148ºF or
above, partially cooked hams to at least

18 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language
(Unabridged), p. 775 (2nd ed. 1987). The Board may take judicial
notice of dictionary definitions. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v.
J.C. Gourmet Food Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff'd, 703
F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
19 Id. at 445.
20 Quick Dep., p. 94.
21 Quick Dep., p. 190.
Cancellation No. 92041545
20
137ºF (which kills the trichina
parasite). … Fully cooked hams,
sometimes labeled “heat-and-serve” or
“ready-to-eat,” do not require
additional cooking and may be eaten cold
or heated until warm. (Emphasis in the
original).

Herbst, Food Lover’s Companion: Comprehensive Definitions
of Nearly 6000 Food, Drink and Culinary Terms, (2001).22
Fully Cooked
Fully cooked products need no further
cooking. The product is fully cooked
in the plant, and it can be reheated or
eaten directly from the package. Also
known as ready-to-eat.

USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service website
(fsis.usda.gov), Glossary.23
Ready To Eat: a product that has been
heated to a minimum temperature of
148ºF. and has characteristics of a
fully cooked material.

MPI Guideline No. 6: A Glossary of Meat and Poultry
Industry Terms from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food
Safety and Quality Service, Meat and Poultry Inspection
Program (1977). 24

22 Petitioner’s notice of reliance Exhibit 38; McKinnie Dep.,
Exhibit 139; see also foodnetwork.com website encyclopedia
discussion regarding “country-cured ham” based on the definition
in The Food Lover’s Companion. (McKinnie Dep., Exhibit 140).
23 Quick Dep., pp. 55-56, “Petitioner’s Exhibit Number 128,”
Attachment 1. In discussing this definition, Ms. Quick opined
that fully cooked “is not the generic term. It’s a description
of the processing that may have been applied to a particular
product.” (Quick Dep., p. 56). See also Master’s Dep., pp. 70-
71, petitioner’s exhibit 109, attachment 1.
Cancellation No. 92041545
21
2. Respondent’s use of “fully cooked.”
Respondent markets prepared meat entrees under the HEB
FULLY COOKED trademark.25
Q. Who was the brand manager for fully
cooked when you started?

A. The - - Are you referring to HEB
Fully Cooked?

Q. Yes, ma’am.

A. The brand manager was Dan
Hoffmeister.

Q. Is there some other fully cooked
other than HEB?

A. Fully cooked is our brand, the
mark, HEB FULLY COOKED, and so I
always refer to it as our brand.
Just like HEB, I wouldn’t
abbreviate it. So I was just
asking for clarification.

* * *

Q. Now, was fully cooked being used by
HEB at the time that you started
there?

A. The brand?

Q. The term “fully cooked,” was it
being used?

A. HEB FULLY COOKED was an established
brand when I started working for
HEB.

Q. When you say an “established
brand,” what makes it a brand?

24 Petitioner’s Notice of Reliance, Exhibit 59; see also Quick
Dep., pp. 56-57, “Petitioner’s Exhibit Number 128,” Attachment 2;
Master’s Dep., p. 72, petitioner’s exhibit 109, attachment 2.
25 McAdams Dep., p. 17.
Cancellation No. 92041545
22
* * *

A. The - - Several things. It’s
really the way you treat the
product. We treat our brands as
distinctive brands. We have
several brands under my area of
responsibility now. In the case of
HEB FULLY COOKED, we established it
with a very strong trade dress or
look for the package. We
aggressively grew the brand very
consistently. We have brand
standards associated with it. And
so just like any national brand
that any of us would interact with,
we employ the same mechanism for
establishing brand equity and a
brand presence.

Q. Okay. Now you indicated for it to
be a brand, it was the way you
treat the product. I think those
were your words. How is it that
you treated the product that you
think fully cooked constitutes a
brand?

A. Well in the case of HEB FULLY
COOKED, we have a very consistent
lock up26 that has not been altered
since we established the brand.
First products hit shelf (sic) in
1996. … We’ve maintained that that
look and lock up with all of our
packaging. We advertise, we
aggressively develop products under
the brand of HEB FULLY COOKED.

* * *
And so in this case of HEB, we have
a lock up that looks like a red
pill and with HEB FULLY COOKED, HEB
appears over, above and to the
upper left-hand corner, and fully
cooked is in a swoosh underneath
it.

26 “Lock up” is the term that Dr. McAdams used to describe the way
the brand logo appears on packaging. (McAdams Dep., p. 19).
Cancellation No. 92041545
23
27

Q. Let me ask you this: Then on every
product that you refer to as your
fully cooked brand, would HEB
appear next to the words “fully
cooked”?

A. On our packaging, HEB appears next
to “fully cooked.”

Q. Okay. So you would have HEB, then
you would have fully cooked, then
you would have a product
description?

A. We have - - With all the HEB FULLY
COOKED brand products, it says - -
it will have HEB, the fully cooked
name for our registered trademark,
and then there’ll be a description
of what the product is in the bag.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Or, I’m sorry, in the package.

Q. So every place that you use fully
cooked, then you always have HEB
right adjacent to it?

A. If we use HEB FULLY COOKED as its
brand.

Q. You don’t ever use fully cooked by
itself without the HEB right
adjacent to it, do you?

27 We insert this excerpt of respondent’s packaging to illustrate
Dr. McAdams’ testimony. The label was an exhibit from
respondent’s application to register H-E-B FULLY COOKED SEASONED
BEEF CRUMBLES (Reg. No. 2727628). (Respondent’s notice of
reliance). We did not use the labels attached to the McAdams
deposition because they are illegible.
Cancellation No. 92041545
24
A. In what - - I need more information
about that.

Q. On any of your packaging.

A. As a brand?

Q. I didn’t say as a brand. On any of
your packaging for your food
products where you say “fully
cooked,” do you ever have fully
cooked where you don’t have HEB
right adjacent to it?

A. Are you asking, using the words
“fully cooked” as, say, abstract
describers of a product?

Q. Well, is - - Are you saying that
fully cooked could be used as an
abstract describer of a product?

A. I’m trying to get clarification of
your question.

Q. Well, you were referring to fully
cooked as an abstract describer of
a product, what do you mean by
that?

A. I’m trying to get clarification if
when we are using our brand, HEB
FULLY COOKED, then, in fact, yes
HEB appears next to the words
“fully cooked.”

Q. Okay. So every time that you use
fully cooked as what you consider
to be a brand, HEB is always
adjacent to it?

A. On the packaging, yes.

Q. Now, what is it about the way the
brand logo goes on the packaging,
and those were your words, what is
about that that you think qualifies
you to - - for some protection?

Cancellation No. 92041545
25
A. We have a very distinctive look,
and we’ve built a very strong
franchise in cooked meats under the
brand HEB FULLY COOKED.

Q. What - - I’m a little confused.

A. Okay.

Q. What’s the distinctive look, that’s
what I’m trying to figure out?

A. I believe that you have copies of
our packages. And we have a very
distinctive shape of our logo, much
like Nike swoosh, it’s a very
distinctive look.

Q. So referring to kind of the banner,
the flowing banner, it is that what
you’re referring to?

A. Yes, I am. We also have the other
elements of the look that are
raised letters of the F and the C.

Q. Okay. Okay. So you think in terms
of the banner and the raised F and
the raised C and HEB being adjacent
to it, you think of all that as
being your look?

A. That’s the way that we deploy the
look now, absolutely.

Q. Okay. And that’s what you think
that [respondent] is entitled to
some protection on?

A. Yes.28

Dr. McAdams reiterated that “[t]he trademark, as we use
it, is HEB FULLY COOKED.”29 She subsequently explained that

28 McAdams Dep., pp. 17-22.
29 McAdams Dep., p. 31.
Cancellation No. 92041545
26
HEB is the primary brand and that “fully cooked” is a
subbrand.30
Q. [H]ow do you think that the words
“fully cooked” go from being
descriptive to being a brand?

* * *

A. We have established fully cooked as
a subbrand within [respondent], and
we established that over ten years
ago. We’ve been very aggressive in
marketing and growing the fully
cooked brand. Now, the descriptive
words “fully cooked” to indicate a
cooked status, particularly in
meat, they will appear on packages
even throughout our store. There’s
numerous examples where we see
“fully cooked” throughout our
store. And in that case, it’s used
in an entirely descriptive sense.
The way that we use it, we use it
in a distinctive sense as a
brand.31

Dr. McAdams further testified regarding a sign hanging
in the aisle of one of respondent’s stores that said “fully
cooked meats.” She explained that it was a “navigational
sign” at the meat case identifying the location of prepared
meats, not just HEB FULLY COOKED entrees.32

30 McAdams Dep., p. 33, 44.
31 McAdams Dep., p. 44.
32 McAdams Dep., pp. 125-126. Dr. McAdams also explained that
this was not the preferred practice and that respondent was
trying to more consistently promote the “Fully Cooked” brand.
(McAdams Dep., pp. 127-128).
Cancellation No. 92041545
27
Dr. McAdams testified that respondent adopted “Fully
Cooked” as a trademark because it “resonated” with
consumers.33
We have - - we have knowledge that when
we showed our customers packaging, they
were – - they were able to understand
what the product was and understand the
benefits that products under HEB FULLY
COOKED offered them. And so that’s how
I would determine that it resonated with
customers.34

3. Petitioner’s use of the term “fully cooked.”
Petitioner explains that it places the term “fully
cooked” on its packaging “because ‘Fully Cooked’ is the
generic term for a category of food products defined by the
USDA and all those products meet the requirements set forth
by the USDA for the cooking procedure of their product.”35
Sample labels for petitioner’s products are reproduced
below.36

33 McAdams Dep., p. 78.
34 Id.
35 Beeman Dep., p. 18.
36 Beeman Dep., Exhibit 146.
Cancellation No. 92041545
28

4. Use of “fully cooked” by third parties.
Respondent sells products produced by numerous third
parties displaying the term “fully cooked” on labels. The
third-party companies include Oscar Mayer, Eckrich,
Hillshire Farm, Ball Park Brand, Butterball, Land O’ Lakes,
Hormel, Jimmy Dean and others.37 Representative samples of
packaging displaying the term “fully cooked” from the third-
party products sold in respondent’s stores are set forth
below.

37 Respondent’s responses to petitioner’s first set of requests
for admission; respondent’s responses to petitioner’s
interrogatory Nos. 29-33; McAdams Dep., pp. 34, 43-44, 121,
128-129.
Cancellation No. 92041545
29

Despite the simultaneous third-party use of “fully
cooked,” in and out of respondent’s stores, respondent is
not aware of any reported instances of source confusion
based on the use of the term “fully cooked.”38
The May 2007 issue of The National Provisioner
magazine, a trade journal for food manufacturers, featured a

38 McAdams Dep., p. 167; Respondent’s response to Interrogatory
No. 21. The dollar amount of respondent’s sales and third-party
sales of products labeled as “fully cooked” has been designated
“commercially sensitive” and, therefore, we will only refer to
the figures generally. Suffice it to say that the figures are
extensive, thereby demonstrating there has been an ample
opportunity for confusion to arise.
Cancellation No. 92041545
30
cover story regarding Pilgrim’s Pride entry into
manufacturing prepared foods titled “FULLY COOKED
COMMITMENT.”39 The article featured the following excerpts
(emphasis added):
The Waco plant originally was built
around 1990 by Plantation Foods. It
started off as two-line plant that
produced fully cooked, sliced meat.

* * *

It processes about three million pounds
of fully cooked product per week.

* * *

The products were the first fully cooked
poultry product to qualify for the
American Heart Association (AHA) seal,
meaning the products are approved as
heart-healthy by the AHA.

* * *

The raw and fully cooked sections of the
plant are completely segregated, down to
the bathrooms, break room and locker
rooms, for biosecurity purposes.

Jason McKinnie, a law clerk for petitioner’s counsel,
introduced numerous documents obtained from the Internet
showing the use of “fully cooked” in connection with
prepared foods. A representative sample of the exhibits to
the McKinnie deposition are described below.
(a) Aidells and Kelly, The Complete Meat Cookbook, p.
394 (1999) references “Fully Cooked Supermarket Hams.” The

39 Petitioner’s notice of reliance Exhibit 72.
Cancellation No. 92041545
31
authors state that “[t]he vast majority of these hams will
be labeled ‘fully cooked’ or ‘ready to eat.’”40
(b) Schmidt, Chef’s Book of Formulas, Yields and Sizes,
p. 237 (3rd ed. 2003) references the use of the term “fully
cooked” in connection with whole smoked ham:
Available both fully cooked, referred to
as ready-to-eat, and uncooked. Most
smoked ham on the market is fully
cooked.41 (Emphasis in the original).

(c) al fresco Fully-Cooked Dinner Chicken Sausage, an
article in the Bite of the Best website at
www.bitofthebest.com appearing on August 27, 2008 references
“fully cooked Buffalo Style and Sweet Apple sausages.”
“Since these are fully cooked, they’ll be ready in
minutes.”42
(d) Why do eggs have to be fully cooked to avoid
foodborne illness? is an article in the Mississippi State
University website at msucares.com regarding the proper
storage and cooking of eggs.43
(e) Hamburgers at home: fully cooked patties offer up
benefits beyond convenience an article published in the
AllBusiness website at www.allbusiness.com on August 1, 2003
originally from Stagnito’s New Products Magazine states that
“[a] combination of factors, including safety concerns,

40 McKinnie Dep., Exhibit 139
41 Id.
42 Id. at Exhibit 136.
43 Id.
Cancellation No. 92041545
32
convenience and a population that has neither the skills nor
the desire to fix food, has meat processors scrambling to
promote fully cooked beef patties.”44
(f) Fully cooked and fresh meat: keeping fresh ideas
on track and new concepts cooking gives meat processors a
full plate an article published in the AllBusiness website
at www.allbusiness.com on August 1, 2002 originally
published in The National Provisioner reports that the
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is “looking beyond the
refrigerated heat-and-serve category for fully-cooked beef
items and into the deli and frozen categories.”45
5. Use of “fully cooked” in the USPTO.
Petitioner introduced copies of six registrations and
eleven applications that include the term “fully-cooked” in
the description of goods.46 The following registrations are
representative of the use of “fully cooked” in the
description of goods:

44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Petitioner’s notice of reliance Exhibits 3-19. Generally, an
application is evidence only that the application has been filed.
However, in this case, we note that the applications indicate
that applicants have used the term “fully cooked” in the
description of goods to identify their products. Unlike the case
with a registration, language in a pending application does not
indicate that such wording is acceptable to the USPTO, but it
does show use of the term by those in the food industry to
identify their goods.

Cancellation No. 92041545
33
a. Registration No. 2254458 for the mark TIMBER
RIDGE FARMS and design for “foods, namely,
ready-to-cook meats and fully-cooked meats.”
b. Registration No. 3108568 for the mark
DEERFIELD FARMS and design for “milk, sliced
cheese, and fully-cooked and canned meat
products.”
c. Registration No. 3033594 for the mark JTM
for, inter alia, “fully-cooked, pre-portioned
meat products, namely, sausage links, rib
patties, burgers, beef patties, Salisbury
steak, meatloaf, meatballs, pork breakfast
patties, pork rib, Italian sausage.”
Petitioner introduced copies of nine registrations with
marks that include the term “fully cooked” with a disclaimer
of the exclusive right to use “fully cooked.”47
Petitioner introduced by notice of reliance copies of
two patents that use the term “fully cooked” in connection
with a type of preparation for meat. U.S. Patent No.
5945152 is for a “method of preparing a fully-cooked semi-
moist shelf stable meat product.” “[T]his invention relates
to a method comprising a series of pasteurization and mixing
steps whereby the resulting fully-cooked meat product, with
a taste and texture similar to that of freshly-cooked meat,

47 Petitioner’s notice of reliance Exhibits 20-28.
Cancellation No. 92041545
34
remains free from pathogen-causing levels of bacteria and
can be stored for an extended period without refrigeration
due to inherent anti-microbial properties.”48
U.S. Patent No. 6051264 is for a “method of dry curing
and processing pork bellies to provide fully cooked bacon.”
“The method of the present invention employs a single
heating step that both fully cooks a dry cure seasoning
coated pork belly and achieves the necessary weight
reduction to meet the regulatory definition for fully cooked
bacon.”49
Petitioner introduced three additional patents using
the term “fully cooked” through the deposition of Jason
McKinnie:50
(a) Patent No. 5908648 for a “method of producing fully
cooked and breaded bone-in poultry product”;
(b) Patent No. 6242032 for “fully cooked, shelf stable
or frozen noodles”; and
(c) Patent No. 5902629 for a “method for processing
grain and legume fully-cooked powders and snacks.”
6. Expert testimony.
Each party proffered the testimony of an expert
witness: Barbara Masters, petitioner’s witness, an expert
on regulatory compliance in the meat and poultry industry,

48 Petitioner’s notice of reliance Exhibit 36.
49 Petitioner’s notice of reliance Exhibit 37.
50 McKinnie Dep., Exhibit 138.
Cancellation No. 92041545
35
and Judith Quick, respondent’s witness, an expert on food
labeling regulations. We considered Dr. Masters’ testimony
with respect to how the term “fully cooked” is used in the
meat and poultry industry,51 and we considered Ms. Quick’s
testimony with respect to rules and regulations for the use
of the term “fully cooked” on packaging.52 The testimony of
both experts is relevant and helpful for the reason set
forth by Ms. Quick:
Because the federal regulations dictate
the kind of terms that must be used for
the name of the product and because the
label is what appears in front of
consumers, I think the influence of the
product name on the labels is
overwhelming.53

Not surprisingly, each witness supported the position
of the party on whose behalf she appeared. Because an
expert may testify as to the ultimate issue before the
Board, both witnesses offered opinions as to whether the
term “fully cooked” is generic. We find this testimony is
of limited, if any, probative value and we will not
substitute it for our findings of fact.54 Freedom Fed. S&L
Ass’n v. Heritage Federal S&L Ass’n, 210 USPQ 227, 230 n.1

51 Dr. Masters testified that she was testifying about the
regulatory aspects of “full-cooked.” (Master’s Dep., p. 137).
52 Ms. Quick identified herself as “an expert on federal food
labeling requirements.” (Quick Dep., pp. 94-96).
53 Quick Dep., p. 13.
54 In this regard, we note that Ms. Quick testified that she is an
expert on federal food labeling requirements, not public
perception. (Quick Dep., pp. 94-97).
Cancellation No. 92041545
36
(TTAB 1981) (the Board must independently evaluate the
evidence and arrive at its own conclusions); see also Fisons
Ltd. v. UAD Labs., Inc., 219 USPQ 661, 663 (TTAB 1983);
Mennen Co. v. Yamanouchi Pharm. Co., Ltd., 203 USPQ 302, 305
(TTAB 1979).
a. The expert testimony of Judith Quick.
Ms. Quick testified that when the term “fully cooked”
appears on a food package, it describes how the product has
been processed55 (i.e., fully cooked).56
“Fully cooked” is being used as a
descriptive term to explain to the
consumer prior to the purchase that - -
about a certain amount of processing
that has been done to the product. It
also leaves the consumer with
information, in a general sense, how
much preparation they’re going to need
to do at home before they can consume
the product safely.57

Accordingly, any companies whose food products have met the
time and temperature cooking requirements set by the USDA
may use the term “fully cooked” on their labels.58
Ms. Quick’s testimony regarding the label for Perdue
chicken breast cutlets is noteworthy for the way Ms. Quick
analyzed terms appearing on the package label.59
The next page is a copy of a label for
Perdue chicken breast cutlets. The

55 Quick Dep., pp. 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 84, 85, 88,
146, 169.
56 Quick Dep., p. 28.
57 Quick Dep., p. 31.
58 Quick Dep., p. 168
59 Most of the labels attached to the deposition were illegible.
Cancellation No. 92041545
37
standard of identity [common or usual
name for the product] that’s involved in
this particular case is the chicken
breast standard. “Cutlet” is a
description to let the consumer know
that it is not the entire, intact
chicken breast. The label also includes
the term “baked” - - and it’s real
fuzzy, but I think this says “fully
cooked” down near the bottom. That
would be a description of the processing
that’s been applied to the product as
well as the term “baked” being a
description of the processing that’s
been applied. The generic term, product
name, is chicken breast cutlets.60

Based on Ms. Quick’s testimony, the generic term or
product name is “chicken breast cutlets” and the terms
“baked” and “fully cooked” merely describe the processing
applied to the product. If “fully cooked” and “baked” are
the same type of terms (i.e., a description of the
processing) and they are not generic terms, then the logical
extension of respondent’s position as articulated by Ms.
Quick is that the word “baked,” as well as “fully cooked,”
could be appropriated as a trademark for prepared foods
(i.e., BAKED brand chicken breast cutlets) assuming
secondary meaning could be shown.61

60 Quick Dep., pp. 37-38.
61 We note that Dr. Masters testified that according to the FSIS
directives, the word “baked” is not a generic term because it
falls within the category of “fully cooked” processing.
(Masters’ Dep., p. 164). Later Dr. Masters testified that
although she was not asked to opine as to whether the word
“baked” is generic, she was not aware that it was defined as a
regulatory word. (Masters’ Dep., p. 169).
Cancellation No. 92041545
38
With respect to the use of the term “fully cooked” by
the Federal Food Safety Inspection Service, Ms. Quick
testified that the term “fully cooked” as used on labels for
food products means “fully cooked, safe to eat, without
further preparation.”62 Terms such as “ready to cook,”
“cooked,” “ready to serve,” or “ready to eat” may be used in
lieu of “fully cooked.”63
Ms. Quick offered her conclusion that assuming
petitioner met the federal requirements for labeling its
products as fully cooked, there was no reason it could not
label them as such.
Q. Assuming that [petitioner] meets
the heat requirements and the time
requirements for its meat entrees,
do you see any reason why
[petitioner] could not refer to its
products as “fully cooked”?

A. I believe that FSIS would approve
his (sic) label bearing that term
if he (sic) met the minimum
requirements for a fully cooked
product.

Q. So your opinion is that
[petitioner] could use the term
“fully cooked” for its products?”

* * *

A. USDA would approve the label and
therefore it could be applied to
federally inspected meat and
poultry product.
* * *

62 Quick Dep., pp. 42-43.
63 Quick Dep., pp. 46-48; see also Master’s Dep., pp. 106-107.
140-141, 146; Beeman Dep., p. 10.
Cancellation No. 92041545
39

Q. Well, as an expert witness
testifying in this case, if
products by [petitioner] met the
time and temperature requirement,
do you have an opinion as to
whether they (sic) could use “fully
cooked” on their labels?

* * *
A. In my opinion, the label would be
approved by FSIS and could be
applied at a federally inspected
plant.

Q. So that’s a yes you believe they
(sic) could use or no they (sic)
couldn’t use it?

* * *

A. We could go through this all day.
The label would be approved by the
USDA and could be applied.

* * *

I believe they (sic) could use the
label. Whether or not they would
then run into some kinds of
complications or problems because
of a trademark violation goes
beyond what I’m prepared to
discuss.64

b. The expert testimony of Dr. Barbara Masters.
Dr. Masters opined that “fully cooked” is a category of
food products that are prepared in such a way as to be
ready-to-eat without the need for any further preparation.65

64 Quick Dep., pp. 200-202; see also Master’s Dep., p. 107 (“An
establishment cannot put ‘fully-cooked’ on a label if they (sic)
are not in compliance with FSIS regulations”).
65 Masters Dep., pp. 66-67, 105-106.
Cancellation No. 92041545
40
In other words, “fully cooked” is a broad category that
“includes products that have been fully prepared and can be
consumed by the public without further preparation.”66
Discussion
Based on the record before us, we find that the term
“fully cooked” identifies a type or category of prepared
foods and that the relevant public understands the term
“fully cooked” to refer to that class of products which
includes “prepared entrees consisting primarily of meat.”
The commonly understood meaning of the term “fully cooked,”
petitioner’s uses and third-party uses, all demonstrate that
purchasers understand that the term “fully cooked”
identifies a category of food processing. However, it is
respondent’s own use of that term, as well as the testimony
of respondent’s expert witness, that really cooks
respondent’s goose. Judith Quick clearly identifies “fully
cooked” as a category of processed foods and she testifies
that every competitor should be able to use it if it meets
the labeling requirements.
That a commonly used term such as “fully cooked” is not
the type of term generally associated with trademarks is a
point not lost on Dr. McAdams, one of respondent’s vice
presidents, who consistently referred to respondent’s
trademark as HEB FULLY COOKED. Contrary to respondent’s

66 Masters’ Dep., p. 191.
Cancellation No. 92041545
41
arguments in its brief, Dr. McAdams was quite clear that
respondent’s brand is HEB FULLY COOKED, not FULLY COOKED.
As noted above, Dr. McAdams testified that when respondent
uses the term “fully cooked” as trademark, it is always used
in conjunction with HEB and in its exclusive trade dress.
Furthermore, Dr. McAdams testified that when consumers see
the term “fully cooked” on a label “they were able to
understand what the product was and understand the benefits
that products under HEB FULLY COOKED offered them.”67 Thus,
the term “fully cooked” answers the question what are you?
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §12.1 (4th ed.
2010) (“A mark answers the buyer’s questions ‘Who are you?’
‘Where do you come from?’ … But the name of the product
answers the question ‘What are you?’”). In this case, a
prepared food.
In making the determination that the term “fully
cooked” is generic, we readily acknowledge that “fully
cooked” is not the name of a food product; rather, it is an
adjective describing how food is processed. This adjectival
use, however, does not remove “fully cooked” from being
generic when used in connection with prepared foods. In
this case, because the term “fully cooked” describes a
category of processed foods, it should be freely available
for use by competitors. See In re Northland Aluminum Prod.,

67 McAdams Dep., p. 78.
Cancellation No. 92041545
42
Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 227 USPQ 961 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (BUNDT
for coffee cake); In re Sun Oil Co., 426 F.2d 401, 165 USPQ
718 (CCPA 1970) (CUSTOMBLENDED for gasoline held generic
because category of gasoline was blended personally for
motorist); In re Helena Rubenstein, Inc., 410 F.2d 438, 161
USPQ 606 (CCPA 1969) (PASTEURIZED for face cream held
generic); In re Preformed Line Prod. Co., 323 F.2d 1007, 139
USPQ 271 (CCPA 1963) (PREFORMED for preformed electrical
equipment held generic); Servo Corp. of Am. v. Servo-Tek
Prod. Co., 289 F.2d 437, 126 USPQ 362 (CCPA 1960) (MATCHBOX
for toy vehicles held generic because that category of toy
cars was sold in matchbox-sized boxes).
Finally, while other terms such as such as “ready to
cook,” “cooked,” “ready to serve,” or “ready to eat” may be
used in lieu of “fully cooked,” it is well-settled that
there can be more than one term to name a product. Roselux
Chem. Co. Inc. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., Inc., 299 F.2d 855,
132 USPQ 627, 632 (CCPA 1962) (a product may have more than
one common descriptive name); see also In re Sun Oil Co.,
165 USPQ at 719 (Rich, J., concurring) (“All of the generic
names for a product belong in the public domain”)(emphasis
in the original).
In view of the foregoing, we find that the term “fully
cooked” is generic and, thus, not registrable on the
Cancellation No. 92041545
43
Supplemental Register. Accordingly, we put respondent’s
registration on ice.
Fraud
For the sake of completeness, we now turn to the issue
of fraud. Petitioner alleged that the registration at issue
was fraudulently obtained because respondent “knew of others
… that were previously using the term ‘fully cooked’ to
describe their products. [Respondent] was also aware that
the terms (sic) ‘fully cooked’ are generic and/or so highly
descriptive as to be incapable of acting as a trademark of
the products being offered for sale.”68
Fraud in obtaining a trademark registration “occurs
when an applicant knowingly makes false, material
misrepresentations of fact in connection with his
application.” Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.R.L.,
808 F.2d 46, 1 USPQ2d 1483, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To
constitute fraud on the USPTO, the statement must be (1)
false, (2) a material representation and (3) made knowingly.
Torres, 1 USPQ2d at 1484. Furthermore, as this Board has
stated, intent is an essential element of a fraud claim:
Fraud implies some intentional deceitful
practice or act designed to obtain
something to which the person practicing
such deceit would not otherwise be
entitled. Specifically, it involves a
willful withholding from the Patent and
Trademark Office by an applicant or
registrant of material information or

68 Second Amended Petition for Cancellation ¶8.
Cancellation No. 92041545
44
fact, which, if disclosed to the Office,
would have resulted in the disallowance
of the registration sought or to be
maintained. Intent to deceive must be
“willful”. If it can be shown that the
statement was a “false
misrepresentation” (sic) occasioned by
an “honest” misunderstanding,
inadvertence, negligent omission or the
like rather than one made with a willful
intent to deceive, fraud will not be
found. Fraud, moreover, will not lie if
it can be proven that the statement,
though false, was made with a reasonable
and honest belief that it was true or
that the false statement is not material
to the issuance or maintenance of the
registration. It thus appears that the
very nature of the charge of fraud
requires that it be proven “to the hilt”
with clear and convincing evidence.
There is no room for speculation,
inference or surmise and, obviously, any
doubt must be resolved against the
charging party.

First Int’l Svcs. Corp. v. Chuckles Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1628,
1634 (TTAB 1988), citing Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Olin Corp.,
209 USPQ 1033, 1043-44 (TTAB 1981); see also In re Bose
Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938, 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(emphasizing that fraud requires the intent to mislead the
PTO).
In its brief, petitioner argues that even though
respondent was aware that third parties displayed the term
“fully cooked” on their labels, respondent made the false
material statement that it is the owner of the mark sought
to be registered (i.e., FULLY COOKED) and that no other
entity has to the right to use the mark and thereby
Cancellation No. 92041545
45
committed fraud on the PTO. However, there is simply no
evidence that respondent intended to deceive the Trademark
Office when it filed or prosecuted its application. It
zealously argued that the term was merely descriptive
(consistent with its registration on the Supplemental
Register), not generic. As explained above, we disagree
with respondent’s legal conclusion. But in order to prove
that respondent committed fraud, petitioner was required to
show not only that respondent’s statement was literally
false, but also that respondent knew it to be false.
Am. Sec. Bank v. Am. Sec. & Trust Co., 571 F.2d 564,
197 USPQ 65, 67 (CCPA 1978)(“Appellant misreads the cited
statute and rules. They require the statement of beliefs
about exclusive rights, not their actual possession.
Appellant has produced no evidence impugning appellee's
beliefs”).
Furthermore, the examining attorney did not rely on
respondent’s claim to the exclusive right to use the term
“fully cooked” because during prosecution of the application
the examining attorney referenced numerous newspaper stories
regarding “fully cooked entrees” produced by third parties.
Thus, the Trademark Office did not rely on respondent’s
representations at issue in ultimately approving the
application for registration. Accordingly, we find that the
respondent did not knowingly make false statements with the
Cancellation No. 92041545
46
intent to deceive the Trademark Office and, therefore,
respondent did not commit fraud during the prosecution of
the application for registration.
Decision: The petition for cancellation is granted.