Georgoudis S.A. , Epexergasia & Exagoges Agrotikon Proionton

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2011

No. 79074804 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2011)

Mailed:
August 1, 2011
Bucher

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Georgoudis S.A., Epexergasia & Exagoges Agrotikon
Proionton
________

Serial No. 79074804
_______

John Alumit of Patel & Alumit PC for Georgoudis S.A.,
Epexergasia & Exagoges Agrotikon Proionton.

Napoleon K. Sharma, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
107 (J. Leslie Bishop, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Bucher, Holtzman and Lykos, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Georgoudis S.A., Epexergasia & Exagoges Agrotikon
Proionton seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the following mark

for goods identified in the application, as amended, as
“processed and packed olives; preserved fruits and
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 79074804
- 2 -
vegetables, frozen, desiccated and cooked; edible oils and
fats” in International Class 29.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal
to register this designation based upon Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). The Trademark Examining
Attorney has taken the position that applicant’s mark, when
used in connection with the identified goods, so resembles
the following mark:

1 Application Serial No. 79074804 was filed on September 25,
2009. The application is a Section 66(a) application (15 U.S.C.
§ 1141f(a)) based on International Registration No. 1018447,
issued on September 25, 2009. The mark consists of the wording
“Parthenon” in the color white with a blue rectangular courier
having two curved corners, and a white glare in the upper right
corner of the courier, and below the courier, wording “since
1897” in the color black. The color(s) blue, white and black
is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. No claim is made to the
exclusive right to use the term “since 1897” apart from the mark
as shown.

Serial No. 79074804
- 3 -
registered for “salad dressings,”2 as to be likely to cause
confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive.
After the Trademark Examining Attorney made the refusal
final, applicant appealed to this Board. Applicant and the
Trademark Examining Attorney have fully briefed the issues
in this appeal.
We affirm the refusal to register.
Arguments of applicant and the Trademark Examining Attorney
In urging registrability, applicant contends that the
Trademark Examining Attorney has inappropriately dissected
the marks rather than considering them in their entireties;
that the marks have different overall commercial
impressions; that the Trademark Examining Attorney has
failed to show the relatedness of the goods; and that the
Office has provided insufficient evidence of common channels
of trade.
By contrast, the Trademark Examining Attorney argues
that the leading word “Parthenon” is the dominant feature in
both marks; that dictionary definitions and third-party
registrations show the relationship of the goods; that we

2 Registration No. 1518158 issued to Parthenon Food Products
on December 27, 1988; renewed. The lining shown on the drawing
is a feature of the mark and is not intended to indicate color.
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the words “Greek
Salad Dressing” apart from the mark as shown.

Serial No. 79074804
- 4 -
can presume, in the absence of any limitations on the trade
channels, that the respective goods will move in all normal
channels of trade to the same classes of ordinary consumers.
Likelihood of Confusion
We turn then to a consideration of the issue of
likelihood of confusion. Our determination of likelihood of
confusion is based upon our analysis of all of the probative
facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing
on this issue. See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also, In re
Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2003); and In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d
1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In any likelihood of
confusion analysis, however, two key, although not
exclusive, considerations are the similarities between the
marks and the relationship between the goods and/or
services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper
Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA 1976).
The Similarity of the Marks
As to the first du Pont factor in any likelihood of
confusion determination, we compare the similarity or
dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
Serial No. 79074804
- 5 -
Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison
Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed.
Cir. 2005).
Because the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks is
determined based upon a comparison of the marks in their
entireties, applicant is correct that the analysis cannot be
predicated on dissecting the marks into their various
components; that is, the decision must be based upon the
entire marks, not just select parts of the marks. In re
National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); see also Franklin Mint Corp. V. Master Mfg. Co.,
667 F.2d 1005, 212 USPQ 23, 234 (CCPA 1981) [“It is
axiomatic that a mark should not be dissected and considered
piecemeal; rather, it must be considered as a whole in
determining likelihood of confusion”]. On the other hand,
different features may be analyzed to determine whether the
marks are similar. Price Candy Company v. Gold Medal Candy
Corporation, 220 F.2d 759, 105 USPQ 266, 268 (CCPA 1955).
In fact, 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 a consideration of the marks in their
entireties. In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 751.
Serial No. 79074804
- 6 -
There are trademark cases that reflect the principle
that if a mark comprises both a word and a design, the word
is normally accorded greater weight because it would be used
by purchasers to request the goods or services. See In re
Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987)
[mark having the word “APPETITO” in block letters,
prominently displayed between broad geometric stripes as
applied to Italian sausages,
likely to cause confusion
with the word “Appetito’s”
printed in small script"
letters across a large

versus
and
capitalized letter “A,” and
the term “Appetito’s Inc.”
with a large capitalized
letter “A” and the design
of a sandwich, for
restaurant services].

In the case at hand, we find specifically that the
leading word in both marks, “Parthenon,” is the dominant
element of both marks because most consumers would use that
word alone to call for the respective products. As applied
to these goods, the word “Parthenon” is either mildly
suggestive of Greek foods or may even be considered to be
Serial No. 79074804
- 7 -
arbitrary. By contrast, the other wording contained within
the marks – the words “Greek Salad Dressing” and the term
“since 1897” - are generic terms or contain informational
matter that has been correctly disclaimed apart from the
marks as shown. We accord less weight to these particular
features although our ultimate conclusion rests upon a
consideration of the marks in their entireties.
In addition, we find that the elaborate design portion
of registrant’s mark simply reinforces the commercial
impression created by the word “Parthenon” of a connection
with Greece. Rather than being struck with a patriotic
fervor for Greece, customers acquainted with registrant’s
mark, upon seeing applicant’s rectangular carrier device,
may well think that registrant has simply modernized its
earlier mark. We are not persuaded by applicant’s argument
that consumers will distinguish between the two sources of
these food items because one mark suggests ancient Greece
while the second alludes to Greece during the 19th Century.
Hence, we find that this critical du Pont factor supports a
likelihood of confusion herein.
Relationship of the Goods
We turn next to the du Pont factor focused on the
relationship of the goods. Based upon dictionary
Serial No. 79074804
- 8 -
definitions, the Trademark Examining Attorney argues that
applicant’s “edible oils” are highly related to registrant’s
“salad dressing” because salad dressings contain edible oil:
Edible: Anything fit to be eaten, especially by humans.3

Olive Oil: Olive oil is a cooking oil made from the pulp of olive
fruits. Because of its noble and distinct fruity taste, it is well
known and liked around the world. Olive oil goes perfectly with
dishes from the Mediterranean kitchen and is a popular salad oil
….4

Salad Dressing: A sauce that adds flavor to salads, usually
made by mixing oil, vinegar, and herbs or spices.5

Salad Dressing: A cold sauce made from oil and vinegar, which
is added to salads to give flavor.6

We agree with the Trademark Examining Attorney that
these definitions support a finding that the goods are
related. The term “edible oils” clearly encompasses “olive
oil,” which is a key ingredient in Greek salad dressings.
Furthermore, in order to show the relatedness of the
goods, the Trademark Examining Attorney submitted for the
record copies of third-party registrations of various
manufacturers and merchants, which he argues have probative

3 http://www.yourdictionary.com/edible
4 http://en.foodlexicon.org/o0000090.php
5 http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/salad-dressing
6 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/salad-dressing
Serial No. 79074804
- 9 -
value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the
relevant goods listed therein are of a kind that may emanate
from a single source. See In re Infinity Broad. Corp.,
60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-1218 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel
& Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); and In re
Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6
(TTAB 1988):

for, inter alia, “ …edible oils;
… edible vegetable fat; …
pickles; sliced pickles; sweet
mixed pickles; … in
International Class 29;
“ … salad dressing …
vegetable sauces … in
International Class 30;7
for, inter alia, “Grapeseed oil;
flavored olive oils; soup; sun
dried tomatoes; tapenade made
from olives or garlic; onion
puree; cocktail onions; marinated
artichokes; processed artichokes;
processed pimentos; maraschino
cherries; processed olives;
processed Spanish style olives; …
marinated vegetables, namely
carrots, asparagus, onions, sweet
cherry peppers, Italian peppers,
golden peppers, wax peppers,
jalapeno peppers, casabella
peppers, pepperoncini, celery,
mushrooms, Brussels sprouts,
cauliflower; pickles; and garlic
puree used as a vegetable and
spread” in International Class
29;
“Salad dressing; capers; vinegar;
garlic puree for use as a

7 Registration No. 3069117 issued on March 14, 2006.
Serial No. 79074804
- 10 -
seasoning; and relishes” in
International Class 30;8
for, inter alia, “canned fruits
and fruit preserves, frozen
fruits, canned vegetables,
processed olives, frozen
vegetables” in International
Class 29”
“Processed herbs, spices,
seasonings, salt, pepper,
ketchup, cocktail sauce, tartar
sauce, flavoring extracts, baking
powder, baking soda, corn starch,
salad dressing, mayonnaise,
honey, vinegar, rice” in
International Class 30;9

for, inter alia, “ … edible oils
and fats …” in International
Class 29;
“ … salad dressing; sauces;
condiments … in International
Class 30;10
for, inter alia, “ … processed
fruits and vegetables, namely,
processed beans, processed peas,
processed carrots, processed
tomatoes, … processed olives,
processed pickles, processed
peppers; … edible oils and fats,
namely, cooking oil, lard, butter
and margarine; … ” in
International Class 29;
“ … condiments, namely, ketchup,
mustard, mayonnaise, salad
dressing, hot sauces, salsa, and
vinegar … ” in International
Class 30;11

8 Registration No. 3177109 issued on November 28, 2006.
9 Registration No. 3249389 issued on June 5, 2007.
10 Registration No. 3069117
11 Registration No. 3329785 issued on November 6, 2007.
Serial No. 79074804
- 11 -
for, inter alia, “olives, namely,
processed olives, pickles, edible
oils and fats, margarine, butter,
fruits, namely, processed fruits,
tinned frozen fruits, cooked
fruits, jams, marmalade, fruit
peel, stewed fruit, dried fruit,
preserved fruit, fruit pulp,
peanut and nut butter; salad oil”
in International Class 29;
“ … sauces for use as condiments,
namely, salad dressing, sauces
for salads, … ” in International
Class 30;12
ZABAR'S for, inter alia, “ … edible fats;
edible oil; falafal; … processed
fruits; … processed olives;
processed vegetables and fruits;
… ” in International Class 29;
“ … salad dressing … ” in
International Class 30;13
for, inter alia, “frozen goods,
namely, vegetables, fruits, …
canned goods, namely, fruits,
vegetables, … processed beans and
peas; raisins; prunes; dried
fruits; … corn and vegetable
oils; … maraschino cherries;
chili; pickles; processed
peppers; processed olives; … ” in
International Class 29;
“ … … salad dressing” in
International Class 30;14
for, inter alia, “canned fruits;
canned tomatoes; canned
vegetables; canola oil; cooking
oil; corn oil; … frozen
vegetables; … olive oil; …
pickled vegetables; pickles;
processed bean sprouts; processed
beans; processed beets; processed
cherries; processed hearts of

12 Registration No. 3399322 issued on March 18, 2008.
13 Registration No. 3567521 issued on January 27, 2009.
14 Registration No. 3678796 issued on September 8, 2009. No
claim is made to the exclusive right to use the words “since
1945” apart from the mark as shown.
Serial No. 79074804
- 12 -
palm; processed mangos; processed
mushrooms; processed olives;
processed peaches; processed
potatoes; processed stuffed
olives; processed yams; salad
oil; … vegetable oils …” in
International Class 29; and
“ … salad dressing … ” in
International Class 30;15

Consistent with the dictionary entries above, these
third-party registrations include both oils and salad
dressings. We also note that many of these registrations
also list both olives and salad dressing. The entire record
supports the conclusion that olives are popular ingredients
of Mediterranean diets, including Greek salads. We should
note that applicant seems to be laboring under the
misimpression that the Trademark Examining Attorney would
have failed to prove his case as to the relationship of the
goods if each of the third-party registrations did not match
exactly the listing of goods in this application and
registration. However, in order to affirm a refusal, it is
only necessary that we find likelihood of confusion with
respect to at least one item in each class of applicant’s
goods or services. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General
Mills Fun Group, Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988
(CCPA 1981) [“[L]ikelihood of confusion must be found if the

15 Registration No. 3678647 issued on September 8, 2009.

Serial No. 79074804
- 13 -
public, being familiar with [opposer’s] use of MONOPOLY for
board games and seeing the mark on any item that comes
within the description of goods set forth by appellant in
its application ….”]. Accordingly, the Trademark Examining
Attorney is not required to show a relationship between
registrant’s salad dressing and each and every item in
applicant’s identification of goods. Especially in light of
the similarities in the marks, we find that consumers who
have been acquainted with registrant’s PARTHENON Greek salad
dressings are likely to believe, upon seeing applicant’s
mark on goods like olives and olive oil, that registrant has
moved into related food items.
Trade Channels
Furthermore, given the close relationship of these
respective goods, we presume that they will be sold close to
each other in a Greek grocery store, for example, or on the
same shelves of large supermarkets having international food
sections laid out by country or ethnicity.
Conditions of Purchase
As to the du Pont factor focusing on the conditions
under which and buyers to whom sales are made, given the
price points at retail of individual or family-sized
containers of these food items, we have to assume that these
Serial No. 79074804
- 14 -
transactions will involve relative casual purchasing
decisions on the part of ordinary classes of shoppers.
In conclusion, weighing all the relevant du Pont
factors, we find a likelihood of confusion herein.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(d)
of the Lanham Act is hereby affirmed.