Gruber Systems, Inc.v.Grantex Surface Systems

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2001

No. 91113374 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2001)

7/13/01

Paper No. 14
AD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______

Gruber Systems, Inc.
v.
Grantex Surface Systems
_____

Opposition No. 113,374
to application Serial No. 75/451,964
filed on March 17, 1998
_____

Michael D. Harris of Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly LLP
for Gruber Systems, Inc.

Lauren B. Cohen for Grantex Surface Systems.
______

Before Hohein, Bottorff, and Drost, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Drost, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Grantex Surface Systems (applicant) has applied to
register the mark “GRANTEX SURFACE SYSTEMS” for goods
ultimately identified as “decorative surface coatings in
the nature of a quartz-like finish for use on concrete
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Opposition No. 113,374
2
surfaces and a variety of indoor and outdoor walls” in
International Class 2.”1
Gruber Systems, Inc. (opposer) has opposed
registration on the ground that applicant’s mark, when
used on or in connection with the identified goods, so
resembles opposer’s previously used and registered mark
“GRANATEX” for “filler material made of polymers and
inorganic fillers that is mixed with resins and cast to
form a final product used in making counters for
kitchens, bathroom fixtures, furniture and architectural
products” in International Class 172 as to be likely to
cause confusion or mistake or deception. Applicant has
denied the salient allegations of the notice of
opposition.
The Record
The record consists of the file of the involved
application; the trial testimony deposition, with
accompanying exhibits, of John D. Hoskinson, opposer’s
president; the trial testimony deposition, with
accompanying exhibits, of Lawrence Benforado, president

1 Serial No. 75/451,964, filed March 17, 1998, which is based on
an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce. The words “surface systems” are disclaimed.
2 Registration No. 1,739,837, issued December 15, 1992; Section
8 and 15 affidavits accepted and acknowledged, respectively.
Opposition No. 113,374
3
of 46 Enterprises Incorporated3; and the trial testimony
deposition of Mark Cagni, a manager for Peter Brown
Construction.
Both parties have filed briefs, but no oral hearing
was requested.
Priority
Opposer alleges that it is the owner of Registration
No. 1,739,837 and has attached to its pleading a copy of
that registration and a copy of the respective
acknowledgement and acceptance of the Section 8 and 15
affidavits by the Patent and Trademark Office. See
Notice of Opposition, Exhibits A and B. However, opposer
has not submitted a title and status copy of the
registration in accordance with the Trademark Rules.4 In

3 While the application was filed in the name of Grantex Surface
Systems, at trial it became clear that Grantex Surface Systems
is a division of 46 Enterprises Incorporated. Benforado Dep.,
pp. 5-6. Filing an application in the name under which an
applicant does business or in the name of an operating division
is a correctable error. TMEP § 1201.02(c)(1) and (2). Should
applicant ultimately prevail, it should file the appropriate
paper to correct the name of the applicant.
4 Trademark Rule 2.122(d) provides that:

(1) A registration of the opposer or petitioner pleaded in
an opposition or petition to cancel will be received in
evidence and made part of the record if the opposition or
petition is accompanied by two copies (originals and
photocopies) of the registration prepared and issued by
the Patent and Trademark Office showing both the current
status of and current title to the registration. For the
cost of a copy of a registration showing status and title,
see § 2.6(b)(4).

Opposition No. 113,374
4
this case, applicant put opposer on notice that opposer
needed to prove its ownership of its registration when
applicant answered

(2) A registration owned by any party to a proceeding may
be made of record in the proceeding by that party by
appropriate identification and introduction during the
taking of testimony or by filing a notice of reliance,
which shall be accompanied by a copy (original and
photocopy) of the registration prepared and issued by the
Patent and Trademark Office showing both the current
status of and current title to the registration. The
notice of reliance shall be filed during the testimony
period of the party that files the notice.
Opposition No. 113,374
5
opposer’s allegations of ownership of a registration with
a statement that applicant “neither admits nor denies the
allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7, but
leaves Opposer to its proofs.” Answer, ¶ 3. Since
opposer did not provide status and title copies of its
registration or any other similar evidence, it cannot
rely on its ownership of a registration to meet its prima
facie case of likelihood of confusion.
However, opposer has submitted evidence that
establishes its common law rights in the mark GRANATEX
for its filler material made of polymers and inorganic
fillers that is mixed and cast to form a final product
used in making counters for kitchens, bathroom features,
furniture and architectural products, which predate
either applicant’s filing date or any first date of use
that applicant can establish for its mark, GRANTEX
SURFACE SYSTEMS. Opposer’s president has testified that
“the first application of the product and the trademark
Granatex did not happen until approximately 1987.”
Hoskinson dep. at 7. Opposer submitted an invoice from
1993 involving a shipment of GRANATEX 500 from the United
States to Curacao, apparently the island in the
Caribbean. Opposer’s Exhibit 1.5 Opposer’s president

5 The address is:
Opposition No. 113,374
6
testified that the shipment would have been “marked with
the product name and nomenclature as Granatex 500.”6
Hoskinson dep. at 9. This evidence establishes a date of
first use of the mark in commerce of at least 1993. In
addition, opposer’s September 1999 GruberInk newsletter
shows that opposer continues to use the mark GRANATEX in
connection with its goods. Opposer’s Exhibit 6 at
GS00454. Inasmuch as applicant does not argue that it
has an earlier date of first use,7 opposer has established
that it has priority in this case based on its

Curacao Marble
Curacao, FG
FG may be an abbreviation for French Guinea, although the island
of Curacao is in the Netherlands Antilles. It is not part of
French Guinea. Opposer has also provided evidence that it
shipped products identified as Grantex 300 in 1995 to Advanced
Plastics in Nashville, Tennessee. This date is also sufficient
to establish priority for opposer. There is a series of
Granatex filler products identified by numbers, such as 600,
501, 500, 400, and 350. Opposer’s Exhibit 8.
6 We note that opposer’s president testified that “we don’t
always spell out the name “Granatex. We sometimes might put GTX
as the description of the products on the box.” Hoskinson dep.
at 9-10.
7 While the application is an intent-to-use application,
applicant’s president, in response to a question from its
attorney concerning when the mark GRANTEX was first used with
the product, specified “December of 1996.” Benforado dep. at
20. Applicant’s president also corrected its response to an
interrogatory concerning applicant’s first use of its mark to
make it clear that the year was 1996, not 1992. Benforado dep.
at 20-21. However, applicant was also asked the following
question:
Q. Approximately when or if you know the date, I’m not
sure, if you don’t know the date, then approximately when
did you first use the mark Grantex as applied to the
product you described or in any form did you use the mark?
A. The end of 1997.
Opposition No. 113,374
7
common law rights in the mark GRANATEX for its filler
products.
Facts
On March 17, 1998, applicant filed an application to
register the mark GRANTEX SURFACE SYSTEMS for goods
ultimately identified as “decorative surface coating in
the nature of a quartz-like finish for use on concrete
surfaces and a variety of indoor and outdoor walls.”
After the application was published on February 23,
1999, opposer filed a notice of opposition. As discussed
above, opposer has demonstrated that it is the prior user
of the mark GRANATEX on filler material made of polymers
and inorganic fillers that is mixed with resins and cast
to form a final product used in making counters for
kitchens, bathroom fixtures, furniture, and architectural
products. In its promotional material, opposer’s goods
are described as follows:
Because it’s a moldable and machinable polymer
material, form can complement function, to create
the decorative elements in a total bathroom design
incorporating the fixtures themselves.

Suddenly, the limits on creative bathroom design
disappear over the horizon.

Benforado dep. at 19.
Applicant has not established a date of first use in
commerce earlier that the constructive date of first use
established by its application’s filing date (March 17, 1998).
Opposition No. 113,374
8
Picture the potential for luxurious elegance:
Integral washbasin, bathtubs, showers, toilets and
bidets, wainscoating [sic] and windowsills, even
fireplace mantels, all with the textural sensation
of Granatex.

Opposer’s Exhibit 11.
Opposer’s president explained that its immediate
customers are manufacturers who purchase Granatex
material and then manufacture finished products with it.
Hoskinson dep. at 32-33. “Most all the manufacturers
tend to attend local home and garden shows.” Hoskinson
dep. at 34. These manufacturers also attend regional
homebuilders shows attended by general contractors,
specifiers, architects, developers, subcontractors and
homeowners. Hoskinson dep. at 35. While these
manufacturers do not promote the brand name GRANATEX, the
product would be identified in the literature concerning
the products these manufacturers use. Hoskinson dep. at
33. The Solure™ group is an example of an industry group
that promotes GRANATEX. “To further ensure top quality
products, all Solure Manufacturers use Granatex®, the
top-of-the-line granite filler material.” Opposer’s
Exhibit 20.
Opposer’s president testified that it tries to
advertise by pull-through advertising as opposed to push-
down-the channel marketing. Pull-through advertising
Opposition No. 113,374
9
involves going past the immediate customers, in this case
the manufacturers of the products, to the ultimate
consumers, in this case homeowners and building owners,
to create a demand for the product. Hoskinson dep. at
41.
We try to do the same thing in a very narrow market
where we promote into the specification community;
go to the kitchen and bath show; go to the home
builders show or co-op with our customers to have
showrooms done or model homes using Granatex because
we’re aware of the fact that if we can create
awareness on the part of the consuming community,
it’s our opinion that they’ll have an interest in
this product, and they will pull through as opposed
to waiting for, say, a builder to decide he’s going
to standardly make it available.

Id.

Opposer relies heavily on consumers, builders, and
architects to create a demand for its product. Hoskinson
dep. at 43. Architects and others that specify the
products to be used in a building project would find out
about opposer’s GRANATEX product through the ARCAT.COM
website for the architectural community, through
opposer’s link with the International Cast Polymer
Association, and through demand created by opposer’s
contacts with builders and customers. Hoskinson dep. at
25-26. Despite some other uses discussed in the
deposition, opposer’s “marketing strategies are to stay
Opposition No. 113,374
10
pretty focused on interior applications in kitchens and
bathrooms.” Hoskinson dep. at 63.
Applicant, on the other hand, makes a product that
coats or repairs a pre-existing surface. “A new way to
repair and beautify old, damaged concrete, driveways,
patios, pool decks, walkways, garage floors and any area
that needs a new look.” Opposer’s Exhibit 14;
Applicant’s Exhibit 13.
Applicant’s advertising states that GRANTEX is
- “the newest innovation to hit the market for
surfacing and resurfacing of interiors and
exteriors;”

- “goes right over river rock, spray decks,
concrete, wood or key stone;” and

- “is an outstanding alternative to tile for
Commercial Kitchen Walls.”

Opposer’s Exhibit 14; Applicant’s Exhibit 13.
Applicant markets its product by direct mailing to
architects and builders. Benforado dep. at 51. Its
product is distributed through dealer/installers.
Benforado dep. at 24. It mails its brochures (Opposer’s
Exhibit 14, Applicant’s Exhibit 13) to “[h]omeowners,
builders, decorators, architects.” Benforado dep. at 38.
Likelihood of Confusion
We now address the question of whether there is a
likelihood of confusion. The Court of Customs and Patent
Opposition No. 113,374
11
Appeals, one of the predecessor courts of the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, set out a non-exclusive
list of thirteen factors to be considered when
determining whether one mark is likely to cause confusion
with another mark. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). We
begin our discussion by analyzing the applicant’s and
opposer’s marks under the du Pont factors that are at
issue in this case.
(1) The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in
their entireties as to appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression.

Opposer is using the mark GRANATEX while applicant’s
mark is GRANTEX SURFACE SYSTEMS with the words “SURFACE
SYSTEM” disclaimed. It is well settled that it is
improper to dissect a mark and that marks must be viewed
in their entireties. In re Shell Oil, 992 F.2d 1204,
1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However,
more or less weight may be given to a particular feature
of a mark, provided that the marks are still considered
in their entireties. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d
1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Applicant has, in effect, taken opposer’s mark GRANATEX,
deleted the second “a” and added the descriptive words
“surface systems” to the mark. We believe that GRANTEX
Opposition No. 113,374
12
is the dominant feature of applicant’s mark, and the
feature that potential customers are likely to remember.
Applicant’s brochure itself refers to the term “Grantex”
eleven times. Opposer’s Exhibit 14; Applicant’s Exhibit
13. Ten times it is used without the words “surface
systems.” The only time it is used with “surface
systems” is in the return address line where the words
“surface systems” appear below the term “Grantex” in
regular type while the word “Grantex” appears on the line
above in much larger and multi-color type. Thus, GRANTEX
would be the dominant part of applicant’s mark. In re
Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d
1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that THE DELTA CAFE
and design was confusingly similar to DELTA; more weight
given to common dominant word DELTA). See also Wella
Corp. v. California Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 194
USPQ 419 (CCPA 1977)(CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and design likely
to be confused with CONCEPT for hair care products).
Also, the presence or absence of the letter “a” in
the middle of the mark does not significantly reduce the
likelihood that the marks are likely to be confused.
Consumers’ memories are not perfect and they would have a
hard time distinguishing between terms as similar as
“Grantex” and “Granatex.” Even considering the presence
Opposition No. 113,374
13
of the additional words “surface systems,” consumers
would likely believe that applicant’s mark merely
identifies another product sold under the “Granatex”
trademark.
Thus, the marks look and sound alike and they likely
have the same meaning in that they imply or suggest
granite or a granite-like appearance. Benforado dep. at
80 (Applicant’s president acknowledged that one of the
reasons applicant “chose [the mark] Grantex [was] because
it looks like granite”); Opposer’s Exhibit 20 (“Granatex®
is the top-of-the-line granite filler material”);
Opposer’s Exhibit 8 (“Granatex 600 is a unique
formulation used for spraying a granite-look product”).
This du Pont factor favors opposer.
(2) The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of
the goods or services as described in an
application or registration or in connection
with which a prior mark is in use.

Applicant’s goods are identified as “decorative
surface coatings in the nature of a quartz-like finish
for use on concrete surfaces and a variety of indoor and
outdoor walls.” Opposer’s products are filler material
used to make counters for kitchens, bathroom fixtures,
and architectural products. It is very clear that the
products are not identical. Applicant’s product is a
relatively inexpensive surfacing material that is applied
Opposition No. 113,374
14
over a preexisting material to repair or improve the
surface of the material. Applicant’s advertising
emphasizes its use around pools, stairs, driveways, and
similar areas.
Opposer’s product, on the other hand, is a solid
surface material primarily used to make counters and
bathroom fixtures. Opposer’s product is more expensive
than applicant’s and its primary use would not be to
repair or improve the appearance of a pre-existing
surface. Opposer has admitted that its product is
primarily used in kitchens and bathrooms. Applicant’s
president, on the other hand, testified that: “We don’t
want the product in a situation or environment of a
bathroom. We don’t want to do bathrooms. A bathroom is
[a] four-by-four shower. My dealers can’t make any money
doing showers. My product doesn’t sell for $100 a foot,
it sells for five dollars a foot.” Benforado dep. at 93-
94.
Despite the obvious differences in the products and
their cost, the goods are related. Both are marketed
under similar conditions. The products are not sold
directly to the ultimate purchaser, i.e., the building
owner or builder. Instead they are sold to
dealer/installers or manufacturers who would eventually
Opposition No. 113,374
15
sell the product to the building owner or builder. Both
would market their product in similar ways by attempting
to create demand from homeowners, building owners,
architects, and others who specify the products or
materials used in a building project.
There is some dissimilarity between the specific
trade shows attended by the parties. Opposer would
attend the National Kitchen and Bath Show (Hoskinson dep.
at 24); applicant would attend the National Pool and Spa
Show and World of Concrete shows (Benforado dep. at 54-
55). However, applicant’s dealer/installers and
opposer’s manufacturers would attend home trade shows
where applicant’s and opposer’s products or goods made
from their products would be exhibited. Benforado dep.
at 72; Hoskinson dep. at 34. Both applicant and opposer
also target architects as individuals who they hope will
specify their products in their projects. Hoskinson dep.
at 24; Benforado dep. at 38; Cagni dep. at 14.
Thus, while the goods are not identical, they could
be specified by the same individuals (architects) for the
same job. Both products also have multiple uses. Both
applicant and opposer leave it up to the manufacturers
and dealers/installers to decide how the products are
used. Thus, they have little control over where their
Opposition No. 113,374
16
product will be used and to what uses their products will
be put. While applicant’s witness from the construction
industry testified that “the two of the things are
totally different. I don’t think I would confuse the
source or the use,” (Cagni dep. at 12), it is also clear
that when he used the GRANTEX SURFACE SYSTEM product, he
did so because the project’s architect specified it.
Cagni dep. at 13. However, since the products would be
marketed to architects, homeowners, and builders, they
would likely assume that the product used as an exterior
floor surface and the material for a counter or bathroom
fixture for the same project, when sold under very
similar trademarks, came from, or were associated with,
the same source.
(3) The similarity or dissimilarity of established,
likely-to-continue trade channels.

As explained above, both applicant and opposer
ultimately market their goods to people who specify the
components for a construction project (building owners,
homeowners, and architects). Thus, while it is unlikely
that the same party would install applicant’s and
opposer’s products, the same ultimate customer may
specify for, example, that, in a new home construction
product, it wants GRANTEX SURFACE SYSTEMS on the driveway
and around the pool and GRANATEX features and countertops
Opposition No. 113,374
17
in the bathroom and kitchen. Thus, because these
products would be marketed to the same consumers at the
same time, this factor favors opposer.
(4) The conditions under which and buyers to whom
sales are made, i.e. "impulse" vs. careful,
sophisticated purchasing.

We agree with applicant that neither parties’ goods
are likely to be purchased on impulse, and therefore,
this factor favors applicant.
(5) The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising,
length of use).

We reject opposer’s argument that “Gruber has been
using GRANATEX for 13 years, which causes fame.”
Opposer’s evidence of fame is, at best, de minimis. It
presented no evidence of volume of sales, market
penetration, and advertising expenditures. Thus, this
factor does not support opposer’s argument concerning
likelihood of confusion.
(6) The number and nature of similar marks in use on
similar goods.

Applicant’s trademark search results are not
evidence of use and, therefore, there is no evidence of
third-party use of similar marks on similar goods.
Therefore, this factor would favor opposer.
(7) The extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether
de minimis or substantial.

Opposition No. 113,374
18
If the products were marketed on a national scale,
the potential of confusion would be substantial because
the ultimate purchasers or specifiers of these products
would likely associate them with a single source.
(8) Any other established fact probative of the
effect of use.

There is no other established probative fact.
Opposer’s argument that one product contains health
warnings and the other does not is not a significant
factor in a likelihood of confusion analysis. The first
level purchasers of the products, manufacturers and
dealer/installers, would be expected to read and observe
health and safety warnings.
Application of the Likelihood of Confusion Factors

After we balance the du Pont factors, we conclude
that there is a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of
confusion is decided upon the facts of each case. Dixie
Restaurants, 105 F.3d at 1406, 41 USPQ2d at 1533; Shell
Oil, 992 F.2d at 1206, 26 USPQ2d at 1688. The various
factors may play more or less weighty roles in any
particular determination of likelihood of confusion.
Shell Oil, 992 F.2d at 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1688; du Pont, 476
F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567.
Here, we first note that the marks are very similar.
Even the addition of the term “surface systems”
Opposition No. 113,374
19
reinforces, instead of reduces, the likelihood of
confusion. Architects and other specifiers who are
familiar with opposer’s GRANATEX countertops and similar
products are likely to believe that GRANTEX SURFACE
SYSTEMS is simply a new product from the original source.
The slight difference between the common portions of the
marks, GRANATEX and GRANTEX, would be difficult for most
consumers to distinguish. Therefore, in order to
determine if confusion is likely, we must next look at
the parties’ goods.
In order to support a determination that the goods
are related, it is not necessary that respective goods be
identical or even competitive. If the goods are marketed
in such a way that would lead customers to a mistaken
belief that they originate from or are in some way
associated with the same producer or that there is some
association or connection between the producers of the
respective goods, the goods are related. Recot Inc. v.
M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed.
Cir. 2000); In re International Telephone & Telegraph
Corp., 197 USPQ 910, 911 (TTAB 1978).
In this case, the goods are marketed to the same
ultimate consumers or specifiers. Applicant’s goods can
be used on floors and walls and indoors and outdoors.
Opposition No. 113,374
20
Opposer’s publications indicate that its products are
used in kitchen and bathroom countertops, shower pans,
shower surrounds, flooring, and columns. See Opposer’s
Exhibits 4 and 5; Applicant’s Brief at 10-11 (listing
goods in opposer’s exhibits). Neither party’s goods are
confined to a specific use or type of product.
Applicant’s brochure shows or describes a multitude of
uses including stairs, marinas, pool and spa areas,
porches, patios, walkways, garage floors, commercial
kitchen walls, and “any area that needs a new look.”
Opposer’s Exhibit 14; applicant’s Exhibit 13 (“[T]he
newest invention to hit the market for surfacing and
resurfacing exterior and interiors”). Opposer’s
newsletter similarly describes a multitude of uses of its
products. Opposer’s Exhibit 6. Opposer does not control
the products that can be made from its goods, and
applicant does not limit the uses of its materials.
Under these circumstances, with a dynamic market for its
multi-use goods, confusion is more likely as the products
are actually used in homes and other buildings. Both
products are likely to be encountered by the same
ultimate consumers, who are likely to attribute a common
source to applicant’s and opposer’s goods sold under the
marks GRANATEX and GRANTEX SURFACE SYSTEMS.
Opposition No. 113,374
21
While we note that there is no actual confusion in
this case, this is not a prerequisite for establishing a
likelihood of confusion. Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's
Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 USPQ 390, 396 (Fed.
Cir. 1983); J & J Smack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp.,
932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889, 1892 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In
this case, where there has been no showing of extensive
marketing of the products sold under the respective
marks, it is not surprising that there was no evidence of
actual confusion. We also have little evidence that
would support giving the GRANATEX mark only a narrow
scope of protection. Even if it were weak, professional
purchasers are likely to assume that the products of
applicant and opposer, when they are sold with such
similar marks, come from the same source. Octocom
Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, 918 F.2d 937,
942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
We certainly do not hold that all products purchased
or specified by architects or homeowners are related
products. Our decision in this case is based upon the
specific goods of the parties. Opposer is not selling
sinks and bathroom fixtures. It is selling a solid
surface product that can be put to various uses including
countertops, sinks, shower pans, and even such uses as
Opposition No. 113,374
22
flooring and columns. Applicant is selling a coating or
surfacing material that can be used in “any area that
needs a new look.” About the only limit on applicant’s
product is the willingness of a dealer/installer to do a
job that applicant may consider to be too small
(Benforado dep. at 101-102) and, for opposer’s product,
the limit of its uses seems to be the willingness of the
ultimate consumer to pay for the added cost of its
materials (Hoskinson dep. at 75-76 (Spa manufacturer
evaluating cost effectiveness of using GRANATEX for
spas). Thus, with the many and varied uses of these
products and the close similarity of the marks, we find
that there would be a likelihood of confusion when the
mark GRANTEX SURFACE SYSTEMS is used on decorative
surface coatings in the nature of a quartz-like finish
for use on concrete surfaces and a variety of indoor and
outdoor walls and the mark GRANATEX is used on filler
material made of polymer and inorganic fillers that is
mixed with resins to form a final product used in making
counters for kitchens, bathroom fixtures and
architectural products.
Decision: The opposition is sustained and
registration to applicant is refused.