Natrol, Inc.v.NaturexDownload PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 2013No. 91198368re (T.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013) Copy Citation THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: May 16, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ Natrol, Inc. v. Naturex _____ Opposition No. 91198368 _____ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION _____ Julie B. Seyler of Abelman Frayne & Schwab for Natrol, Inc. John S. Egbert of Egbert Law Offices PLLC for Naturex. _____ Before Grendel, Kuhlke and Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge: Naturex (“applicant”) filed an application to register the mark NATROX, in standard character form, for the following goods, as amended:1 1 Application Serial No. 79076683 filed October 1, 2009. The application is a request for protection under Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1144f(a). Opposition No. 91198368 2 Chemicals as raw materials for cosmetics and the food and pharmaceutical industries, mainly comprising plant extracts; active chemical ingredients used in cosmetic formulation; mineral salts, namely, magnesium salts, in Class 1; and Soaps; perfumes; cosmetics; essential oils; odoriferous substances, namely, body sprays used as personal deodorants and as fragrance, perfumery; cosmetics in galenic form and mainly containing plant extracts, not for medical purposes; plant and herb extracts sold as components of cosmetics for beauty and skin, body, facial, hair or nail care, in the form of capsules, tablets, ampules, yeast, powders, bars, creams or beverages, in Class 3. Natrol, Inc. (“opposer”) opposed the registration of applicant’s mark on the ground of likelihood of confusion pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Specifically, opposer alleged that applicant’s mark NATROX when used in connection with the goods identified in the application so resembles opposer’s mark NATROL used in connection with dietary supplements as to be likely to cause confusion. In an order dated February 27, 2013, the Board dismissed the opposition in connection with the goods in Class 1 and sustained the opposition in connection with the goods in Class 3. On that same date, in Opposition No. 91199191, Kemin Industries, Inc. v. Naturex, against the same application as involved in this opposition, the Board sustained the opposition in connection with the goods in Class 1 and dismissed the opposition in connection with the goods in Class 3. On March 27, 2013, opposer in this opposition filed a request for reconsideration. However, neither party in Opposition No. 91199191 filed a request Opposition No. 91198368 3 for reconsideration or a notice of appeal. Because that decision has become final, registration to applicant for the goods in Class 1 is refused and the application will be abandoned in due course. In view of the foregoing, opposer’s request for reconsideration is denied as moot. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation