University of Louisiana at Lafayettev.Richards Cajun Foods Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2019

91233876 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2019)

Mailed: November 6, 2019
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
v.
Richards Cajun Foods Corp.
___

Opposition No. 91233876
___

Blair B. Suire and Robert L. Waddell of Jones Walker LLP
for University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Evan D. Brown and Adam K. Sacharoff of Much Shelist, P.C.
for Richards Cajun Foods Corp.
______
Before Kuhlke, Adlin and Pologeorgis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant Richards Cajun Foods Corp. seeks registration of GEAUX CAJUN, in
standard characters, for “fresh and processed meat products, namely, sausage;
smoked sausage.”1 Opposer University of Louisiana at Lafayette, in its second

1 Application Serial No. 87173267, filed September 16, 2016 under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, based on an alleged intent to use the mark in commerce. According to the
application, “[t]he English translation of ‘GEAUX’ in the mark is ‘GO’.”

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Opposition No. 91233876
2
amended notice of opposition,2 alleges that it is located in the Acadiana region of
Louisiana, which is known as “Cajun country,” and that its nickname is the RAGIN’
CAJUNS. It further alleges prior use and registration of the mark GEAUX CAJUNS,
in standard characters (CAJUNS disclaimed), for educational and entertainment
services, clothing and a “wide variety of licensed goods and services.”3 As grounds for
opposition, Opposer alleges that use of Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion
with Opposer’s mark, including because “[t]he consuming public expects the goods
sold and licensed by the University under the University’s GEAUX CAJUNS mark to
expand to food and beverage products (including sausage) based on the University’s
established history of licensing its marks for use in connection with food and beverage
products.” 15 TTABVUE 16 (Second Amended NOO ¶ 31). In its answer to the first

2 As explained in the order denying Applicant’s motion for summary judgment, Opposer filed
a motion for leave to file a second amended notice of opposition (“NOO”). Applicant had not
opposed the motion at the time the summary judgment decision issued. 18 TTABVUE 3.
Ultimately, Applicant failed to oppose the motion for leave to amend. The motion is therefore
granted as conceded, Trademark Rule 2.127(a), and the Second Amended NOO is Opposer’s
operative pleading. In any event, as explained in the summary judgment decision, the second
amended NOO is not substantively different than the first, and our decision in this case
would be the same under either pleading. 18 TTABVUE 3-4. Citations to the record reference
TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system. The number preceding “TTABVUE”
corresponds to the docket entry number(s), and any number(s) following “TTABVUE” refer
to the page number(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials appear.
3 Registration Nos. 4513687 and 4614190, issued April 15, 2014 and September 30, 2014,
respectively, both under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. The ‘687 Registration issued for
“clothing, namely, sweatshirts, caps, T-shirts, jerseys, shorts, jackets, pants, golf shirts,
underwear, tennis shoes, neckties, and socks” in International Class 25. The ‘190
Registration issued for “athletic balls, namely, footballs, basketballs, baseballs, and golfballs”
in International Class 28; and “education services in the nature of courses at the university
level; entertainment services in the nature of football games, basketball games, baseball
games, softball games, tennis matches, golf matches, track and field events, and soccer
games” in International Class 41.
Opposition No. 91233876
3
amended NOO, Applicant admits that the parties are both located in “Cajun
Country,” and that their marks are “similar visually and phonetically,” but otherwise
denies the salient allegations in the notice of opposition; Applicant also asserts
several “affirmative defenses” which are in fact merely amplifications of its denials.4
I. The Record and Trial Stipulations
The record consists of the pleadings and, by operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b),
the file of the involved application. In addition, Opposer introduced:
First Notice of Reliance (“Opp. NOR I”) on its pleaded and
certain unpleaded registrations; third-party registrations;
Internet printouts; and printed publications. 19 and 20
TTABVUE.

Second NOR (“Opp. NOR II”) on the discovery deposition of
Ronald Doucet, Applicant’s President (“Doucet Disc. Tr.”)
and Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s written discovery
requests. 22 TTABVUE.

Testimony Declaration of Leslie Saloom, Opposer’s
Associate Director of Trademark Licensing, and the
exhibits thereto (“Saloom Dec.”). 27 and 28 TTABVUE.

Testimony Declaration of Aaron Martin, Opposer’s Chief
Communications Officer, and the exhibits thereto (“Martin
Dec.”). 29 TTABVUE.

Testimony Declaration of Courtney Jeffries, Opposer’s
Creative Director, and the exhibits thereto (“Jeffries Dec.”).
30 TTABVUE.

Testimony Declaration of Eric Maron, Opposer’s Senior
Communications Representative for the athletic

4 Due to the fairly peculiar circumstances explained in footnote 2, the Board has never set
Applicant’s time to answer the Second Amended NOO, and default was never entered;
obviously, default would be inappropriate, and because the First and Second Amended NOOs
are substantively similar, we presume that Applicant’s answer to the Second Amended NOO
would be substantively the same as its answer to the First Amended NOO, and, effectively,
a general denial.
Opposition No. 91233876
4
department, and the exhibits thereto (“Maron Dec.”). 31
TTABVUE.

Testimony Declaration of Cory Moss, Senior Vice President
and Managing Director of IMG College Licensing
(“IMGCL”), and the exhibits thereto (“Moss Dec.”). 33
TTABVUE.

Applicant introduced:
NOR (“App. NOR”) on its discovery deposition of Mr.
Martin (“Martin Disc. Tr.”). 34 TTABVUE.

The parties also filed a stipulation that certain materials are authentic and
admissible, but subject to objection. 24 TTABVUE. Some of the information
submitted in the stipulation and elsewhere in the record was deemed confidential
under the Board’s Standard Protective Order, and will therefore only be discussed
generally.
II. The Parties, Their Marks and Collegiate Licensing in the Food and
Beverage Field
A. Opposer
Opposer is located in the Acadiana region of Louisiana, which is known as “Cajun
Country.” Ms. Saloom testified that Cajuns are descendants of French Canadians
deported from Nova Scotia in the 1700s who settled in South Louisiana. Many Cajun
surnames end with the letters “eaux,” such as Breaux and Boudreaux. 27 TTABVUE
3 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 7-8).
Opposition No. 91233876
5
Opposer’s “students, alumni, and sports teams are known by its famous RAGIN’
CAJUNS mark, or simply ‘Cajuns.’” Id. (Saloom Dec. ¶ 9).5 Opposer’s sports teams
have enjoyed considerable success over the years, winning multiple Sun Belt
conference championships in several sports. 31 TTABVUE 3 (Maron Dec. ¶ 6).
Opposer’s students’ cheers of “Go Cajuns” at RAGIN’ CAJUNS games were eventually
displayed as GEAUX CAJUNS “to honor and promote the University’s Cajun heritage
and culture, as ‘eaux’ is a Cajun French form of nouns ending in eau.” 27 TTABVUE
5 (Saloom Dec. ¶ 13). Opposer started using GEAUX CAJUNS as a mark in 1993. For
example, since the 1990’s, Opposer’s alumni association has distributed the signs
depicted below which were displayed at school sporting events:

Id. at 5; 28 TTABVUE 9 (Saloom Dec. ¶ 14 and Ex. 104).
Eventually, and well prior to the filing date of Applicant’s involved application,
Opposer began using the GEAUX CAJUNS mark to promote not only the school’s
sporting events, but also the school’s core education services, as well as collateral

5 Opposer owns registrations for the marks RAGIN’ CAJUNS (Registration Nos. 1999398 and
4308629) for a variety of products and services, and RAGIN’ RED for “seasoning for food and
food preparation namely salt, pepper, sauces and spices” (Registration No. 3387262).
Opposition No. 91233876
6
products typical of university trademark licensors, such as sporting goods, clothing
and license plates, as depicted below:

Opposition No. 91233876
7

Opposition No. 91233876
8

Opposition No. 91233876
9
27 TTABVUE 6-8, 18, 19, 63, 111, 116, 121 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 17-20, 61, 65 and Exs.
24, 59); 28 TTABVUE 96, 100, 108, 113-115 (Saloom Dec. Exs. 115-116). The following
excerpt is from Opposer’s 2009 admissions brochure:

27 TTABVUE 8-9; 28 TTABVUE 30 (Saloom Dec. ¶ 23 and Ex. 111).
Opposer has an extensive trademark licensing program, managed in part by
IMGCL, Opposer’s licensing agent. 27 TTABVUE 9 (Saloom Dec. ¶ 25 and Ex. 64). As
of December 2017, Opposer had 260 trademark licensees, which, pursuant to
IMGCL’s standard licensing regime and agreements, each have the right to sell a
wide range of licensed goods under any of Opposer’s licensed marks, of which there
are many, including both RAGIN’ CAJUNS and GEAUX CAJUNS. Id. at 10, 126-155
(Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 26-30 and Ex. 63-67).
Opposition No. 91233876
10
Opposer is a pioneer among American colleges and universities in expanding its
trademark licensing program to “consumables,” specifically food and beverages. Id.
at 11-12 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 31-34). In fact, in fiscal year 2017, Opposer’s “royalties on
sales of licensed consumable products (food and beverage) accounted for more than
30 percent of the University’s licensing royalties. For the collegiate industry as a
whole, royalties on sales of licensed consumable products represent only 4 percent of
total licensing royalties.” Id. at 11, 55 (Saloom Dec. ¶ 32 and Ex. 22); 34 TTABVUE
37, 40 (Martin Tr. 32, 35).
More specifically: (1) since 2014 Opposer has licensed its RAGIN’ CAJUNS mark
to Mello Joy for beverages (coffee); (2) since 2015 Opposer has licensed its RAGIN’
CAJUNS mark to Bayou Teche for beverages (beer); (3) since 2005 Opposer has
licensed its RAGIN’ CAJUNS mark to Credeurs Sports & Specialties for seasoning;
and (4) since 2012 Opposer has licensed its RAGIN’ CAJUNS mark to Sonic Capital,
which operates the Sonic fast food chain, for hamburgers.6 27 TTABVUE 12-18, 156-
239 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 35-64 and Exs. 68-79). These products and advertisements for
them are depicted below:

6 As indicated, Opposer in fact licensed all of its marks subject to IMGCL’s standard license
agreement to these licensees, including the GEAUX CAJUNS mark.
Opposition No. 91233876
11

Opposition No. 91233876
12

Id. at 12-18, 119, 187, 239, 257 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 35-64 and Exs. 61, 72, 79, 83); 30
TTABVUE 7 (Jeffries Dec. ¶ 21). As shown, Bayou Teche uses the GEAUX CAJUNS
Opposition No. 91233876
13
mark in advertisements for its RAGIN’ CAJUNS beer, and beginning in 2014 Mello
Joy started using the GEAUX CAJUNS mark on the packaging for its RAGIN’
CAJUNS coffee. Opposer has received:
• more than $5,000 in royalties from its RAGIN’ CAJUNS coffee license
from 2015-2018;

• more than $92,000 in royalties from its RAGIN’ CAJUNS beer license
from 2016-2018;

• more than $56,000 in royalties from its RAGIN’ CAJUNS seasoning
license from 2013-2018; and

• more than $95,000 in royalties from its RAGIN’ CAJUNS hamburger
license to Sonic in 2014 and 2016-2017.

Thus, Opposer has earned more than $240,000 in the past several years merely from
use of its RAGIN’ CAJUNS (and sometimes GEAUX CAJUNS mark) for food and
beverages. 27 TTABVUE 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 126-128, 172-75, 205-207, 233-38, 254-56
(Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 24, 38, 50, 57 and 63 and Exs. 63, 69, 74, 78 and 82); 31 TTABVUE
3-6, 23-87 (Maron Dec. ¶¶ 8-9, 15-18 and Ex. 58-60, 87, 88); 33 TTABVUE 4-5, 53-57,
74-76, 98-104, 115-117 (Martin Dec. ¶¶ 9(a)-9(d) and Exs. 69, 74, 78 and 82). We may
safely assume that its figures for licensing the RAGIN’ CAJUNS mark for products
other than food and beverages are substantially higher. 27 TTABVUE 11 (Saloom
Dec. ¶ 32 (“In fiscal year 2017, the University’s royalties on sales of licensed
consumable products (food and beverage) accounted for more than 30 percent of the
University’s licensing royalties.”).
Opposition No. 91233876
14
In addition, in 2015, also prior to Applicant’s filing date, Opposer gave permission
to Raising Cane, a restaurant known for its chicken tenders, to use the GEAUX
CAJUNS mark in its advertisements, as depicted below:

Opposition No. 91233876
15
27 TTABVUE 18-19, 261-276 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 67-73 and Exs. 84-86); 29 TTABVUE
4, 27-29 (Martin Dec. ¶10 and Ex. 84).
“Tailgating” is quite popular at Cajun Field, Opposer’s football stadium. Opposer
promotes and capitalizes on this popularity by managing and renting parking lot and
field space outside of the stadium for tailgaters to host their tailgate parties prior to
home football games. 27 TTABVUE 20 (Saloom Dec. ¶ 74-75). Opposer and its
affiliated groups also host their own tailgate parties, as depicted below:

Id. at 20, 80 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 74-75 and Ex. 29); 28 TTABVUE 26 (Saloom Dec. Ex.
106).
The foods commonly served at RAGIN’ CAJUN tailgate parties include gumbo,
jambalaya and other foods which may contain sausage. 27 TTABVUE 20 (Saloom
Dec. ¶ 76). See also 31 TTABVUE 9 (Maron Dec. ¶¶ 31-33) (“Common meals prepared
and served at tailgating gatherings in South Louisiana include jambalaya including
sausage, gumbo including sausage, and barbequed meats (frequently including
smoked sausage and boudin, a type of Cajun sausage).”). Media reports confirm and
Opposition No. 91233876
16
stress the tradition of serving gumbo, jambalaya, boudin (sausage mixed with rice,
liver, green onions and seasoning) and other “Cajun foods” at Louisiana tailgate
parties, and more specifically tailgate parties at Opposer’s home football games. Id.
at 20-22, 65-79 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 77-82 and Exs. 25-28). See also 34 TTABVUE 46
(Mitchell Tr. 41). For example, a blog post on the Rouses Markets website recites the
following slogan which “embodies what one of UL Lafayette’s oldest tailgating groups
is all about”: “WELCOME TO RAGIN’ CAJUN TAILGATING A TRADITION OF
JOIE DE VIVRE WHERE THE ROADKILL MEETS THE ROUX AT THE HANDS
OF THE KREWE DE CHEW.” Id. at 76 (Saloom Decl. Ex. 28).
Beer is also popular at tailgate parties before Opposer’s home football games, and
an article about RAGIN’ CAJUNS beer on Opposer’s website quotes Mr. Martin’s
explanation of the decision to license the RAGIN’ CAJUNS mark for beer: “We were
looking for a product that would be suitable for tailgating before Ragin’ Cajuns
athletic events … The ale’s slogan is French, ‘ca va mieux avec des amis,’ which means
‘it goes better with friends.’ That’s so appropriate because it reflects the hospitality
of the Cajun and Creole cultures in Acadiana.” Id. at 22, 87 (Saloom Dec. ¶ 81 and
Ex. 31); 29 TTABVUE 3 (Martin Dec. ¶ 7 and Ex. 31). According to an article on the
“allaboutbeer.com” website entitled “The First Officially Licensed College Beer,” Mr.
Martin and Opposer first approached Bayou Teche about licensing RAGIN’ CAJUNS
for beer with two requirements. Bayou Teche “had to use at least one Louisiana
ingredient,” and “had to make sure the beer would be quaffable enough for tailgating
in the intense, humid Louisiana heat.” 28 TTABVUE 2 (Saloom Dec. Ex. 89). The
Opposition No. 91233876
17
article goes on to state that RAGIN’ CAJUNS beer “goes great with Cajun dishes such
as boudin and jambalaya,” and sales of RAGIN’ CAJUNS beer have been “in the same
ballpark” as those for Bud Light and Michelob Ultra at home football games. Id. at 3.
Opposer itself offers food at its sporting events, including sausage po-boy
sandwiches, gumbo and jambalaya. A concession stand display from Opposer’s
football stadium is depicted below:

27 TTABVUE 8, 23, 125 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 21, 83 and Ex. 62); 31 TTABVUE 8 (Maron
Dec. ¶ 28) (“Concession stands at Cajun Field, the University’s football stadium, sells
sausage, jambalaya including sausage, and gumbo during the University’s football
games.”).
Opposer’s licensed consumable products and their packaging, including those
depicted above, emphasize Opposer’s licensed marks, while the names of Opposer’s
licensees are deemphasized. In fact, Opposer’s
policy on packaging and marketing for licensed consumable
products is to emphasize the University’s trademarks, not
the licensee’s name or trademark. Instead, the licensee’s
name and/or trademark appears on the package as an
Opposition No. 91233876
18
indication of the manufacturer or distributor. These
packages use the University’s trademark in a primary or
dominant position, with the licensee’s name and/or
trademark in a secondary position and in a smaller font
size … Consumers, including the University’s students,
alumni, and fans, are more likely to purchase the licensed
consumable products to support the University.

27 TTABVUE 11-12 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 33-34); 30 TTABVUE 3 (Jeffries Dec. ¶¶ 7-8).
Opposer “plans to continue expanding its trademark licenses for consumable
products, namely, food and beverage products,” and has discussed “encouraging one
of its licensees to adopt the GEAUX CAJUNS trademark for a seasoning product.” 27
TTABVUE 23 (Saloom Dec. ¶ 84). This expansion strategy “is focused on food and
beverage products important to Cajun and Louisiana culture, including tailgating
and the products consumed at tailgating events.” Id. (Saloom Dec. ¶ 87). Ms. Maron
testified that “sausage products are a natural progression of the University’s
expansion of its trademark licensing due to the significant presence of sausage in
traditional meals served at tailgating gatherings before sporting events in Louisiana,
including at the University’s Cajun Field, and by concessions vendors at the
University’s sports events.” 31 TTABVUE 10 (Maron Dec. ¶ 40). See also 34
TTABVUE 38-39, 46 (Mitchell Tr. 33-34, 41) (“because meat, − boudin specifically –
and other things have been tied – jambalaya, which uses sausage, is a big part of our
tailgating tradition. It’s certainly something that would definitely fit into our brand.
You know, I don’t think selling Chicago style pizza would fit into our brand, but
certainly sausage and boudin.”).
Opposition No. 91233876
19
Opposer is concerned that consumers would be confused by Applicant’s GEAUX
CAJUN sausage: “I think a mistake that people might assume that they’re doing
these things that support the University’s mission and its objectives by seeing the
sausage and thinking that it’s a part of our family of products.” 34 TTABVUE 34
(Mitchell Tr. 29).
B. Applicant
Applicant is a “wholesale manufacturer of Cajun products. Those products include
smoked sausage and a line of frozen entrees.” 22 TTABVUE 31 (Doucet Tr. 26). Like
Opposer, Applicant is based in “Cajun Country,” which Mr. Doucet and Applicant
consider “as being basically a 50-mile radius of where our facility is located.” Both
Applicant and Opposer are located in Acadia Parish. Id. at 26 (Doucet Tr. 21).
Applicant’s tagline, used on its website and product packaging, is “First Choice of
Cajun Country,” and its packaging sometimes bears the notation “Certified Cajun.”
Id. at 29, 177, 183 (Doucet Tr. 24 and Exs. H and J).
Applicant adopted its GEAUX CAJUN mark intending to use it for a new “smoked
sausage product, that would have been competitive in competing against Manda out
of Baton Rouge.” Id. at 36 (Doucet Tr. 31). It is promoted as specifically “great in
gumbo.” Id. at 159 (Doucet Tr. Ex. D). The packaging for Applicant’s GEAUX CAJUN
product emphasizes the GEAUX CAJUN mark and deemphasizes the RICHARD’S
trade name in a way which contrasts with Applicant’s packaging for its other
products:
Opposition No. 91233876
20

Id. at 177, 183 (Doucet Tr. Exs. H and J).
Applicant pronounces the term GEAUX in its involved mark as “go,” and admits
that Opposer’s mark GEAUX CAJUNS and Applicant’s mark GEAUX CAJUN are
“visually and phonetically similar.” Id. at 33, 70, 157, 198-200 (Doucet Tr. 28, 65 and
Ex. C (Applicant’s Response to Request for Admission Nos. 7 and 19)).
Opposition No. 91233876
21
Mr. Doucet has attended classes in Opposer’s classrooms, although they were
sponsored by a banking organization rather than the university itself, and he has
attended Opposer’s baseball, basketball and football games. 22 TTABVUE 13-14
(Doucet Tr. 8-9). He has purchased clothing bearing the RAGIN’ CAJUNS mark, and
is aware of the Sonic RAGIN’ CAJUNS burger and Mello Joy’s trademark
relationship with Opposer. Id. at 15, 18-19 (Doucet Tr. 10, 13-14). He is also aware of
Opposer’s GEAUX CAJUNS mark, having encountered it when attending Opposer’s
sporting events. Id. at 19, 21 (Doucet Tr. 14, 16). One of Mr. Doucet’s children
graduated from Opposer in 2010. Id. at 13 (Doucet Tr. 8).
C. Third-Party College/University Marks Used and Registered for Food
and Beverages
It is not uncommon for colleges and universities to use, or license third parties to
use, college and university marks, including nicknames, in connection with food and
beverage products. For example, the University of Idaho’s website promotes
VANDAL BRAND MEATS:
Opposition No. 91233876
22

19 TTABVUE 388. An article on “thelantern.com,” based on an interview with Anne
Chasser, the Ohio State University’s Director of Trademark and Licensing, states
that “Ohio Packing Company, which supplies concessions at OSU sporting arenas,
will soon stock grocery stores shelves with OSU hot dogs and new ‘Brutus brats.’” Id.
at 389. Ohio Packing Co.’s website and Facebook page display the hot dogs bearing
the BUCKEYE mark:
Opposition No. 91233876
23

Id. at 392, 394. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Loeffel Meat Laboratory’s
website indicates that it sells meat, including sausage:

Opposition No. 91233876
24
19 TTABVUE 385. In addition, the University of Texas’s LONGHORN mark and
University of Cincinnati’s C and paw print design marks are used for nuts, the
University of Wisconsin’s BADGER and Washington State’s COUGAR marks are
used for cheese, the University of Pittsburgh’s PANTHERS mark is used for potato
chips , and Clemson University’s CLEMSON and paw print design
marks are used for blue cheese . 19 TTABVUE 398;
20 TTABVUE 2-37.
Opposer also introduced evidence that third-party colleges and universities have
registered the same marks for educational services and goods and services more
traditionally associated with educational institutions on the one hand, and meat or
other food or beverage products on the other. These include the University of
Nebraska, University of Idaho, the Ohio State University, University of Texas,
University of Wisconsin, University of Pittsburgh and Clemson University marks
Opposition No. 91233876
25
revealed by the use examples depicted above.7 19 TTABVUE 240-330. “Third-party
registrations which cover a number of differing goods and/or services, and which are
based on use in commerce, although not evidence that the marks shown therein are
in use on a commercial scale or that the public is familiar with them, may
nevertheless have some probative value to the extent that they may serve to suggest
that such goods or services are of a type which may emanate from a single source.” In
re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1998); see also In re
Davey Prods., 92 USPQ2d at 1203.
III. Standing and Priority
Opposer’s pleaded registrations, made of record with its original notice of
opposition, establish its standing. 1 TTABVUE 16-21. See Empresa Cubana Del
Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
Because Applicant has not counterclaimed to cancel either of Opposer’s pleaded
registrations, priority is not at issue with respect to the mark and goods and services
identified therein. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182
USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974). In addition, Opposer has established prior common law
use of its GEAUX CAJUNS mark for not only the goods and services identified in its
pleaded registrations, but also for toys, license plates, pins, and even coffee. 27

7 We have not considered any cancelled registrations, or any specific goods or services for
which the submitted registrations were cancelled.
Opposition No. 91233876
26
TTABVUE 6-8, 12-14, 18-20, 63, 111, 116, 121, 156-88 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 17-20, 35-44,
61, 65-73 and Exs. 24, 59); 28 TTABVUE 96, 100, 108, 113-115 (Saloom Dec. Exs.
115-116). Moreover, Opposer has licensed third parties to use the GEAUX CAJUNS
mark to advertise chicken tenders and restaurant services, as well as RAGIN’
CAJUNS beer. 27 TTABVUE 14-16, 18-19, 119, 261-276 (Saloom Dec. ¶¶ 45-53, 67-
73 and Exs. 61, 84-86); 29 TTABVUE 4, 27-29 (Martin Dec. ¶10 and Ex. 84).
IV. Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative evidence of record bearing on the likelihood of confusion. In re E.I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (setting forth
factors to be considered); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65
USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key
considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between
the goods and services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d)
goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods
and differences in the marks.”). Opposer bears the burden of establishing that there
is a likelihood of confusion by a preponderance of the evidence. Cunningham, 55
USPQ2d at 1848.
A. The Marks
The marks are essentially identical, the only difference between them being that
Opposer uses the plural form CAJUNS and Applicant uses the singular form CAJUN.
This is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Wilson v. DeLaunay, 245 F.2d
Opposition No. 91233876
27
877, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (CCPA 1957) (“It is evident that there is no material
difference, in a trademark sense, between the singular and plural forms of the word
‘Zombie’ and they will therefore be regarded here as the same mark.”); In re
Sarjanian, 136 USPQ 307, 308 (TTAB 1962).
Indeed, Applicant admits that the marks are “visually and phonetically similar.”
22 TTABVUE 33, 70, 157, 198-200 (Doucet Tr. 28, 65 and Ex. C (Applicant’s Response
to Request for Admission Nos. 7 and 19)); 9 TTABVUE 11 (Answer to First Amended
NOO ¶ 27). Applicant does not contend that the marks convey different meanings,
nor would doing so be particularly convincing, where Applicant concedes in its
application and this proceeding that GEAUX in its mark means “go,” as it does in
Opposer’s mark. 21 TTABVUE 70 (Doucet Tr. 65). In any event, to the extent the
parties’ marks have different connotations as a result of Applicant using the singular
form of CAJUN and Opposer using the plural, any such differences are minor at best
and not sufficient to avoid confusion.
This factor therefore not only weighs heavily in favor of finding a likelihood of
confusion, but also reduces the degree of similarity between the goods that is required
to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26
USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Time Warner Entm’t Co. v. Jones, 65 USPQ2d
1650, 1661 (TTAB 2002); and In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB
2001).
B. Strength of Opposer’s Mark
Opposer does not argue that its GEAUX CAJUNS mark is “famous” or strong.
While the school’s reports to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”)
Opposition No. 91233876
28
reveal that its athletics department has derived several million dollars in revenue
from ticket sales each year from 2014-2016, and has led the Sun Belt Conference in
attendance in several sports, 31 TTABVUE 3-4, (Maron Dec. ¶¶ 7-9, 23-87 and Exs.
87-88), and it is clear that most of these attendees would likely have been exposed to
the GEAUX CAJUNS mark at some point, there is no specific evidence of trademark
strength. Therefore, this factor is neutral.
C. The Goods, Channels of Trade and Classes of Consumers, and the
Variety of Goods Opposer Offers Under GEAUX CAJUNS
As we consider the goods and services, we keep in mind that they need not be
identical or even competitive in order to find a likelihood of confusion. Rather, the
question is whether the goods are marketed in a manner that “could give rise to the
mistaken belief that [the] goods emanate from the same source.” Coach Services Inc.
v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)). See also
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 227 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Even if the goods and services in question are not identical, the
consuming public may perceive them as related enough to cause confusion about the
source or origin of the goods and services.”); Recot, 54 USPQ2d at 1898 (“even if the
goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the
same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the
goods”); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1109 (2007).
In this case, in which Opposer is not just a fairly large university, but one with
active alumni, many successful sports teams and an engaged fan base, we must also
Opposition No. 91233876
29
keep in mind how trademarks are often used not only by Opposer, but also similar
schools and analogous trademark owners which also expand their use to collateral
products.
Although it may not always have been the case, there is
now no question under our trademark law, as interpreted
by the Court above and this Board, that likelihood of
confusion must be found if the public, being familiar with
a senior party’s use of a mark for particular goods, and
seeing the mark on an item which comes within the
description of goods set forth in a junior party’s application,
is likely to believe that the senior party has expanded its
use of the mark, directly or under license, to such
items. E.g., Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun
Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA
1981); Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1034, 216 USPQ
937 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Berghoff Restaurant v. Washington
Forge, Inc., 225 USPQ 603, 608 (TTAB 1985); Broadway
Catering Corp. v. Carla Inc., 215 USPQ 462, 465 (TTAB
1982); Bridgestone Co. v. Bridgestone Trading Co., 221
USPQ 1012, 1014 (TTAB 1984); Hurst Performance, Inc. v.
Torsten Hallman Racing, Inc., 207 USPQ 671, 675 (TTAB
1980).

Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Inc. v. Pierce Foods Corp., 231 USPQ 857, 862 (TTAB
1986). See also L.C. Licensing, Inc. v. Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883, 1889-90 (TTAB
2008); The NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. v. Antartica, S.r.l., 69 USPQ2d 1718, 1733
(TTAB 2003) (“Also, while opposer’s mark is not registered for goods that are the same
as or closely related to those identified in applicant's application, opposer has clearly
moved into collateral merchandising and into sponsorship of various sporting events,
Opposition No. 91233876
30
so that consumers, i.e., the general public, encountering the NASDAQ mark on
applicant's goods likely will be confused about their origin or sponsorship.”).8
More specifically, we are mindful of the considerable evidence of record that
consumers often encounter marks, such as GEAUX CAJUNS, used by colleges and
universities not just for educational goods and services, and perhaps sports teams
and associated goods and services, but also seemingly far-flung products on which
marks are used to designate the college or university as the product’s “secondary
source.” See generally 1 J. McCarthy, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION § 3:8 (5th ed. Sept. 2019) (“Trademarks can serve to identify and
distinguish a ‘secondary source’ in the sense of indicating sponsorship or
authorization. The ‘secondary source’ is the trademark owner and licensor who has
permitted the use of its mark on certain goods or services.”). As we stated in analogous
circumstances:
… consumers familiar with opposer’s television series and
licensed collateral products such as video games, clothing
items, beach towels, mugs and other diverse consumer
goods, all of which are marketed under opposer’s
GILLIGAN'S ISLAND mark, would be likely to believe,
upon encountering applicant's mark GILLIGAN'S ISLAND
for suntan oil and lotion, sunblock, sunless tanning lotion,
after sun moisturizing lotion, lip balm, hand and body
lotion, hair shampoo and body bar soap, that the goods
originated with or were somehow associated with or
sponsored or licensed by the same entity.

8 While some of the cases cited found this type of source confusion based in part on a finding
that the senior mark was famous or strong, this type of source confusion has also been found
where the senior mark is not famous or strong, as made clear by a number of the other cases
cited herein.
Opposition No. 91233876
31
Turner Ent. Co. v. Nelson, 38 USPQ2d 1942, 1945-46 (TTAB 1996) (citing cases).
Here, as Applicant stresses, the goods and services in Opposer’s pleaded
registrations – educational services, entertainment services (athletic events), sports
balls and clothing – are obviously different than Applicant’s sausage. The same is
true of a number of goods for which Opposer has established prior common law use
of GEAUX CAJUNS. That does not end our inquiry, however, because our focus must
be not on whether consumers would confuse the goods, but instead on whether they
would be confused about the source of Applicant’s goods, or whether they would
perceive an affiliation of some kind between Applicant and Opposer.
In answering this question, we find the ninth du Pont factor, “the variety of goods
on which a mark is or is not used,” to be relevant. In re E.I. du Pont, 177 USPQ at
567. Specifically, Opposer has established use of its GEAUX CAJUNS mark in
connection a broad range of goods and services, from educational services to sports
balls, from neckties to license plates, from athletic events to pins and from bobblehead
dolls to coffee. Because Opposer has used its mark for such a wide array of goods and
services, we find that it would not be a “stretch” for consumers to believe that Opposer
also offers or licenses GEAUX CAJUN for sausage. In fact, in an analogous case, we
found toy vehicles related to specifically different collateral products offered by a
record company, because “[i]t requires no stretch of the imagination for consumers to
believe that these varied collateral goods could reasonably include toy cars …
particularly in view of the fame of opposer’s MOTOWN marks in connection with its
music and entertainment services.” UMG Recordings Inc. v. Mattel Inc., 100 USPQ2d
Opposition No. 91233876
32
1868, 1884 (TTAB 2011). See also Genesco Inc. v. Martz, 66 USPQ2d 1260, 1271
(TTAB 2003) (“this factor may favor a finding that confusion is likely even if the goods
are not obviously related”); Uncle Ben’s Inc. v. Stubenberg Int’l Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1310,
1313 (TTAB 1998) (“Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act also covers situations where
the public, because of the similarity of the marks, is likely to believe that a
recognizably different product, because of the similarity of the marks, emanates from,
or is authorized, sponsored or licensed by the prior user or registrant.”).
More importantly, Opposer has taken initial steps to use GEAUX CAJUNS for
food and beverage products beyond just coffee, such as chicken tenders and beer, just
as it previously expanded its use of RAGIN’ CAJUNS to food and beverages. We agree
with Opposer that its prior common law use, through licensees, of GEAUX CAJUNS
for coffee, and to promote beer and a restaurant and its chicken tenders, as well as
Opposer’s licensees’ more widespread use of RAGIN’ CAJUNS for coffee, beer,
hamburgers and seasoning, establishes that Applicant’s use of GEAUX CAJUN for
sausage would be likely to cause confusion as to the source of Applicant’s goods. Put
simply, sausage is no further from Opposer’s core educational services than the coffee,
beer, chicken restaurants, hamburgers or seasoning for which Opposer already uses
its marks, including in some cases its pleaded GEAUX CAJUNS mark.
While Opposer may use RAGIN’ CAJUNS more than GEAUX CAJUNS, especially
in the food and beverage field, and consumers may very well be more familiar with
RAGIN’ CAJUNS than GEAUX CAJUNS, that does not mean they would not be
Opposition No. 91233876
33
confused by Applicant’s use of GEAUX CAJUN. As we stated in analogous
circumstances:
The mark KRYPTONITE is one of the marks that
opposer licenses as a part of the Superman licenses.
Although KRYPTONITE has not been used on the wide
variety of goods that the Superman mark itself has been
used, it has been used on various items. Specifically, and
as stated previously … opposer has used the mark
KRYPTONITE through licensees … on gum, jewelry pins,
a necklace sold as part of “Smallville” action figures, and
“authentic replica” Kryptonite crystals. Further, while not
technical trademark use, opposer has used KRYPTONITE
in conjunction with promotions for food products and
beverages, specifically, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese
Dinners (advertisement headed “IT SURE BEATS A
BOWL OF KRYPTONITE”); and Coca-Cola's Diet Coke
(advertisement headed “KRYPTONITE FREE”).

Consumers are likely to view KRYPTONITE as a
merchandising mark in the same manner that Superman
is a merchandising mark: the “element” to which opposer
gave the name “kryptonite” has been used in the various
Superman stories for so many decades, and is an integral
part of the stories, to the point that it is akin to a character
in the stories. In addition, because opposer coined the word
“KRYPTONITE” for the fictional substance (and therefore
it has no other meaning), when consumers see the term
they will view it as an indicia of the Superman mythos.

While applicant’s prepared alcoholic fruit cocktails are
not the same goods as those on which opposer’s
KRYPTONITE mark has been used or associated, the
question is whether the parties’ respective goods are
sufficiently related such that consumers will believe that
they come from or are associated with the same source.
That is, in this marketing environment, including the
licensing of commercial marks, will the purchasing public
believe that applicant’s prepared alcoholic fruit cocktail
comes from or is sponsored by or associated with opposer?
On this record, we find that the answer is in the
affirmative.

Opposition No. 91233876
34
DC Comics Pan American Grain Mfg. Co. Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1220, 1226 (TTAB 2005).
The likelihood of this type of trademark confusion is exacerbated in this case
because of the demonstrated nature and importance of tailgating at Opposer’s football
games and Louisiana sports events generally. In fact, the record makes clear that not
only is food generally an important part of RAGIN’ CAJUNS tailgating culture, but
that sausage is a specific feature of many foods popular at RAGIN’ CAJUNS tailgate
parties, including boudin, po’ boys and, at times, jambalaya and gumbo. We are thus
persuaded by Mr. Mitchell’s testimony that sausage “would definitely fit into
[Opposer’s GEAUX CAJUNS] brand,” and find that consumers would be likely to
make the same assessment. This case calls to mind the Gilligan’s Island case, in
which we found confusion “especially” likely “given the obvious association between
a television series based on the theme of castaways on a tropical island in the Pacific
and suntan lotion and oil, lip balm, and similar products. Further, applicant’s
products are logical tie-in products with some of opposer’s licensed items such as
beach towels and beach bags.” Turner Ent., 38 USPQ2d at 1946.
In this case, Opposer’s alumni, students and fans familiar with the widely used
GEAUX CAJUNS brand, including its use on many seemingly far-flung products,
would be likely, upon encountering GEAUX CAJUN sausage, to assume that it is
sponsored or licensed by or somehow affiliated with Opposer. See e.g. Tuxedo
Monopoly, 209 USPQ at 986 (finding MONOPOLY for clothing likely to be confused
with MONOPOLY for board games); Harley-Davidson, 231 USPQ at 857 (HARLEY-
HOG for pork likely to be confused with HARLEY-DAVIDSON and HOG for motor
Opposition No. 91233876
35
vehicle-related products and services and a “wide range of consumer products”
including unrelated food and beverages such as beer and chocolate); The All England
Lawn Tennis Club (Wimbledon) Ltd. V. Creations Aromatiques, Inc., 220 USPQ 1069
(TTAB 1983) (WIMBELDON COLOGNE & Design for cologne likely to be confused
with WIMBELDON for tennis championships).
Opposer’s evidence that a number of third party universities also use their marks
for food and beverage products further persuades us that confusion is likely. While
perhaps at one time unexpected, it would no longer surprise many relevant
consumers that a university-associated mark would be used for food and beverages.
See L.C. Licensing, 86 USPQ2d at 1889-90 (finding confusion between ENYCE mark
for clothing and same mark for automobile accessories in part based on evidence
showing “use of the clothing brand marks EDDIE BAUER and L.L. BEAN on
automobiles,” SEAN JOHN for automobile wheels and MARK ECKO for a special
edition vehicle); Cadence Indus. Corp. v. Kerr, 225 USPQ 331, 335-36 (TTAB 1985)
(“…it is apparent that publications about cartoon characters do not have a natural
association with vitamins. However, opposer’s evidence clearly demonstrates that the
names and representations of a number of cartoon characters who were familiar to
the public in relation to their existence as cartoon characters have subsequently been
used as trademarks for vitamin products … Thus, there is clearly some precedent for
associating a cartoon character and/or its name with the sale of vitamins.”). In short,
the goods are sufficiently related under the circumstances presented here that
confusion as to their source is likely.
Opposition No. 91233876
36
As for channels of trade, both Applicant’s and Opposer’s goods are Cajun-focused,
not just geographically, but culturally. The parties’ use of GEAUX CAJUN(S) in
“Cajun Country,” with appeals to Cajun pride and customs, is perhaps not a typical
trade channel, but the fact remains that overlapping consumers are targeted by both
parties in similar ways. Applicant’s package for its GEAUX CAJUN sausage
specifically highlights that it is not only “certified Cajun,” but also “great in gumbo.”
22 TTABVUE 159 (Doucet Tr. Ex. D). Gumbo is one of the products often served at
tailgates before Opposer’s football games, in connection with which Opposer uses and
prominently displays its GEAUX CAJUNS mark in a variety of ways. See L.C.
Licensing, 86 USPQ2d at 1890 (finding that trade channels supported a finding of
likelihood of confusion because clothing and automobile accessories would “be offered
to and encountered by the same classes of consumers”); Jonbil Inc. v. Int’l Multifoods
Corp., 3 USPQ2d 1882, 1885 (TTAB 1987) (finding confusion likely between
LONGHAUL & Design for jerky and sausage and LONGHAUL for clothing, cologne
and wallets, because both parties’ goods were sold at or intended for truck stops).
There is also more traditional evidence that the trade channels overlap.
Applicant’s GEAUX CAJUN sausage and Opposer’s RAGIN’ CAJUNS beer and coffee
(which are marketed using the GEAUX CAJUNS mark) are sold in two of the same
stores. 21 TTABVUE 122-25 (Doucet Tr. 117-120); 27 TTABVUE 13, 15 (Saloom Dec.
¶¶ 40, 49). This factor also weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.9

9 In the absence of specific evidence regarding purchasing conditions (other than the price of
Applicant’s goods), we find this factor neutral. In addition, while Applicant was aware of
Opposition No. 91233876
37
V. Conclusion
Like a number of third-party universities, Opposer has expanded use of its marks
from its educational services and athletic events to collateral products having little if
anything to do with its core mission, such as toys, clothes, food and beverages. Among
these marks is GEAUX CAJUNS, which is increasingly used in connection with food
and beverage products. Applicant’s use of the virtually identical mark GEAUX
CAJUN for its own food product, sausage, is thus likely to cause confusion as to the
source of its goods, especially given the parties’ joint focus on “Cajun Country,” the
Cajun culture and Cajun foods, such as Opposer’s Cajun seasoning and Applicant’s
Cajun sausage.

Decision: The opposition is sustained and registration is refused.

Opposer’s GEAUX CAJUNS mark at the time it adopted its mark, that is not enough to
establish that Applicant acted in bad faith in adopting its mark. Action Temporary Services,
Inc. v. Labor Force, Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 10 USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“mere
knowledge of the existence of the prior user should not, by itself, constitute bad faith”).