Kartal Besin Maddeleri Pazarlama Ve Ticaret A.S.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 1999

No. 75293016 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 1999)

Paper No. 8
DEB
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB DEC. 14, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Kartal Besin Maddeleri Pazarlama Ve Ticaret A.S.
________
Serial No. 75/293,016
_______
John S. Egbert of Harrison & Egbert for Kartal Besin Maddeleri
Pazarlama Ve Ticaret A.S.
Susan Leslie DuBois, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
101 (Jerry Price, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Bucher and McLeod, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Kartal Besin Maddeleri Pazarlama Ve Ticaret
A.S., a corporation of Turkey, has filed an application for
registration of the mark “VERDE,” in the stylized format shown
below, for “processed olives, olive oil and pickles” in Int.
Class 29, and for “raw olives” in Int. Class 31.1

1 Serial No. 75/293,016, filed May 16, 1997, based on an allegation
of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Serial Number 75/293,016
2
The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal to
register based upon Section 2(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d),
on the ground that applicant’s proposed mark, “VERDE,” when used
on these food items, so resembles the registered mark, “VERDI,”
as applied to “specialty vinegar” in Int. Class 30, as to be
likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.2
Applicant has appealed the final refusal to register.
Briefs have been filed, but applicant did not request an oral
hearing. We affirm the refusal to register.
The Examining Attorney contends that the goods of applicant
and of registrant are clearly related, and applicant seems to
have conceded as much. The Trademark Examining Attorney argues
that the marks are similar in appearance and sound, as well as
in overall commercial impression. Applicant counters that the
marks are different in appearance, sound and connotation.
In the course of rendering this decision, we have followed
the guidance of In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d
1357, 1362, 177 USPQ 563, 567-68 (CCPA 1973), that sets forth
the factors which should be considered, if relevant, in
determining likelihood of confusion.
There can be little question that the goods of the parties
are closely related. In addition to the rather narrowly-drawn

2 Registration No. 2,081,173, issued on July 22, 1997. The
registration sets forth dates of first use of April 23, 1996.
Serial Number 75/293,016
3
list of applicant’s goods above, the original application, as
filed, contained one additional item in the listing of
applicant’s goods – vinegar – deleted in response to the First
Office Action. Similarly, the third-party registrations made of
record by the Trademark Examining Attorney show that quite a
number of firms have carved out a niche within the food
distribution chain that includes various combinations of olives,
pickles, olive oil and/or vinegar.
Therefore, we conclude that applicant's goods and those of
the registrant will be traveling in the same channels of trade.
Furthermore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are the type of
items that will be, or are, purchased by members of the general
public. Because of the nature of the items, such ordinary
purchasers are not likely to exercise a great degree of care in
their selection.
We turn then to the question of whether the marks involved
herein are so similar that use thereof on the identified goods
would be likely to generate confusion. In evaluating the
similarity of the marks, the Board must examine the overall
impression created by the marks, including a comparison of the
appearance, sound and meaning of the marks, as well as the
manner in which they are displayed. Under the sight, sound and
connotation trilogy, we find that there is a likelihood of
confusion.
Serial Number 75/293,016
4
First, the Board notes that each mark consists of a single,
five-letter word beginning with the identical four letters,
“VERD-” and ending with a vowel. Given the composition of these
two words, applicant’s mark is much closer in overall appearance
to registrant’s mark than applicant would have us conclude.
While applicant’s mark involves a slightly stylized
presentation, we find that such is not sufficient to distinguish
the marks. Inasmuch as it is the word portion that is spoken,
consumers would remember the word, per se, that makes up
applicant’s mark, rather than the stylization of the letters.
Moreover, registrant’s registration involves a mark in the form
of a typed drawing. Hence, this registration enables registrant
to use its mark in a stylized manner, including a stylization
not unlike applicant’s stylized drawing.
The marks can also be pronounced similarly. Although
neither appears to be an English-language word, it is reasonable
to conclude that because they share a similar structure – the
letters V-E-R-D followed by a vowel – they could well be
accorded a similar sound and cadence.
With respect to the meaning of the terms, the applicant has
amended the record to confirm that the English language
translation of the word “VERDE” is green. Applicant then argues
that the cited mark appears to be the name of a famous
nineteenth-century, Italian composer. Nonetheless, we find that
Serial Number 75/293,016
5
many purchasers of these food items would not be familiar with
the likely origins of these two words. The average consumer
seeing these two largely unfamiliar words on food items would
not ascribe a connotation to either mark. Accordingly, the
Board concludes that most consumers would regard the marks as
arbitrary, and would not distinguish them based upon their
connotations.
Although we acknowledge that there are slight differences
between the marks, most consumers would neither note nor long
remember such differences. Under actual marketing conditions,
consumers do not necessarily have the luxury of making side-by-
side comparisons between marks, and must rely upon their
imperfect recollections.3
Accordingly, we find confusion to be likely between the
stylized version of the mark, “VERDE,” for olives, olive oil and
pickles as recited in the instant application and the registered
mark, “VERDI,” as applied to specialty vinegar.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
P. T. Hairston
D. E. Bucher
Serial Number 75/293,016
6
L. K. McLeod
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

3 Dassler KG v. Roller Derby Skate Corporation, 206 USPQ 255 (TTAB
1980).