Pro Natura, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 1998

No. 74680382 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 1998)

Paper No. 16
RLS/RR
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB APRIL 23, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Pro Natura, Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/680,382
_______
Jay H. Geller for Pro Natura, Inc.
Baldev S. Sarai, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
105 (Thomas Howell, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Simms, Cissel and Hanak, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Pro Natura, Inc. (applicant), a California corporation,
has appealed from the final refusal of the Trademark
Examining Attorney to register the mark PRONATURA for
“dietary and nutritional supplements, preparations for
treatment of the symptoms of menopause, antacids,” in Class
5.1 The Examining Attorney has refused registration under
Section 2(d) of the Act, 15 USC 1052(d), on the basis of
Registration Number 1,390,496, issued April 22, 1986,
Ser No. 74680382
2
Sections 8 and 15 affidavit filed, for the mark PRO-NATURED
for vitamins, minerals and food supplements.2 Applicant and
the Examining Attorney have filed briefs but no oral hearing
was requested.
We affirm.
Applicant argues that the respective marks -- PRONATURA
and PRO-NATURED -- are different in sound, appearance and
meaning. In this regard, applicant argues that its mark has
a “European sound,” and that its mark is pronounced in a
different manner from registrant’s, with a short “a” in the
second syllable of its mark. With respect to the meaning of
the registered mark, applicant argues that it suggests one
who is positive in nature, a connotation not found in
applicant’s mark. Concerning the goods, while applicant
admits that some of its Class 5 goods are essentially
identical to registrant’s, applicant maintains that the
other goods in this class (preparations for treatment of the
symptoms of menopause, and antacids) are different and that,
for these goods, there is no likelihood of confusion and
registration should be allowed. Applicant also contends
that there have been no instances of actual confusion

1 Application Serial Number 74/680,382, filed May 26, 1995,
claiming use and use in commerce since April 1994.
2 Because the Examining Attorney only refused registration with
respect to applicant’s Class 5 goods, applicant’s books and
magazines in the field of health and nutrition, in Class 16, and
candy, tea and mushroom extract for use in making tea, in Class
30, were divided out into another application pursuant to
Ser No. 74680382
3
despite two years’ contemporaneous use. Further, applicant
argues that goods such as nutritional supplements, vitamins
and food supplements are not purchased on impulse, but are
purchased by “sophisticated, knowledgeable consumers looking
for a particular product and particular brand.” Applicant’s
brief, 9.
Upon careful consideration of the arguments and
evidence of record, we agree with the Examining Attorney
that confusion is likely. First, with respect to the goods,
registration is to be refused when there is likelihood of
confusion of applicant’s mark for any of the goods in a
particular class. See Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General
Mills Fun Group, Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986 (CCPA
1981). That is to say, registration is refused for the
entire class when there is a likelihood of confusion with
any of the goods in that class. Here, applicant has
admitted that registrant’s goods are for all practical
purposes identical to some of its Class 5 goods. Moreover,
we believe that applicant’s antacids and other preparations
are commercially related to registrant’s vitamins, minerals
and food supplements.
With respect to the marks, it is true that the
registered mark contains a hyphen and that the marks have
different endings. However, both marks begin with the

applicant’s request. A registration covering the mark for those
Ser No. 74680382
4
syllable “PRO” and contain a derivative of the word
“NATURE”. Both marks suggest that the products on which
they are used are natural in a favorable or positive sense.
It should also be remembered that the appropriate analysis
of the marks is not by way of side-by-side comparison, and
that the focus must be on the recollection of the average
purchaser, who may retain a general, rather than a specific,
impression of the trademarks. Further, there is generally
no “correct” pronunciation of a trademark, and applicant’s
mark may well be pronounced in a manner similar to
registrant’s –- with a long “a” on the second syllable.
While applicant has argued that its goods are purchased
by sophisticated and knowledgeable consumers, there is no
evidence of record on this factor. Suffice it to say that
vitamins, minerals, and food supplements as well as dietary
and nutritional supplements may be of relatively low cost.
Where that is the case, purchasers of these types of goods
are generally assumed to exercise a lower standard of
purchasing care.
If the respective goods of the parties are identical,
it has been held that the degree of similarity between the
marks need not be as great to support a finding of
likelihood of confusion. Century 21 Real Estate v. Century
Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed.

goods has now issued.
Ser No. 74680382
5
Cir. 1992). If there is any doubt with respect to
likelihood of confusion, according to precedent, it must be
resolved in favor of the prior user and registrant.
Applicant’s other arguments are without merit. With
respect to the lack of actual confusion, we have no evidence
with respect to any actual market overlap of the respective
products. In other words, there is no evidence of record
with respect to the opportunity for confusion to have
arisen. We do note, however, that applicant’s use of the
mark sought to be registered appears to be in the nature of
a house mark used in a secondary manner to the more
prominent product mark. Applicant’s actual use of the mark
sought to be registered may, therefore, have lessened any
likelihood of confusion, although in our analysis of the
issue of likelihood of confusion we must assume that the
mark PRONATURA is the only mark being used to identify and
distinguish applicant’s goods from those of others.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
R. F. Cissel
E. W. Hanak
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board
Ser No. 74680382
6