Sanitary Couplers, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 1999

No. 74724270 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 1999)

Hearing: Paper No. 18
December 1, 1998 PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB JULY 29, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Sanitary Couplers, Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/724,270
_______
R. William Graham for Sanitary Couplers, Inc.
Rita M. Odin, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 109
(Chris A. F. Pedersen, Acting Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Chapman and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Sanitary Couplers, Inc. has appealed from the
Trademark Examining Attorney’s final refusal to register
the mark PROTECTOR for “hose for sanitary transport,
namely, flexible nonmetal hose for use in sanitary
transport in the 3A, FDA and USDA regulated industry.”1
Registration has been refused on the ground that

1 Application Serial No. 74/724,270, filed August 21, 1995,
claiming first use and first use in commerce of March 1992.
Ser No. 74/724,270
2
applicant’s mark, when applied to the identified goods, so
resembles the mark THE PROTECTOR, which is registered for
“nylon sleeves used to protect hoses,”2 as to be likely to
cause confusion, mistake or deception.
Turning first to the respective marks, we note that
they are virtually identical. As noted by the Examining
Attorney, the word “THE” in registrant’s mark has little
trademark significance. We focus our attention then, as
have applicant and the Examining Attorney, on the
respective goods.
It is the Examining Attorney’s position that the
involved goods are closely related and may be marketed to
the same purchasers because sleeves used to protect hoses
are obviously used with hoses. In order to show a
relationship between sleeves and hoses, the Examining
Attorney made of record, inter alia, several third-party
registrations which indicate that entities have registered
their marks both for hoses and sleeves. For example, the
mark FLIGHTLINE is registered for metal and nonmetallic
hoses and nonmetallic outer sleeves for hoses; the mark
QUADION is registered for hoses and sleeves; a mark
consisting a stylized letter “Q” is registered for hoses
and sleeves; and the mark FLAMETITE is registered for hoses

2 Registration No. 1,825,135 issued March 8, 1994.
Ser No. 74/724,270
3
and sleeves. In addition, the Examining Attorney made of
record several third-party registrations wherein the goods
are described in such a manner that it is clear that hoses
and sleeves are used together in a variety of industries.
Applicant, however, maintains that the involved goods
are very different in nature, and that they travel in
different channels of trade to different purchasers. In
particular, applicant contends that its hose is especially
designed for sanitary transport in the 3A, FDA and USDA
regulated industry, which is a niche market of select
purchasers. This is in contrast, argues applicant, to
registrant’s product which is a crush resistant hose
protection sleeve designed to protect gas or oil lines or
electrical cables. Applicant maintains that registrant’s
type of sleeve is not designed for use with hose for
sanitary transport in the 3A, FDA and USDA regulated
industry. In support of its position that the involved
goods are not related, applicant submitted a patent and
product information sheet for registrant’s goods.
According to applicant, the product information sheet was
obtained from the owner of the cited registration.
We readily acknowledge that the respective goods are
different and noncompetitive. However, as often stated, it
is not necessary that the goods be similar or competitive,
Ser No. 74/724,270
4
or even that they move in the same channels of trade to
support a holding of likelihood of confusion. It is
sufficient that the respective goods are related in some
manner, and/or that the conditions and activities
surrounding the marketing of the goods are such that they
would or could be encountered by the same persons under
circumstances that could, because of the similarities of
the marks used therewith, give rise to the mistaken belief
that they originate from or are in some way associated with
the same producer. See: Hercules Inc. v. National Starch
and Chemical Corp., 223 USPQ 1244, 1247 (TTAB 1984). In
this case, the evidence made of record by the Examining
Attorney establishes that hoses and sleeves are indeed used
together and may well be assumed to emanate from the same
source when very similar marks are used in connection
therewith. See In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d
1783 (TTAB 1993), and In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6
USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 1988).
Although applicant stresses that the channels of trade
for its goods are specifically limited in its application
to sanitary transport in the 3A, FDA and USDA regulated
industry, the Examining Attorney correctly observes that
the cited registration has no limitations of any sort.
Thus, the sleeves listed therein must be presumed to move
Ser No. 74/724,270
5
in all channels of trade normal for such goods, including
the 3A, FDA and USDA regulated industry, and be available
for purchase by all potential customers, including
companies which use hose for sanitary transport. In re
Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981). While we note that
the product sheet for registrant’s goods indicates that its
sleeves protect hoses that supply compressed air, hydraulic
fluid, acetylene and other gases and fluid, the sheet also
indicates that “[registrant’s product] is currently being
successfully used by many companies in many industries, for
a variety of applications.” Further, as noted by the
Examining Attorney, applicant has offered no evidence in
support of its contention that registrant’s sleeves would
not be used to protect hoses used for sanitary transport in
the 3A, FDA and USDA regulated industry. That is, there is
no information in this record as to what is common practice
in the industry or evidence regarding the applicable
standards.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that purchasers
familiar with registrant’s THE PROTECTOR mark for nylon
sleeves used to protect hoses, would be likely to believe,
upon encountering applicant’s PROTECTOR mark for flexible
nonmetal hose for use in sanitary transport in the 3A, FDA
Ser No. 74/724,270
6
and USDA regulated industry, that such products emanate
from or are otherwise associated with the same source.
In reaching our decision, we have not overlooked the
suggestive significance of the word “Protector” when used
in connection with the involved goods. Here, however, the
marks are so close in appearance, meaning and impression,
that when used on related goods, confusion is likely.
Finally, to the extent that there is any doubt on the
issue of likelihood of confusion, it is settled that such
doubt must be resolved in favor of the prior registrant and
against applicant. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26
USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
P. T. Hairston
B. A. Chapman
H. R. Wendel
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 74/724,270
7
Ser No. 74/724,270
8