CC’s Bakeries, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2005

No. 78247154 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2005)

Mailed:
September 30, 2005

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re CC’s Bakeries, Inc.
________

Serial No. 78247154
_______

Thomas E. Anderson and Mark D. Schneider of Gifford, Krass,
Groh, Sprinkle, Anderson & Citkowski, P.C. for CC’s
Bakeries, Inc.

Danielle I. Mattessich, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 106 (Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Walters and Kuhlke, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

CC’s Bakeries, Inc. has appealed from the final
refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to register
CC’S BAKERIES in standard character form, with the word
“bakeries” disclaimed, for “bakery goods.”1 Registration
has been refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark

1 Application Serial No. 78247154, filed May 8, 2003, and
asserting a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 78247154
2
Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s
mark, if used on its identified goods, so resembles marks
previously registered by two different entities that it is
likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. The
cited registrations are No. 1627442 for C&C BAKERY in
standard character form (with “bakery” disclaimed) for
“bakery products,” owned by Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.,2 and
the following six registrations owned by Community Coffee
Company, L.L.C.:3

CC’S for coffee4 and for “retail store
services in the field of coffee and
tea”;5

CC’S COFFEE HOUSE, with “coffee house”
disclaimed, for “retail store services
in the field of coffee and tea”;6

CCSCOFFEE.COM for “retail store
services in the field of coffee;
computerized on-line retail services in
the field of coffee”;7

2 Issued December 11, 1990; Section 8 & 15 affidavits accepted
and acknowledged; renewed.
3 A seventh registration owned by this company was originally
cited by the Examining Attorney, but the refusal based on this
registration was withdrawn because the registration was cancelled
for failure to file a Section 8 affidavit of use.
4 Registration No. 2524694, issued January 1, 2002.
5 Registration No. 2524699, issued January 1, 2002.
6 Registration No. 2527170, issued January 8, 2002.
7 Registration No. 2527169, issued January 8, 2002. The copy of
the registration that the Examining Attorney attached to the
first Office action shows the mark as lower case letters,
“ccscoffee.com,” but Office records indicate that the mark is
registered as a “typed drawing.” In either case, the depiction
would not affect our decision herein.
Ser No. 78247154
3

with “coffee” disclaimed, for
“coffee”;8 and

with “coffee house” disclaimed, for
“retail store services in the field of
coffee and tea.”9

The appeal has been fully briefed. Applicant did not
request an oral hearing.
We turn first to a consideration of the refusal based
on the Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. registration. Our
determination of the issue of likelihood of confusion is
based on an analysis of all of the probative facts in
evidence that are relevant to the factors set forth in In
re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ
563 (CCPA 1973). See also, In re Majestic Distilling
Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2003).

8 Registration No. 2533901, issued January 29, 2002.
9 Registration No. 2577695, issued June 11, 2002.
Ser No. 78247154
4
The registration owned by Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is
for C&C BAKERY for “bakery products.” Applicant’s mark is
CC’S BAKERIES for “bakery goods.” The goods are thus
legally identical, and this du Pont factor favors a finding
of likelihood of confusion. So, too, does the factor of
the similarity of trade channels, since we must assume that
the goods, being identical, are sold through identical
channels of trade to the same classes of customers.
The marks are very similar in appearance,
pronunciation and commercial impression. The second word
in both is the word BAKERY/BAKERIES, which is essentially
the same term, differing only in that one is in singular
form, and the other plural. The initial terms are also
highly similar, with both containing the initials CC. We
recognize that in applicant’s mark the term is possessive,
perhaps suggesting a bakery owned by someone with the
initials CC, while the mark in the cited registration,
containing C&C, suggests a bakery owned by two people
having the initial “C.” However, 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. Dassler KG v.
Roller Derby Skate Corporation, 206 USPQ 255 (TTAB 1980).
Thus, consumers are not likely to note or remember the
Ser No. 78247154
5
differences between the marks. This is particularly true
because the marks are used on bakery products which, by
their very nature, are inexpensive items which are subject
to impulse purchasing. As a result, the similarities in
the appearance, pronunciation and commercial impressions of
the marks outweigh any differences in their connotations.
In this connection, we note that when marks would appear on
virtually identical goods or services, the degree of
similarity necessary to support a conclusion of likely
confusion declines. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v.
Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, the factor of the similarity of the marks
favors a finding of likelihood of confusion. So, too, does
the factor of the conditions under which the goods are sold
and the buyers to whom sales are made. Bakery products are
bought by the public at large, by consumers of virtually
all ages and education levels. These consumers cannot be
considered to be discriminating or sophisticated
purchasers. Further, as indicated above, bakery products
are often purchased on impulse, without care.
Applicant argues that the factor of the number and
nature of similar marks in use on similar goods favors a
finding that confusion is not likely. In support of this
Ser No. 78247154
6
position, applicant has submitted evidence of marks and
trade names containing the letters “CC” that were retrieved
from a search of the Patent and Trademark Office database,
telephone directories and the Internet.
With respect to the Patent and Trademark Office
records, applicant has provided a listing of applications
and registrations for marks that include or consist of the
letters “CC.” The list has no probative value, in that
there is no indication of the goods or services for which
the marks are applied and/or registered. We also note that
in many of the marks on this list the letters “CC” do not
stand out, but are part of a larger phrase, e.g., E.M.C.C.
(Registration No. 2233632), C C P CAPPED CRYSTAL PACKAGING
(Registration No. 2231695) and SWATCH A C C E S S
(Registration No. 2248707). Applicant has also submitted
copies of ten registrations and/or applications that are
for food products or for restaurant services. The
applications, some of which have been abandoned, have
evidentiary value only to the extent that they show the
applications were filed. One of the registrations has
expired. The existing registrations are for C.C.M. COFFEE
for coffee; C.C. BROWN’S for dessert sauces and toppings
and ice cream sauces and toppings; C.C. WINKLE for caramel
Ser No. 78247154
7
popcorn and cashews covered in fudge; and C&C for
ginger-ale.
Third-party registrations are not evidence of use of
those marks in the marketplace, and they do not show that
the public is familiar with those marks. See Olde Tyme
Foods Inc. v. Roundy’s Inc., 961 F.2d 200, 22 USPQ2d 1542,
1545 (Fed. Cir. 1992); and AMF Inc. v. American Leisure
Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 177 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1973).
While third-party registrations may be looked to in the
same manner as a dictionary to determine a term’s
significance in a particular trade, it is not seen how the
registrations of marks containing the letters C.C. or C&C
shed any light on this significance. The number of third-
party registrations presented here is too limited, and the
uses of “C” in the marks are too different, for us to draw
any conclusion about the significance of the letters C.
Nor can we conclude that C&C BAKERY is a weak mark on the
basis of these few third-party registrations for food-
related goods and services.
The telephone directory listings come from the website
“yellowpages.com.” Many of the businesses, based on their
names, appear to be far-removed from the food industry,
e.g., CC’s DISCOUNT AUTO MART, CC’S ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING,
CC & A INCOME TAX & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, CC & BW RAILROAD
Ser No. 78247154
8
MUSEUM. However, there are some businesses that, from
their names, appear to sell food products or offer food-
related services.10 They are CC’S FINEST CANDIES in
Cambridge City, IN; CC’S ICE CREAM PARLOR in Roseburg, OR;
CC’S LIQUORS in Pawtucket, RI; CC’S PIZZA in both
Wilkinson, IN and Greybull, WY; CC & C Q T PIE SHOP in
Pittsburgh, PA; CC & G PECANS GRVN COUNTY in Wynnewood, OK;
CC & L DISCOUNT GROCERY in Dallas, GA; CC & XT RESTAURANT
in Rockford, IL; CC BEVERAGE in Brunswick, GA; CC BLAIR
MINI MALL & RESTAURANT in McCormick, SC; CC CAFE in Lake
Worth, FL; CC CARRYOUT in Baltimore, MD; CC CONVENIENCE
STORE in Steedman, MO; CC EXPRESS GOURMET COOKIES in
Houston, TX; CC FARM in Fayetteville, TX; CC FH in
Knoxville, TN; CC FOOD MART in Highland, IL, Birmingham, AL
and Carlyle, IL; CC FOOD MARTS in Edwardsville, IL and
Breese, IL; CC FOODMART in Trenton, IL;11 CC NIGHTCLUB in
Raleigh, NC; CC SUB SHOP & DELI in Carson City, NV; CC

10 There are some listings that do not indicate what the business
might be, e.g., CC & A LTD, CC & COMPANY and CC MIDWEST. There
is also a listing for CC & R KITCHENS; we cannot determine from
this name whether this company sells items such as kitchen
cabinets or offers remodeling services, or whether it renders
food preparation services.
11 There is also a listing at the same address for CC FOODMAN; we
assume that this is a typographical error.
Ser No. 78247154
9
TAQUERIA in Jamestown, CA; and CC TAVERN in West College
Corner, IN.12
Applicant has also submitted materials from various
Internet websites that indicate trade name use of “CC.”
Again, many of these listings are not in the food industry,
e.g., CC’s Custom Leatherworks for hand-crafted Bible
covers, CC’s Boutique for a bridal salon and CC’s Buttons.
However, the pages do indicate that there may be four
restaurants with marks containing the element “CC’S,”
namely, CC’s Burgers in Seattle (according to a restaurant
review dated February 27, 2004 on the “Seattle Post-
Intelligencer” website); Cc’s Café in Sharpsburg, PA and
CC’s Pizza in Wilkinson, IN, both of which are rated at
http://chefmoz.org; and Cc’s Paisano Pizzeria in Cuba, NM,
which was retrieved by a search on the chowbaby.com
website.
Applicant’s search of telephone directories and the
Internet remind us of a statement made by the Court of

12 Applicant has also submitted some telephone directory listings
for businesses having “CCS” in their names. It appears to us
that these trade names would be regarded as the three letters
C-C-S, rather than as CC’S. Of these listings, eleven appear to
be for businesses in the food industry, i.e., CCS BRASSERIE in
Long Beach, CA; CCS CANDY COMPANY in Colcott, CT; CCS CATERING in
Nashville, TN; CCS DELI in Carthage, TX; CCS DELI & GROCERY in
Grand Bay, AL; CCS EXPRESSO in Tahoe City, CA; CCS ESPRESSO STOP
in Chehalis, WA; CCS FAMILY CAFE in Glendive, MT; CCS HOMESTYLE
CAFE in Nicholasville, KY; CCS HOT WINGS in Temple, GA; CCS SNACK
SHOP in Camden, SC.
Ser No. 78247154
10
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in another context: “It is
indeed remarkable to see the thoroughness with which NEXIS
can regurgitate a placename casually mentioned in the
news.” In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel
S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In the same manner, the results from the search of
yellowpages.com, which appears to have retrieved all places
called CC or CC’s in the entire country, no matter how
small the town or the company, demonstrate how thorough the
yellowpages.com database is.
Despite the thoroughness of these searches, we cannot
conclude that there is such significant third-party use of
CC marks or trade names that consumers are likely to make a
distinction between C&C BAKERY and CC’S BAKERIES when these
marks are used for identical goods. That is, the 20-some
entities using the letters “CC” in their names, most of
which appear to be of a local nature, are not sufficient
for us to find that consumers are likely to distinguish
among the various CC marks by their other elements, and
certainly not to distinguish between C&C BAKERY and CC’S
BAKERIES because one mark contains an ampersand and one
contains an apostrophe, particularly when both have the
virtually identical second element BAKERY/BAKERIES.
Compare, In re Broadway Chicken Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1559 (TTAB
Ser No. 78247154
11
1996), in which no likelihood of confusion was found
between BROADWAY CHICKEN for restaurant services and
BROADWAY PIZZA for restaurant services (as well as BROADWAY
BAR & PIZZA for restaurant and bar services), largely
because of third-party use evidenced by more than 500
“BROADWAY” entities in the Dun & Bradstreet database
identified as a restaurant, bar or related services, as
well as 80 listings in white/yellow pages for restaurant
services and closely related goods and services and 575
entities in the American Business Directory indicating that
they offered restaurant services and/or related goods and
services.
Moreover, even if we were to find that the du Pont
factor of the “the number and nature of similar marks in
use on similar goods” favors a finding of no likelihood of
confusion, this factor is far outweighed by the factors of
the similarity of the marks, the identity of the goods, and
the fact that the goods may be purchased by unsophisticated
purchasers who do not exercise care in making the
purchasing decision. Even if we were to find that C&C
BAKERY is a weak mark, the scope of protection to which it
is entitled would still extend to prevent the registration
of CC’S BAKERIES for identical bakery products.
Ser No. 78247154
12
Accordingly, we find that applicant’s mark, if used on
bakery goods, is likely to cause confusion with C&C BAKERY
for bakery products, and we affirm the refusal of
registration on this ground.
This brings us to the refusal based on Community
Coffee Company L.L.C.’s registrations. Turning first to
the registrations of CC’S for coffee and for retail store
services in the field of coffee and tea, we find that the
marks are virtually identical. Applicant’s mark merely
adds the generic term BAKERIES to the cited mark. Because
this generic term has no source-identifying significance
for bakery products, the dominant part of applicant’s mark
is identical to the cited mark, and the marks, when viewed
in their entireties, are nearly identical in appearance,
pronunciation, connotation and commercial impression.
Consumers who are familiar with the cited mark for coffee
and retail store services in the field of coffee and tea
are likely to believe, if they encounter bakery goods
bearing the mark CC’S BAKERIES, that the registrant is
using a variant of its CC’S mark to identify its bakery
products. That is, they will regard the additional term
BAKERIES in applicant’s mark as indicating the nature of
the goods, rather than as indicating that the sources of
the goods and services are different. The factor of the
Ser No. 78247154
13
similarity of the marks thus favors a finding of likelihood
of confusion.
With respect to the goods and services, there are
obviously differences between applicant’s products, bakery
goods, and coffee and “retail store services in the field
of coffee and tea.” However, “it is not necessary that the
goods [and/or services] of the parties be similar or
competitive, 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 [and/or services’
of the parties are related in some manner, and/or that the
conditions and activities surrounding the marketing of the
goods [and/or services] are such that they would or could
be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that
could, because of the similarity of the marks, give rise to
the mistaken belief that they originate from the same
producer.” In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
197 USPQ 910, 911 (TTAB 1978).
In this case, the Examining Attorney has demonstrated
the relatedness of applicant’s and the registrant’s
identified goods and services by submitting a number of
registrations showing that marks have been registered by a
single entity for, in some cases, baked goods and coffee,
and in other cases, baked goods and retail stores featuring
Ser No. 78247154
14
coffee and/or restaurants and cafes.13 Third-party
registrations which individually cover a number of
different items and which are based on use in commerce
serve to suggest that the listed goods and/or services are
of a type which may emanate from a single source. See In
re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 1993).
Thus, the factor of the similarity of the goods and
services favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
As we previously discussed, the purchasers of bakery
items are the public at large, and such goods are purchased
on impulse and without exercising a great deal of care.
The purchasers of coffee and retail coffee store services
are also the general public, and these goods and services,
too, are often purchased without deliberation. Therefore,
consumers are not likely to undertake an extended analysis

13 These registrations include No 2103238 for, inter alia, bakery
products and coffee; No. 2109194 for ground and bean coffee and
bakery goods; No. 2152133 for, inter alia, bread, pastries,
cookies and coffee; No. 2376053 for bakery goods and coffee; No.
2331571 for, inter alia, bakery goods and coffee; No. 2352788 for
coffee and bakery goods; No. 2298509 for, inter alia, coffee and
bakery goods and retail store services featuring coffee and
bakery goods; No. 2721575 for, inter alia, bakery goods, coffee,
coffee bar services; No. 2677112 for, inter alia, pasties, cakes,
cookies, breads and other bakery products, coffee shops,
restaurants and snack bars; No. 1632485 for, inter alia, baked
goods and restaurant and bakery services; No. 2318460 for, inter
alia, bakery goods and coffee for consumption on or off the
premises and restaurant services; No. 2331571 for, inter alia,
bakery goods, coffee, restaurant services and cafes; and No.
2445158 for, inter alia, coffee, bakery goods and carry-out
restaurants and cafes.

Ser No. 78247154
15
of applicant’s and the registrant’s marks in terms of the
significance of the presence or absence of generic terms in
them; rather, they are likely to simply assume that these
marks, which are identical in their source-identifying
element, CC’S, identify goods and services emanating from a
single source.
We have considered applicant’s arguments regarding
third-party use of CC marks, but as we stated previously,
the limited number of such uses is not sufficient for us to
find that consumers would look to the generic term BAKERIES
to distinguish between CC’S BAKERIES and CC’S.
Thus, we find that applicant’s mark, if used on bakery
goods, is likely to cause confusion with CC’S for coffee
and for “retail store services in the field of coffee and
tea.” The refusals of registration based on Registration
Nos. 2524694 and 2524699 are affirmed.
Many of the above comments also apply to our
consideration of the likelihood of confusion between
applicant’s mark and the marks CC’S COFFEE HOUSE and CC’S
COFFEE HOUSE and design, registered for “retail store
services in the field of coffee and tea” and CC’S COFFEE
and design, registered for coffee. We have already
discussed how the applicant’s identified goods and the
registrant’s identified goods and services are related.
Ser No. 78247154
16
With respect to the marks, the dominant element in each of
registrant’s marks is clearly CC’S. In CC’S COFFEE HOUSE,
it is the only source-identifying element, with COFFEE
HOUSE being a generic term for “retail store services in
the field of coffee and tea.” In the two design marks,
CC’S is visually the most prominent part, the only other
literal elements being the generic words COFFEE in CC’S
COFFEE and Design, and COFFEE HOUSE in CC’S COFFEE HOUSE
and Design. The design element in each mark is in the
nature of a carrier or background for the letters and words
and as such is not likely to be noted or remembered. See
In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB
1987) (if a mark comprises both a word and a design, the
word is normally accorded greater weight because it would
be used by purchasers to request the goods or services).
Although we recognize that applicant’s mark contains
the generic term BAKERIES and the cited marks contain the
generic terms COFFEE or COFFEE HOUSE, the presence of these
generic terms in the respective marks does not serve to
distinguish them. On the contrary, consumers who are aware
of the registrant’s use of CC’S COFFEE and Design for
coffee, and CC’S COFFEE HOUSE and CC’S COFFEE HOUSE and
Design for retail store services in the field of coffee and
tea, i.e., a coffee house, are likely to believe, upon
Ser No. 78247154
17
seeing CC’S BAKERIES for bakery goods, that registrant has
simply continued its pattern of using trademarks that
combine CC’S with the generic term for the particular goods
or services, and has adopted CC’S BAKERIES as the mark for
its bakery goods. As we have already stated, the number of
third-party uses of CC’S in the food area is so small,
especially compared to the record in the Broadway Chicken
case, that we cannot conclude that consumers would
distinguish between applicant’s CC’S BAKERIES mark and the
registrant’s CC’S COFFEE HOUSE, CC’S COFFEE and Design and
CC’S COFFEE HOUSE and Design marks on the basis of the
different generic terms in the respective marks.
Accordingly, we find that applicant’s mark, if used on
its identified goods, is likely to cause confusion with the
cited registrations for CC’S COFFEE HOUSE, CC’S COFFEE and
Design and CC’S COFFEE HOUSE and Design.
However, we reach a different conclusion when we
consider the registration for CCSCOFFEE.COM. As used in
the mark, CCS has the connotation of three separate
letters, C-C-S, rather than that of the possessive form of
the nickname CC. This difference, when coupled with the
differences in the goods and services, is sufficient for us
to conclude that confusion is not likely between
applicant’s mark and this cited registration. Accordingly,
Ser No. 78247154
18
the refusal of registration based on this registration is
reversed.
Decision: The refusal of registration based on
Registration No. 2527169 is reversed. The refusals of
registration based on Registration No. 1627442 for C&C
BAKERY; Nos. 2524694 and 2524699 for CC’S; No. 2527170 for
CC’S COFFEE HOUSE; No. 2577695 for CC’S COFFEE HOUSE and
Design; and No. 2533901 for CC’S COFFEE and Design are
affirmed.