General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

No. 86757390 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017)

THIS OPINION IS A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Hearing: Mailed:
April 10, 2017 August 22, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC
_____

Serial No. 86757390
_____

William G. Barber, Christopher M. Kindel and Steven M. Espenshade of Pirkey
Barber PLLC for General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC.

Tasneem Hussain, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 118 (Thomas G.
Howell, Managing Attorney).1
_____

Before Richey, Deputy Chief Administrative Trademark Judge, Mermelstein and
Masiello, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Masiello, Administrative Trademark Judge:
General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application2 to register
on the Principal Register the proposed mark shown below for “Toroidal-shaped, oat-
based breakfast cereal,” in International Class 30:

1 At oral hearing, Michael W. Baird argued on behalf of the USPTO.
2 Application Serial No. 86757390 was filed on September 15, 2015 under Trademark Act
Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), stating May 3, 1941 as the date of first use and first use in
commerce. Page references to the application record refer to the .pdf version of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the briefs refer to
the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.
Serial No. 86757390

2

As stated in the application, “The mark consists of the color yellow appearing as the
predominant uniform background color on product packaging for the goods. The
dotted outline of the packaging shows the position of the mark and is not claimed as
part of the mark.” A specimen of the use of the proposed mark, submitted with the
application, is shown below:

Applicant requested registration under Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), stating
through one of its officers that “consumers have come to identify the color yellow,
when used in connection with the goods, comes [sic] from not only a single source, but
specifically the Cheerios brand.”3 Applicant filed with its application voluminous
evidence to support its claim of acquired distinctiveness, including a survey and
expert report.

3 Declaration of James H. Murphy ¶27, Application at 70.
Serial No. 86757390

3

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Sections 1, 2, and
45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052, and 1127, on the ground that a
single color mark is not inherently distinctive and, because Applicant failed to
demonstrate acquired distinctiveness, the applied-for trademark fails to function as
a mark. When the Examining Attorney made her refusal final, Applicant appealed to
this Board. The case is fully briefed. An oral hearing was held on April 10, 2017.
There is no doubt that a single color applied to a product or its packaging may
function as a trademark and be entitled to registration under the Trademark Act.
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161 (1995). However,
such a color can never be inherently distinctive as a source indicator. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000) (citing
Qualitex, 34 USPQ2d at 1162-63). As the Qualitex Court observed:
[A] product’s color is unlike “fanciful,” “arbitrary,” or
“suggestive” words or designs, which almost automatically
tell a customer that they refer to a brand. … But, over time,
customers may come to treat a particular color on a product
or its packaging (say, a color that in context seems unusual,
such as pink on a firm’s insulating material or red on the
head of a large industrial bolt) as signifying a brand. And,
if so, that color would have come to identify and distinguish
the goods -- i.e. “to “indicate” their “source” -- … [sic].
Qualitex, 34 USPQ2d at 1162-3 (citations omitted). The Federal Circuit has similarly
observed:
… [C]olor is usually perceived as ornamentation. While
ornamentation is not incompatible with trademark
function, “unless the design is of such nature that its
distinctiveness is obvious, convincing evidence must be
forthcoming to prove that in fact the purchasing public
does recognize the design as a trademark which identifies
the source of the goods.”
Serial No. 86757390

4

In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 USPQ 417, 422 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (quoting In re David Crystal, Inc., 296 F.2d 771, 132 USPQ 1, 2 (CCPA 1961)).4
Here, Applicant argues that the purchasing public recognizes the color yellow on
packages of toroidal (ring or doughnut-shaped) oat-based breakfast cereal as an
indication that Applicant is the source of the cereal.
“To establish secondary meaning, or acquired distinctiveness, an applicant must
show that in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or
term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.” Coach
Svcs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1729 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). We determine whether Applicant’s
asserted mark has acquired distinctiveness based on the entire record, keeping in
mind that “[t]he applicant … bears the burden of proving acquired distinctiveness.”
In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (citation omitted). The amount and character of evidence required to establish
acquired distinctiveness depends on the facts of each case and the nature of the mark
sought to be registered. See Roux Labs., Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427 F.2d 823, 166 USPQ
34, 39 (CCPA 1970); In re Hehr Mfg. Co., 279 F.2d 526, 126 USPQ 381, 383 (CCPA
1960). Typically, more evidence is required where a mark is such that purchasers
seeing the matter in relation to the offered goods would be less likely to believe that

4 A color mark that is not functional may, upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness, be
registrable on the Principal Register under Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). See Trademark
Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) § 1202.05(a) (Apr. 2017 version). Without such a
showing, it may be registrable on the Supplemental Register (which Applicant does not seek).
Serial No. 86757390

5

it indicates source in any one party. See In re Bongrain Int’l Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 13
USPQ2d 1727, 1729 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “By their nature color marks carry a difficult
burden in demonstrating distinctiveness and trademark character.” In re Owens-
Corning, 227 USPQ at 424.
Applicant applies the color yellow to packaging of “regular CHEERIOS cereal,”5 an
example of which is shown above in Applicant’s specimen of use. Applicant’s declarant
refers to this variety of the cereal as “Yellow Box Cheerios.” The record indicates that,
in addition to “regular CHEERIOS,” Applicant offers CHEERIOS brand cereal in a
variety of flavors, not all of which are packaged in yellow:6

The record before us shows that Applicant has sold oat-based breakfast cereal under
the brand CHEERIOS continuously since 1945 (and as early as 1941 under the name
CHEERIOATS).7 In the decade preceding the 2015 Murphy declaration, Applicant
expended over $1 billion in marketing Yellow Box Cheerios, achieving “50 million
impressions.”8 Sales during that decade exceeded $4 billion. A single television

5 Murphy Declaration ¶¶ 6, 17, Application at 66, 68.
6 Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016 at 279, 298, 307, 226, and 229.
7 Murphy declaration ¶ 4, Application at 65.
8 Id., ¶¶ 9, 12, Application at 66, 67.
Serial No. 86757390

6

advertisement for CHEERIOS depicting the yellow box, which aired 200 times and
during the 2014 Super Bowl (which attracted 111.5 million viewers),9 and which
featured an interracial family, generated a measure of controversy, resulting in “11
million online views and half a million social actions, including tweets, likes, and
shares.”10 According to The Wall Street Journal, Applicant’s CHEERIOS brand and
Kellogg’s SPECIAL K brand, together, accounted for a third of all television
advertising by the breakfast and cereal industry in the first half of 2014, with
CHEERIOS substantially exceeding the advertising expenditures of SPECIAL K.11
The record includes evidence of many unsolicited expressions of interest in the brand.
USA Today referred to CHEERIOS as “the most popular cereal brand in American
grocery stores.”12 An article about NBA uniforms referred to CHEERIOS as an
example of brand loyalty and goodwill.13 An article entitled “3 Cereal Brands That
Will Never Get Stale for American Consumers” compared CHEERIOS to TRIX and
RICE CRISPIES brand cereals.14
Of course, the question before us is not whether customers recognize the term
CHEERIOS as Applicant’s source-indicator. It is whether customers recognize the

9 Application at 34.
10 Murphy declaration ¶ 14, Application at 68.
11 “Cheerios is King of Commercial Spending Among Cereal Brands,” July 17, 2014,
Application at 28.
12 “Cheerios turns 70; iconic cereal endures, sells,” Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016 at
200.
13 “Uni Watch: Why NBA uniforms should be ad-free zones,” id. at 212.
14 Id. at 229-230.
Serial No. 86757390

7

color yellow on a package of toroidal-shaped, oat-based breakfast cereal as an
indicator that the cereal within comes from the maker of CHEERIOS.
Applicant has made of record numerous examples of its packaging and advertising
materials for every decade since the 1940s, and it is apparent that Applicant has
prominently featured the color yellow on the front of its boxes since the days of
CHEERIOATS. At least as early as 1944, the color yellow also began to appear
prominently on the back of the box and on other panels of the box. Although many
variations of the artwork on the box appeared over the years, the overall trade dress
of the box has been relatively consistent since the 1940s. Among the most consistent
features has been prominent use of the word mark “Cheerios” (or “Cheerioats”)
displayed at the top of the front panel in a black, initial-capital typeface that is quite
similar to today’s typeface. Another relatively consistent feature is a photograph of a
bowl of cereal occupying the center of the front panel. In Applicant’s print and
television advertisements, the color yellow is noticeably featured not only on the
cereal box but on backgrounds, props, clothing worn by actors and models, and in
other ways. Television advertisements from 1994, 1995 and 1997 featured a musical
jingle beginning with the words, “It’s the big yellow box that everyone knows …” and
ending with the tag line, “The one and only CHEERIOS.” In a television spot of 1991,
an actor refers nostalgically to “that yellow box.”15

15 Audio-visual materials submitted with Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016.
Serial No. 86757390

8

It is clear that Applicant has worked assiduously to create an association between
the color yellow and its “regular” CHEERIOS brand cereal.16 Applicant has submitted
the following examples of public recognition, among many others:
The iconic cereal known by its distinctive yellow box, is 70
years old this year and still a force on the breakfast cereal
market. (USA Today, Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016
at 200.)17
Basically, Trix didn’t have the cover of the overall Cheerios
brand, which has long marketed itself as “made with 100%
whole grain.” Its yellow box is instantly recognizable (and
even nostalgic for some). (Stealing Share, Id. at 265.)
The yellow Cheerios box has been an iconic item in
American households. People can easily recognize this
bright yellow box and its simplicity in the crowded cereal
shelves. (Loyola Digital Advertising, Id. at 274.)
That’s an alarming increase when compared to the single
gram that sits in each serving of the original Cheerios that
come in that iconic yellow box. (Id. at 206.)
The De Blasios welcomed the comparison; a post on Bill’s
campaign website entitled “Cheerios” features the family
posed around the cereal’s signature yellow box. (Id. at 210.)
Let’s say you like Cheerios. Sure, you’ve internalized a
positive emotional association with the yellow box and the
logo, but your loyalty is ultimately based on how much you
like the cereal. (Id. at 212.)
Cheerios are easy to find on store shelves: Just look for the
big yellow box. (Id. at 216.)

16 We note, however, that no matter how hard a company attempts to make an inherently
nondistinctive word or symbol serve as a unique source identifier, it is proof of results—that
consumers so perceive the purported mark—that is the touchstone of our inquiry into
acquired distinctiveness. E.g., Plastilite Corp. v. Kassnar Imps., 508 F.2d 824, 184 USPQ 348,
350 (CCPA 1975).
17 Many of the news clippings submitted by Applicant lack an indication of the publication in
which they appeared. Where the source is apparent, we cite it.
Serial No. 86757390

9

There are now 13 types of Cheerios on grocery store
shelves, which some fans of the original in the iconic yellow
box think are 12 too many. (Id. at 226.)
While General Mills has occasionally used mascots like
Cheeri O’Leary for brief periods of time, the company
predominantly relies on a simple yellow box and a bowl full
of toasted oats. (Id. at 230.)
Applicant also proffered a survey (to be discussed at greater length infra), in which
subjects were shown an image of an unmarked, yellow, rectangular box and were
asked “If you think you know, what brand of cereal comes in this box?” Of 419
subjects, 221 (52.7%) identified the brand as CHEERIOS. Correcting this result for
“noise,” Applicant’s expert concluded that 48.3% of respondents associated the yellow
box with the CHEERIOS brand. Nearly all respondents who made the association
stated that the yellow color of the box was the reason for their response.18
Applicant argues that, in seeking a registration under Section 2(f), its burden is
limited to presenting a prima facie case of acquired distinctiveness, citing Yamaha
Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co. Ltd., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1004. Applicant
also points out that any doubt should be resolved in Applicant’s favor.19 Applicant
faults the Examining Attorney for placing an improperly heavy evidentiary burden
on Applicant and requiring Applicant “to show overwhelming or universal consumer
recognition of Applicant’s mark ….”20 Applicant’s brief includes extensive

18 Expert report of Dr. Isabella Cunningham, Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016 at 316-
321.
19 Applicant’s brief at 6, 4 TTABVUE 7.
20 Id.
Serial No. 86757390

10

comparisons between Applicant’s case and other cases regarding acquired
distinctiveness, and argues that “Applicant’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness far
surpasses that previously accepted by the PTO, the Federal Circuit, and federal
courts, as sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness of a color mark.”21 Applicant
contends that its evidence “presents not merely a prima facie case, but rather
conclusively establishes that the Cheerios Yellow Box Mark has acquired
distinctiveness under relevant precedent ….”22
The Examining Attorney argues that Applicant’s proposed mark fails to function as
a trademark because purchasers will perceive the color yellow merely as a decorative
feature of the packaging for the goods, as they are accustomed to encountering cereal
packages—even those for toroidal shaped oat-based cereals—in a variety of colors,
including yellow. According to the Examining Attorney, the variety of colors on cereal
boxes preconditions a consumer into believing that the applied-for color (like other
colors) serves primarily as a form of decoration (i.e., it has a primary purpose other
than to indicate the source of the goods).23
Contrary to Applicant’s contention, an applicant’s presentation of a prima facie
showing of acquired distinctiveness does not end the inquiry. If an examining
attorney presents countervailing evidence, we make our determination on the basis

21 Id. at 7, 4 TTABVUE 8.
22 Id. at 18, 4 TTABVUE 19.
23 Examining Attorney’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 3-4.
Serial No. 86757390

11

of the entire record, with the applicant bearing the ultimate burden of persuasion. In
re La. Fish Fry Prods., 116 USPQ2d at 1264.
The Examining Attorney primarily bases her refusal on a lack of exclusive use of
the color yellow by Applicant: “Because the record confirmed that applicant did not
have ‘substantially exclusive’ use of the color yellow on cereal boxes, no amount of
commercials or surveys would render the mark registerable under Section 2(f).”24 See,
e.g., Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 222 USPQ 939, 940-41 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (“When the record shows that purchasers are confronted with more than
one (let alone numerous) independent users of a term or device, an application for
registration under Section 2(f) cannot be successful, for distinctiveness on which
purchasers may rely is lacking under such circumstances.”). But it is important to
note that the Federal Circuit later added further nuance to that statement in L.D.
Kichler Co. v. Davoil Inc., 192 F.3d 1349, 52 USPQ2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In that
decision, the Court approved the language of TMEP § 1212.05(b) stating that the
wording “substantially exclusive” “makes allowance for use by others which may be
inconsequential or infringing and which therefore does not necessarily invalidate the
applicant’s claim.” See 52 USPQ2d at 1309. Thus, in order to determine what
constitutes substantial exclusivity in a particular case, we consider all relevant
market evidence, including evidence of an applicant’s efforts to promote public
perception of its mark as a source-indicator and evidence indicating whether such
efforts have succeeded. See Owens-Corning, 227 USPQ at 419 (“As for all marks,

24 Id., 6 TTABVUE 6.
Serial No. 86757390

12

compliance with the legal requirements for registration depends on the particular
mark and its circumstances of use. In determining registrability of color marks,
courts have considered factors such as the nature of the goods, how the color is used,
the number of colors or color combinations available, the number of competitors, and
customary marketing practices.”).
Nonetheless, non-exclusive use presents a serious problem for the merchant
seeking to develop trademark rights in a word, symbol, or device that is not inherently
distinctive, because it interferes with public perception that it serves as an indicator
of a single source:
Distinctiveness is acquired by “substantially exclusive and
continuous use” of the mark in commerce. A color which is
employed by others in the industry acts not as an indicator
of source but as mere ornamentation.
Owens-Corning, 227 USPQ at 424 n.11 (citation omitted). See also Levi Strauss, 222
USPQ at 940-41 (“In respect of registration, there must be a trademark, i.e.,
purchasers in the marketplace must be able to recognize that a term or device has or
has acquired such distinctiveness that it may be relied on as indicating one source of
quality control and thus one quality standard.”); ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v.
Canady Tech. LLC, 629 F.3d 1278, 97 USPQ2d 1048, 1057 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(applying Third Circuit law, affirming summary judgment finding lack of acquired
distinctiveness where “at least one of ERBE’s competitors uses blue flexible
endoscopic probes—and thus the requisite secondary meaning is missing here.”). In
light of the foregoing principles, we consider the record as a whole in order to
determine whether Applicant’s marketing and promotional efforts have succeeded in
Serial No. 86757390

13

causing relevant customers to recognize the color yellow on packaging for oat-based
breakfast cereal in toroidal form as an indication of the source of that cereal. Among
other factors, it is appropriate to consider the circumstances under which Applicant’s
mark is used, “the number of competitors, and customary marketing practices.”
Owens-Corning, 227 USPQ at 419.
In her brief, the Examining Attorney points to 23 cereal products that she contends
are offered in packaging similar in color to that of Applicant.25 Applicant argues that
much of the evidence relating to these products is unreliable and non-probative,
because “there is no proof that the alleged product is actually being sold within the
United States.”26 Applicant points out that some of the purported products are not
real products, but parodies; and suggests that others may not have been sold in the
United States “for years if not decades.”27 Some of the Examining Attorney’s internet
evidence shows sufficient indicia of authenticity to persuade us that it reflects
relevant U.S. market conditions. For example, several of the products are offered by
companies that, according to the record,28 are recognized as Applicant’s biggest
competitors: Kellogg, Post, and Quaker. Some of the evidence indicates that the
products are in stock with Amazon.com or its associated vendors. Further, some of

25 Examining Attorney’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 8.
26 Applicant’s brief at 21, 4 TTABVUE 22.
27 Id.
28 See “Breakfast cereal and the breakfast food market,” Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016
at 260-273. See also “Feeling its Oats, Cheerios to Add ‘Ancient Grains,’” id. at 280, for other
references to Kellogg and Post.
Serial No. 86757390

14

Applicant’s survey subjects showed their awareness of several of the products,
especially Honey-Comb and Corn Pops.29 We have, of course, given no weight to
parodies of breakfast cereal packaging. However, Applicant has not adduced evidence
to support its contention that some of the products shown are no longer offered; the
burden of rebutting the Examining Attorney’s evidence rests on Applicant.30
Among the products shown in the Examining Attorney’s evidence, we note the
following toroidal-shaped, oat-based cereals offered under the brands Trader Joe’s,
Meijer, Wegmans, Nature’s Path, One Degree, Ralston, and Barbara’s:

29 The survey disclosed some customers’ awareness of brands (or products) identified as
follows in the survey responses: corn chex, corn flakes, corn pops, crispy rice, frosted flakes,
golden grahams, Granola, Honeycomb, kix, pops, Lucky charms, post, sugar pops, Kellogs,
krave, Raisin nut bran, Weetabix, and Wheaties. See Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016
at 436-453.
30 We do not mean to suggest that the fact that a product was on the market at one time but
is no longer currently on the market requires that it be considered completely irrelevant to
acquired distinctiveness. Its impact on consumer perception is not immediately and
automatically erased when it exits the market. But its probative value is certainly
proportionate to the length of time it was on the market and inversely proportionate to the
length of time between when it exited the market and the time at which acquired
distinctiveness is being determined. Cf. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101
USPQ2d at 1730 (acquired distinctiveness is determined on the basis of facts as they exist at
the time when the issue of registrability is under consideration).
Serial No. 86757390

15

31 32 33
34 35 36
37

31 Office Action of November 19, 2015 at 32.
32 Office Action of June 2, 2016 at 71.
33 Id. at 82.
34 Id. at 17-18.
Serial No. 86757390

16

Other examples of toroidal-shaped, oat-based cereals in yellow packaging are of
record.38 We also note the following oat-based cereals from Malt O Meal, a brand that
was known to subjects in Applicant’s survey:39
40 41
The cereals shown above demonstrate that Applicant is not alone in offering oat-
based cereal, or even toroidal-shaped, oat-based cereal, in a yellow package. Applicant
has not put forward any evidence to indicate that we should consider these product
packages “inconsequential or infringing,” as contemplated by L.D. Kichler Co. v.
Davoil Inc., supra. The presence of products of this type in the marketplace interferes
with the development among relevant customers of a perception that the color yellow
on packaging indicates that Applicant is the source of the goods (or that there is any
single source of such goods). We also note the following Kellogg, Post, and Quaker

35 Id. at 19-21.
36 Id. at 23-24.
37 Id. at 56-58.
38 See Office Action of June 2, 2016 at 25-26, 51-52, 66, 75, and 76-77.
39 Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016 at 426, 453.
40 Office Action of June 2, 2016 at 29.
41 Id. at 30.
Serial No. 86757390

17

products in the record packaged in yellow boxes, one of which is oat-based and two of
which are toroidal in shape:
42 43 44 45

46 47 48
We are cognizant that Applicant has limited its identified goods to toroidal-shaped
oat-based cereals, such that the registration certificate it seeks would be evidence

42 Office Action of November 19, 2015 at 34.
43 Office Action of June 2, 2016 at 11. The Honey Graham Oh’s product appears to have been
offered by both Post and Quaker, in nearly identical packaging. See Office Action of November
19, 2015 at 33.
44 Office Action of June 2, 2016 at 15.
45 Id. at 35.
46 Office Action of November 19, 2015 at 8.
47 Id.
48 Id. at 13.
Serial No. 86757390

18

only of Applicant’s exclusive right to use the color yellow on packaging for that specific
type of cereal. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1057(b) and 1115(a). However, we find that the presence
in the market of yellow-packaged cereals from various sources – even cereals that are
not made of oats or are not toroidal in shape – would tend to detract from any public
perception of the predominantly yellow background as a source-indicator pointing
solely to Applicant. The record shows that it is common for a manufacturer of
breakfast cereal, such as Applicant, Kellogg, or Post, to offer a wide variety of
different types of cereal.49 Cereals of many different brands and varieties are offered
side-by-side in stores50 and compete directly for the same customers.51 Such
customers, accustomed to seeing numerous brands from different sources offered in
yellow packaging, are unlikely to be conditioned to perceive yellow packaging as an
indicator of a unique source. Rather, they are more likely to view yellow packaging
simply as eye-catching ornamentation customarily used for the packaging of
breakfast cereals generally.
Applicant argues that the evidence of third-party use is irrelevant because it shows
use of “completely different marks and color schemes.”52 We do not agree. Applicant

49 Applicant itself has offered as many as 13 different flavors of Cheerios. Response of May
18, 2016 at 189, 227. See infra varieties of products offered by Kellogg, Post and Quaker.
Applicant’s offering of Cheerios of different flavors, in packages of different colors, may
interfere with the development among relevant customers of a perception that the color
yellow on packaging indicates that Applicant is the source of Cheerios.
50 See, e.g., Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016 at 229 and 292.
51 See id. at 229-230 (“3 Cereal Brands That Will Never Get Stale for American Consumers”);
260-273 (“Breakfast cereal and the breakfast food market”); 313-315, (“The Best Dry Cereal
for Toddlers”).
52 Applicant’s brief at 21, 4 TTABVUE 22.
Serial No. 86757390

19

does not seek to register a multi-component “color scheme” or any multi-element
trade dress in its entirety. It wishes to register the specific color yellow shown in its
drawing “as the predominant uniform background color on product packaging …” The
products shown above display a predominantly yellow background color on their
packaging. Although the specific shade of yellow shown on these products may differ
from that of Applicant, they are sufficiently close in hue to reduce the distinctiveness
in the marketplace of Applicant’s use of the color yellow.
It is significant to our analysis that the packages on which Applicant uses the
proposed mark are rectangular boxes, similar in proportions to the one shown in the
drawing of Applicant’s mark;53 and that competitors that use the color yellow also use
it on similar rectangular boxes.54 Competitors’ use of yellow on similarly shaped
packages lessens the impact of Applicant’s uses upon customers’ perceptions and
reduces the likelihood that customers will perceive the color yellow as indicating
Applicant as the single source.55
We find the number and nature of third-party cereal products in yellow packaging
in the marketplace to be sufficient to convince us that consumers do not perceive the
color yellow as having source-indicating significance for the goods. Several of the

53 We note, however, that the drawing and description of the mark do not limit the mark to
the color yellow on a “box” of breakfast cereal, and thus the mark includes other forms of
product “packaging,” such as a soft plastic bag.
54 The one exception of record is the Oat Blenders product in a soft bag. Office Action of June
2, 2016 at 29.
55 As is discussed above, we have noted and given weight to the fact that Applicant uses the
color yellow not only on packaging, but also as a feature of its print and television
advertisements, e.g., as the color of backgrounds, props, and actors’ clothing, among other
ways.
Serial No. 86757390

20

third-party products in yellow packaging are offered by major competitors of
Applicant and there is a substantial number of such products. Moreover, the number
of third-party cereal products that use yellow as a predominant background color of
their packaging suggests that the competitors may be exploiting an aspect of the
packaging that has “intrinsic consumer-desirability” rather than any secondary
meaning the color may have. 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND
UNFAIR COMPETITION § 15:38 (4th ed. 2014, June 2017 Update) (citing In re Van
Valkenburgh, 97 USPQ2d 1757, 1768 (TTAB 2011)).
As Qualitex and Owens-Corning teach, a color does not “automatically” indicate the
source of the goods to a consumer, Qualitex, 34 USPQ2d at 1162; rather, it “is usually
perceived as ornamentation.” Owens-Corning, 227 USPQ at 422. The third-party
products shown above appear to make use of the color yellow for purposes of
ornamentation. It is possible that the color of the packages would help a customer to
narrow down the number of cereal offerings to review on a large and crowded store
shelf; but it is obvious that the word marks and graphic images are more important
in conveying to the customer each unique brand of product offered. As the record
shows, the breakfast cereal marketplace is awash in brightly colored packages
bearing bold graphics and large-format word marks. There is no example in the record
of any brand of cereal that is offered in a monochrome package devoid of word and
design trademarks. In such an environment, customers certainly have no need to rely
upon the background color of a package in order to know what brand they are buying.
Notably, there is no suggestion that Applicant would expect its customers to select
Serial No. 86757390

21

their cereal on the basis of the color of the box. Even the examples of Applicant’s “look
for” advertising that are of record (television commercials touting “the big yellow box
that everyone knows” and “that yellow box”)56 include repeated, prominent displays
of the front of Applicant’s box, with the mark CHEERIOS in bold, black letters in
sharp contrast to the yellow background, as well as an audio track on which the term
CHEERIOS is repeatedly sung or spoken.57
When customers see a color appearing on products from many different sources,
they are less likely to expect the color to point to a single source of goods. Instead,
customers are likely to perceive the color on packages as a device designed to make
the packages attractive and eye-catching. This is especially true of a primary color,
like yellow, which is used by many merchants and is not “a color that in context seems
unusual.” Qualitex, 34 USPQ2d at 1162-63. All of the cereal packages of record have
some background color, and many of them include some shade of yellow, so
Applicant’s use of a predominantly yellow color scheme is unlikely to be seen as an
indication of source. Compare In re Hodgdon Powder Co., 119 USPQ2d 1254, 1259
(TTAB 2016) (recognizing the color white as a trademark for “gunpowder [which] is

56 Audio-visual materials submitted with Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016.
57 Our primary reviewing court and other circuits have repeatedly cautioned that, where
advertisements feature not only the mark in question but also other source indicators, that
fact substantially diminishes the probative value of such advertising in proving that the
alleged mark at issue serves primarily as a source identifier. See, e.g., In re Chem. Dynamics,
Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 5 USPQ2d 1828, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Petersen Mfg. Co. v. Cent.
Purchasing, Inc., 740 F.2d 1541, 222 USPQ 562, 569 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Soccer Sport
Supply Co., 507 F.2d 1400, 184 USPQ 345, 348 (CCPA 1975); In re McIlhenny Co., 278 F.2d
953, 126 USPQ 138, 140-1 (CCPA 1960); accord Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage,
608 F.3d 225, 95 USPQ2d 1333, 1349 (5th Cir. 2010); Browne Drug Co. v. Cococare Prods.,
Inc., 538 F.3d 185, 87 USPQ2d 1655, 1665 (3d Cir. 2008).
Serial No. 86757390

22

[normally] black or gray”). Alternatively, customers might perceive the various colors
of cereal packages as a device to suggest something about the nature of the cereal,
such as its flavor. (As shown above, Applicant offers different flavors of CHEERIOS
brand cereals in packages bearing colors other than yellow.)
Pointing to its survey results, Applicant contends that its promotional efforts were
successful in inculcating consumers to view yellow packaging as a source indicator.
Applicant’s survey shows, among relevant customers, a high level of awareness that
CHEERIOS brand cereal is sold in a yellow box. However, when we consider the
survey in the relevant commercial context, we find, as we explain below, that it does
not demonstrate whether the color yellow, alone, distinguishes Applicant’s goods from
those of others, which is the core function of a trademark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (a
trademark is a “device … used by a person … to identify and distinguish his or her
goods … from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the
goods …” (emphasis added)). Considering that there are hundreds of breakfast cereals
that compete with Applicant’s product, that nearly all of them are offered in brightly
colored boxes, and that many of them make ornamental use of the color yellow, we
believe, as we explain below, Applicant’s survey should have taken into consideration
the possibility that respondents might be able to name more than one breakfast cereal
that is offered in a yellow box, thereby persuasively testing whether respondents were
acquainted with such goods from sources other than Applicant. Because of the
survey’s design, we find that the survey results do not clearly demonstrate association
of the color yellow with one particular source of goods.
Serial No. 86757390

23

The survey was administered by means of computer. Subjects were shown the below
image and were told it was a “cereal box” and that “This box has been altered by
removing the cereal brand name, logo, package images, and other package texts from
the box.”58

Subjects were asked the following question (“Question 1”): “If you think you know,
what brand of cereal comes in this box?” The question was formatted as shown below:

On successive screens, subjects were asked the following questions:
What, in particular, makes you think the brand is
“[Response to Q1]”?
Why do you think that?
Anything else?

58 Response of May 18, 2016 at 376. A control group of subjects was shown an image of a light
blue “cereal box.” See id. at 406.
Serial No. 86757390

24

What is it about the cereal box that makes you associate it
with “[Response to Q1]”?
Anything else?
Of 419 subjects, only three answered Question 1 with more than one brand.59 (Those
three answers were “kix, pops, cheerios”; “rice, wheat or sometype of chex” [sic]; and
“malt o meal value ones.”)60 Four others, after giving a singular answer to Question
1, answered the follow-up question “Anything else?” as follows:
- on the other hand it could be kelloggs corn pops
- not many other cereal have that colored box
- nope nothing or corn pops
- could be a lot of brands
Question 1 and the question following it, with their singular use of the word
“brand,” (“what brand of cereal comes in this box?”; “What… makes you think the
brand is …?”) indicate by their terms that a singular answer to the first question is
expected. It is likely that subjects believed only a single brand should be named. This
likelihood is reinforced by the very small number of subjects who gave a plural
answer, and the fact that subjects who knew of several brands nonetheless gave a
singular answer to the first question. For this reason, Question 1 likely elicited from
the subjects the first brand that came to mind, but unless the subjects spontaneously
elaborated, the survey would not show whether subjects believed the color yellow was

59 Id. at 436-453.
60 Id. at 446, 447, 453.
Serial No. 86757390

25

associated only with the maker of the Cheerios brand.61 (Of 419 subjects, 23 indicated
that Cheerios was the only brand, or the only brand they could think of, that is sold
in a yellow box.) The evidence of record shows that the relevant marketplace includes
scores of competing brands; there is an industry practice of ornamenting product
packaging with bright colors; and the color that Applicant claims as its mark is in use
on the packaging of others. When Applicant’s survey is considered in such a
commercial context, we find that, worded as it is, it does not establish that customers
would perceive the yellow color of a package as an indication of a single source of the
goods, such that Applicant should be able to claim the exclusive right to use that
color. See Levi Strauss, 222 USPQ at 940 (“purchasers in the marketplace must be
able to recognize that a term or device has or has acquired such distinctiveness that
it may be relied on as indicating one source of quality control”).
We are aware that, in Owens-Corning, the Federal Circuit was not moved by the
criticism that the survey at issue “inhibited plural responses from persons who might
have believed that more than one manufacturer makes ‘pink’ insulation.” 227 USPQ
at 424. However, the market conditions at issue in Owens-Corning differed
significantly from those in the breakfast cereal industry. In Owens-Corning, there
were few competitors and the applicant was the only one that used any added color,
let alone the color pink. 227 USPQ at 420 (“It appears from the record that OCF is

61 As an illustrative hypothetical, consider a survey that asked, “If you think you know, what
university has TIGERS as its mascot?” Even if most respondents said LSU, that would not
have proved that LSU had the exclusive right to TIGERS as a source indicator to the
exclusion of Clemson, Auburn, Missouri, Princeton, Towson, Memphis, or many other schools.
Serial No. 86757390

26

the only manufacturer that colors this insulation, and that there are only a small
number of producers.”) The Court relied on the applicant’s unique position in finding
the survey probative: “We do not agree that such criticism requires outright rejection
of survey data showing that 50% of the respondents named OCF, the only
manufacturer to color its insulation pink.” 227 USPQ at 424 (emphasis added). To
this sentence, the Court appended the following footnote: “Distinctiveness is acquired
by “substantially exclusive and continuous use” of the mark in commerce. A color
which is employed by others in the industry acts not as an indicator of source but as
mere ornamentation.” 227 USPQ 424 n.11 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). This
passage and the accompanying footnote suggest that the probative value of the
Owens-Corning survey would have been called into doubt if, as in our case, there were
evidence of numerous competing brands and examples of third-party use of the
asserted mark.
Applicant has made extensive and detailed comparisons between the case now
before us and other single-color trademark cases in which acquired distinctiveness
was found. Such comparisons are rarely helpful, because the critical facts of different
cases almost always differ substantially. Cf. In re Miller Int’l Co., 312 F.2d 819, 136
USPQ 445, 447 (CCPA 1963) (refusal to register mark as merely descriptive reversed;
“as we have had occasion to observe many times in the past, prior decisions in
trademark cases are of little help in deciding cases involving different marks and
different facts. Each case must be decided on its own facts and issues”). For example,
in Qualitex and Owens-Corning, the goods at issue were products that were not
Serial No. 86757390

27

usually given any artificial color at all, and the number of competing products was
relatively limited. By contrast, the record shows that it is the norm to give the
packaging of breakfast cereals bright colors, and scores of competing products can be
found in a single aisle of a supermarket.62 In T-Mobile US, Inc. v. Aio Wireless LLC,
991 F. Supp. 2d 888 (S.D. Tex. 2014), the number of competitors was small and the
defendant essentially acknowledged its obligation to avoid use of colors similar to
those used by competitors. In the present case, there is no evidence of such a
viewpoint in the cereal industry. The prosecution histories of the third-party
registrations63 to which Applicant refers in Exhibit A of its brief are, for similar
reasons, extremely difficult to compare in a meaningful way to Applicant’s case. None
of the third-party registrations relates to breakfast cereal, and it is highly likely that
the market conditions prevailing in the registrants’ industries differ substantially
from those in the cereal industry.
Applicant has proven that relevant customers are familiar with the yellow color of
the CHEERIOS box; but the record also indicates that the color yellow is only one
aspect of a more complex trade dress that includes many other features that perform
a distinguishing and source-indicating function. When we consider the industry
practice of ornamenting breakfast cereal boxes with bright colors, bold graphic
designs, and prominent word marks, and the fact that customers have been exposed
to directly competing products (toroidal oat cereals) and closely related products

62 See, e.g., Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016 at 229 and 292.
63 Applicant’s response of May 18, 2016 at 46-172.
Serial No. 86757390

28

(other forms of breakfast cereal) in packages that are predominantly yellow, we are
not persuaded that customers perceive Applicant’s proposed mark, the color yellow
alone, as indicating the source of Applicant’s goods. We find that Applicant has not
demonstrated that its yellow background has acquired distinctiveness within the
meaning of Section 2(f) and, accordingly, that Applicant has not shown that this
device functions as a trademark.

Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark under Sections 1, 2, and 45 is
affirmed.