Green Paws LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2010

No. 76687372 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2010)

Mailed: Hearing:
March 23, 2010 January 20, 2010

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Green Paws LLC
________

Serial No. 76687372
_______

Myron Amer of Myron Amer, P.C., for Green Paws LLC.

Priscilla Milton, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110
(Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Mermelstein, and Ritchie, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Green Paws LLC (“applicant”) filed an application to
register the mark GREEN PAWS for goods ultimately identified as
“chemical constituted cleaners for the removal from household
rugs of stains caused by pets,”1 The Trademark Examining
Attorney refused registration of applicant’s mark under Section
2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the
ground that applicant’s mark so resembles the registered mark

1 Serial No. 76687372, in International Class 3, filed March 5, 2008,
pursuant to Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051(a),
claiming dates of first use and first use in commerce of August 30,
2007, and disclaiming the exclusive right to use “GREEN” apart from
the mark as shown.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76687372
2
GREEN PAWS and design, as shown below for “all-natural shampoo
for pets and dogs, and all-natural pet coat freshening sprays
for non-veterinary grooming,”2 that when used on or in connection
with applicant’s identified goods, it is likely to cause
confusion or mistake or to deceive:

Upon final refusal of registration, applicant filed a
timely appeal. Both applicant and the examining attorney filed
briefs, and applicant filed a reply brief. For the reasons
discussed herein, the Board affirms the refusal to register.
We base our determination under Section 2(d) on an analysis
of all of the probative evidence of record bearing on a
likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973); see also, In re
Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d

2 Registration No. 3449076, in International Class 3, issued June 17,
2008, pursuant to Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1051(a), claiming dates of first use and first use in commerce of
September 30, 2006. The registration contains the following
description of the mark: “The color(s) green, black, red, white is/are
claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the literal
element ‘GREEN PAWS’ and associated design. The word ‘GREEN’ appears
in black and the word ‘PAWS’ appears in green. The design is located
above the literal element and is a fanciful representation of the head
of a green dog with black spots and a red tongue. The dog is wearing
Serial No. 76687372
3
1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between
the marks and the similarities between the goods or services.
See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry
mandated by §2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences
in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in
the marks”). We discuss each of the du Pont factors as to which
applicant or the examining attorney submitted argument or
evidence.
The Marks
We consider and compare the appearance, sound, connotation
and commercial impression of the marks in their entireties. In
re E. I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ at 567. Applicant’s
mark consists entirely of the words “GREEN PAWS,” which is also
the only wording in the cited registration. Thus, the word
portions of the marks are identical. The only difference
between the marks is the design element in the cited
registration.
With respect to that design portion of the mark in the
cited registration, where a mark consists of words as well as a
design, the words are generally considered dominant because the

a black collar with a white bone-shaped dog tag. No background color
is claimed.”
Serial No. 76687372
4
words will be used to call for or refer to the goods. CBS Inc.
v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 1581-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 UPSQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 2001); In re
Appetito Provisions Co., Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987).
Despite applicant’s argument to the contrary, this is true of
the mark in the cited registration, whose design of a green dog
with the word “PAWS” in green merely presents a pictorial
representation of the words “GREEN PAWS”; that is, the drawing
emphasizes the word portion because it is the representation of
a dog with green paws. Therefore the design reinforces, but
does not change the connotation of the mark in the cited
registration, which is the same as that of applicant’s mark.
See In re 1st USA Realty Professionals Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581,
1586 (TTAB 2007) (design which merely reinforces wording
insufficient to distinguish marks). To the extent that the word
“GREEN” is a play on the environmental-friendliness of the “all-
natural” shampoo and sprays in the cited registration, we do not
find that to create a different connotation than applicant’s
mark. To the contrary, it is likely that consumers would assume
the same play on words in applicant’s mark, compounded since
applicant has in fact disclaimed the term “GREEN.”
In sum, the marks are substantially similar in terms of
appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression. In view
Serial No. 76687372
5
of the foregoing, we find that the first du Pont factor weighs
strongly in favor of finding a likelihood of consumer confusion.
The Goods and Channels of Trade

In determinining the similarity or dissimilarity of the
goods, we note that the more similar the marks at issue, the
less similar the goods or services need to be for the Board to
find a likelihood of confusion. In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d
1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001). It is only necessary that there be a
viable relationship between the goods or services to support a
finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia Int’l
Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355, 356 (TTAB 1983). Goods or
services need not be identical or even competitive in order to
support a finding of likelihood of confusion. Rather, it is
enough that the goods or services are related in some manner or
that some circumstances surrounding their marketing are such
that they would be likely to be seen by the same persons under
circumstances which could give rise, because of the marks used
or intended to be used therewith, to a mistaken belief that they
originate from or are in some way associated with the same
producer or that there is an association between the producers
of each parties’ goods or services. In re Melville Corp., 18
USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991).
Applicant’s identified goods are “chemical constituted
cleaners for the removal from household rugs of stains caused by
Serial No. 76687372
6
pets,” while the cited registration includes “all-natural
shampoo for pets and dogs, and all-natural pet coat freshening
sprays for non-veterinary grooming.” While applicant’s goods do
not overlap with those in the cited registration, the examining
attorney has submitted copies of use-based, third-party
registrations covering goods of the type in both the application
and the cited registration. Examples are Registration No.
3263125 (“non-medicated pet shampoo” and “pet stain remover”);
Registration No. 2959662 (“non-medicated pet shampoo” and “stain
remover”); 3027914 (“pet shampoo” and “stain remover;”); 2857306
(“pet shampoo” and “pet stain removers”); 3091995 (“grooming
preparations, namely, shampoos;” and “pet stain and odor
removers”); 3278931 (“pet shampoo”; and “pet stain removers”);
3524975 (“pet shampoo” and “pet stain removers”); 3566126 (“pet
shampoo” and “pet stain removers”); and 3581556 (“nonveterinary
pet shampoo” and “all purpose pet cleaners and odor
neutralizers”). Copies of use-based, third-party registrations
may serve to suggest that the goods are of a type which may
emanate from a single source. See In re Albert Trostel & Sons
Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785 (TTAB 1993). Although applicant
argues that none of the third-party registrations captures the
exact wording of both the application and the cited
registration, that is simply a matter of nomenclature. We find
the goods covered by these third-party registrations to be the
Serial No. 76687372
7
legal equivalents of those identified by the application and the
cited registration, respectively.
The examining attorney also submitted evidence from
applicant’s own website (www.greenpawsdirect.com) to show that
pet shampoos are sold alongside surface cleaners for the
elimination of pet odors. On the same page of its website,
applicant offers for sale its GREEN PAWS™ dog shampoo and its
GREEN PAWS™ Odor & Stain Eliminator. An excerpt reads:
How does GREEN PAWS™ Odor & Stain Eliminator
work?
Our Odor & Stain Eliminator contains an Odor
Encapsulator, which surrounds the odor
causing material completely blocking its
smell. At this time, the friendly bacteria
and enzymes begin breaking down the stain.
The natural surfactant releases the stain
from the fibers allowing it to be wiped
clean. Once a pet stain is completely
removed your dog will not be able to find
his spot to “mark” it again!

Applicant has argued that its “chemical constituted
cleaners for the removal from household rugs of stains caused by
pets” are sold separately and in different channels of trade
from the “all-natural shampoo for pets and dogs, and all-natural
pet coat freshening sprays for non-veterinary grooming” in the
cited registration. However, the examining attorney submitted
evidence from several websites such as www.winstoncompany.com,
www.organicandnature.com, and www.achooallergy.com/petcare (as
well as applicant’s own website at www.greenpawsdirect.com),
Serial No. 76687372
8
showing that they advertise and sell both pet shampoo and rug
cleaners for removal of pet stains side-by-side.
Additionally, there is nothing in the recital of goods in
either the cited registration or the application that limits
either registrant’s or applicant’s channels of trade. In the
absence of specific limitations in the registration, we must
presume that registrant’s goods will travel in all normal and
usual channels of trade and methods of distribution. Squirtco
v. Tomy Corporation, 697 F.2d 1038, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir.
1983). See In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB
1992) (because there are no limitations as to channels of trade
or classes of purchasers in either the application or the cited
registration, it is presumed that the registration and the
application move in all channels of trade normal for those
services, and that the services are available to all classes of
purchasers for the listed services). Since there are no
limitations on the channels of trade in applicant’s
identification of goods either, we must make the same
presumption with regard to applicant’s goods. In other words,
there is nothing that prevents the registrant’s pet shampoos and
sprays from being sold in the same channels of trade and to the
same classes of consumers that purchase applicant’s rug cleaners
for removal of pet stains (and vice versa). Furthermore, since
pet owners are the likely purchasers of both registrant’s and
Serial No. 76687372
9
applicant’s products, the target consumers of both registrant
and applicant are the same. Accordingly, we find that these du
Pont factors weigh in favor of finding a likelihood of consumer
confusion.
Balancing the Factors
In view of our findings that the marks are substantially
similar, the goods are similar, and the goods move in the same
or similar channels of trade, we find that applicant’s mark for
“chemical constituted cleaners for the removal from household
rugs of stains caused by pets” is likely to cause confusion with
the registered mark GREEN PAWS and design for “all-natural
shampoo for pets and dogs, and all-natural pet coat freshening
sprays for non-veterinary grooming.”
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.