Land O Sky, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2010

No. 76633815re (T.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2010)

Mailed: February 3, 2010

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Land O Sky, LLC
________

Serial No. 76633814
Serial No. 76633815
_______

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
_______

Richard M. Moose of Dority & Manning, P.A. for Land O Sky,
LLC.

Drew Leaser, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112
(Angela Bishop Wilson, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Bucher, Cataldo and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Land O Sky, LLC filed intent-to-use applications for
the HARVEST FARMS and design marks, shown below.
1 2

1 Serial No. 76633814. Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right
to use “Farms” and “Organic.”
2 Serial No. 76633815. Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right
to use “Farms” and “Natural.”
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 76633814
Serial No. 76633815

2
In a decision mailed January 4, 2010, the Board
affirmed the refusal to register the applications for the
goods identified in Classes 29 and 30 on the ground that
applicant’s marks are likely to cause confusion with the
mark HARVEST FARMS, in typed drawing form, for “cheese.”3
On February 2, 2010, applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the January 4, 2010 decision. As
grounds for reconsideration, applicant contends that the
Board improperly analyzed the similarity of the marks
because we did not give any weight to the postage stamp
motif in applicant’s marks. Specifically, applicant
argued,
[W]hen compared to the cited
registration of record, the postage
stamp motif serves as a distinctive
identifier of source with respect to
the International Classes 29 and 30
goods listed in [applicant’s] trademark
applications. Given that the postage
stamp motif of [applicant’s] mark (sic)
differs from any imagery or other
aspects of the cited registrations of
record, particularly in connection with
International Classes 29 and 30 goods,,
(sic) the postage stamp motiff (sic)
would stand out in the minds of
consumers as the dominant portion of
[applicant’s] marks.4

3 Registration No. 2603303, issued August 6, 2002; Sections 8 and
15 affidavits accepted and acknowledged. Registrant disclaimed
the exclusive right to use “Farms.”
4 Request for Reconsideration, p. 4.
Serial No. 76633814
Serial No. 76633815

3
Applicant’s request for reconsideration is based on
the false premise that we did not consider the marks in
their entireties because we did not specifically reference
the postage stamp motif in our analysis. We did not
mention the postage stamp motif in our analysis because we
found that it had such a minimal effect in creating the
commercial impression engendered by applicant’s marks that
it would be perceived only as forming a border for the farm
scene and name HARVEST FARMS. The serrated edges of the
marks forming the postage stamp motif does not in any way
divert the dominant commercial impression created by the
marks from the name HARVEST FARMS.
Decision: Applicant’s request for reconsideration is
denied.