Natrol, Inc.v.Naturex

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

No. 91198368re (T.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed:
May 16, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Natrol, Inc.

v.

Naturex
_____

Opposition No. 91198368
_____

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
_____

Julie B. Seyler of Abelman Frayne & Schwab for Natrol, Inc.

John S. Egbert of Egbert Law Offices PLLC for Naturex.
_____

Before Grendel, Kuhlke and Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Naturex (“applicant”) filed an application to register the mark NATROX, in
standard character form, for the following goods, as amended:1

1 Application Serial No. 79076683 filed October 1, 2009. The application is a request for
protection under Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1144f(a).
Opposition No. 91198368

2

Chemicals as raw materials for cosmetics and the food
and pharmaceutical industries, mainly comprising plant
extracts; active chemical ingredients used in cosmetic
formulation; mineral salts, namely, magnesium salts, in
Class 1; and
Soaps; perfumes; cosmetics; essential oils; odoriferous
substances, namely, body sprays used as personal
deodorants and as fragrance, perfumery; cosmetics in
galenic form and mainly containing plant extracts, not for
medical purposes; plant and herb extracts sold as
components of cosmetics for beauty and skin, body, facial,
hair or nail care, in the form of capsules, tablets, ampules,
yeast, powders, bars, creams or beverages, in Class 3.
Natrol, Inc. (“opposer”) opposed the registration of applicant’s mark on the
ground of likelihood of confusion pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1052(d). Specifically, opposer alleged that applicant’s mark NATROX
when used in connection with the goods identified in the application so resembles
opposer’s mark NATROL used in connection with dietary supplements as to be
likely to cause confusion.
In an order dated February 27, 2013, the Board dismissed the opposition in
connection with the goods in Class 1 and sustained the opposition in connection
with the goods in Class 3.
On that same date, in Opposition No. 91199191, Kemin Industries, Inc. v.
Naturex, against the same application as involved in this opposition, the Board
sustained the opposition in connection with the goods in Class 1 and dismissed the
opposition in connection with the goods in Class 3.
On March 27, 2013, opposer in this opposition filed a request for
reconsideration. However, neither party in Opposition No. 91199191 filed a request
Opposition No. 91198368

3

for reconsideration or a notice of appeal. Because that decision has become final,
registration to applicant for the goods in Class 1 is refused and the application will
be abandoned in due course.
In view of the foregoing, opposer’s request for reconsideration is denied as
moot.