Peter Piper, Inc.v.OTG Experience, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2018

No. 91230289 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2018)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Hearing: November 13, 2018 Mailed: November 15, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Peter Piper, Inc.
v.
OTG Experience, LLC
_____

Opposition No. 91230289
_____

Ray K. Harris and Stacie K. Smith of Fennemore Craig, P.C.,
for Peter Piper, Inc.
Jordan A. LaVine of Flaster Greenberg PC,
for OTG Experience, LLC.
_____

Before Bergsman, Adlin and Hightower,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
OTG Experience, LLC (Applicant) filed applications to register PETER PIPER
(standard characters) for:
Mobile automated machine that accepts orders for,
dispenses and packages for delivery various food and retail
items; Vending machines, mobile vending machines, and
automatic vending machines, in Class 7;
Motor vehicles, namely, automobiles that accepts orders
for, dispenses and packages for delivery various food and
retail items, in Class 12; and
Opposition No. 91230289
- 2 -
Order fulfillment services; retail store services featuring
machines for order fulfillment; rental and leasing of
machines for order fulfillment in the nature of vending
machines, in Class 35;
and PETER PIPER SMARTRUCK (standard characters) for:
Mobile automated machine that accepts orders for,
dispenses and packages for delivery various food and retail
items; Vending machines, mobile vending machines, and
automatic vending machines, in Class 7; and
Order fulfillment services; Wholesale and retail store
services featuring mobile vending machines for order
fulfillment; leasing and rental of mobile vending machines;
Mobile vending in the field of convenience store items, in
Class 35.1
Peter Piper, Inc. (Opposer) filed an opposition under Section 2(d) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s marks so resemble Opposer’s
registered PETER PIPER PIZZA marks as to be likely to cause confusion.2 Opposer’s
most relevant pleaded registrations are:
• Registration Nos. 4101250 and 4432382 for the mark PETER PIPER PIZZA
(standard characters) for “pizza,” in Class 30;3 and “restaurant services,” in
Class 43.4
Opposer disclaimed the exclusive right to use the word “Pizza” in both registrations.

1 Application Serial Nos. 8659399 and 86594003, respectively, each filed April 10, 2015, under
Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s bona fide intent
to use the marks in commerce.
2 Opposer also alleged that Applicant’s mark will dilute Opposer’s marks. Section 43(c) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Inasmuch as Opposer did not pursue this claim in its
brief, it is waived. See Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d
1750, 1753 n.6 (TTAB 2013), aff’d, 565 Fed. Appx. 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
3 Registered February 21, 2012; Sections 8 and 15 declaration accepted and acknowledged.
4 Registered November 12, 2013.
Opposition No. 91230289
- 3 -
Applicant, in its Answer, denied the salient allegations in the Notice of Opposition.
I. The Record
The record includes the pleadings and, by operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b),
37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b), the application files at issue.5 The parties introduced the
following testimony and evidence:
A. Opposer’s testimony and evidence.
1. Notice of reliance on the following items:
a. Copies of Opposer’s pleaded registrations printed from a USPTO
electronic database showing the current status of and title to the
registrations;6
b. Applicant’s admissions in response to Opposer’s requests for admission
Nos. 1-3;7
c. Applicant’s written responses to Opposer’s interrogatory Nos. 1-5;8
d. Applicant’s written responses to Opposer’s request for the production of
documents Nos. 2-7;9

5 Because Applicant’s application files and the pleadings are of record by operation of the
Trademark Rules of Practice, there was no need for Opposer to introduce them through a
notice of reliance. 10 TTABVUE 8-35 and 86-97.
6 10 TTABVUE 37-79.
7 10 TTABVUE 99-101.
8 9 TTABVUE 103-11 (improperly designated confidential). There is nothing in the
interrogatory answers that constitute trade secret or commercially sensitive information.
Pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.116(g), 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(g), “[t]he Board may treat as not
confidential that material which cannot reasonably be considered confidential,
notwithstanding a designation as such by a party.” Accordingly, we are not bound by the
confidential designation of the interrogatory responses.
9 10 TTABVUE 104-08. We consider Applicant’s responses only to the extent that they state
that there are no responsive documents. See City Nat’l Bank v. OPGI Mgmt. GP Inc./Gestion
Opposition No. 91230289
- 4 -
e. Excerpts from Applicant’s website;10 and
f. A copy of Trademark Registration No. 3583951 for the mark AN OTG
EXPERIENCE (standard characters) for “restaurant and bar services,”
in Class 43, and the accompanying assignment recordation;11
2. A notice of reliance on the following:
a. A copy of Patent No. 9114748;12
b. An excerpt from Applicant’s website;13
c. “Commercial Service Airports (Rank Order), based on Calendar Years
2016 Enplanements” accessed from faa.gov;14 and
d. Applicant’s written response to Opposer’s request for production of
documents No. 2;15 and
3. Testimony deposition of William Toole, Opposer’s Chief Operating Officer.16
B. Applicant’s testimony and evidence.

OPGI Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1668, 1674 n.10 (TTAB 2013) (responses to document production
requests are admissible solely for purposes of showing that a party has stated that there are
no responsive documents); ShutEmDown Sports Inc. v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036 n.7 (TTAB
2012) (written responses to document requests indicating that no documents exist may be
submitted by notice of reliance).
10 10 TTABVUE 110-13.
11 10 TTABVUE 115-23.
12 11 TTABVUE 6-24.
13 11 TTABVUE 26.
14 11 TTABVUE 28.
15 11 TTABVUE 30-34. See n.9 supra.
16 12 TTABVUE. Opposer failed to include a word index required by Trademark Rule
2.123(g)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(g)(1), thus making the review of the deposition transcript more
difficult than necessary.
Opposition No. 91230289
- 5 -
Applicant introduced the testimony deposition of Justin Blatstein, Applicant’s
Director of Aura.17
II. Standing
Standing is a threshold issue in every inter partes case. See Empresa Cubana Del
Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
John W. Carson Found. v. Toilets.com Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1942, 1945 (TTAB 2010). To
establish standing in an opposition or cancellation proceeding, a plaintiff must prove
that it has a “real interest,” i.e., a “reasonable” basis for its belief of damage. See
Empresa Cubana, 111 USPQ2d at 1062; Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50
USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670
F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (TTAB 1982).
Opposer has established its standing by properly introducing into evidence its
pleaded registrations. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943,
55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); N.Y. Yankees P’ship v. IET Prods. & Servs.,
Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1497, 1501 (TTAB 2015). Applicant, in its brief, does not contest
Opposer’s standing.

17 20 TTABVUE. Trademark Rule 2.123(g)(1), 37 CFR § 2.123(g)(1), “[t]he deposition
transcript must be submitted in full-sized format (one page per sheet), not condensed
(multiple pages per sheet).”
The portions of the Blatstein deposition designated confidential are posted at 30 TTABVUE.
Blatstein Dep. Exhibits 17 and 18, designated confidential, are posted at 19 TTABVUE 87-
116.
Opposition No. 91230289
- 6 -
III. Priority
Because Opposer’s pleaded registrations are of record, priority is not at issue with
respect to the goods and services identified therein. Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt
Benckiser LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1464, 1469 (TTAB 2016) (citing King Candy Co. v.
Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974)). In any
event, Applicant has conceded that Opposer has priority.18
IV. Likelihood of confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the likelihood
of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563,
567 (CCPA 1973) (“du Pont”) cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135
S. Ct. 1293, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015); see also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315
F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have considered each du Pont
factor that is relevant or for which there is evidence of record. See M2 Software, Inc.
v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006);
ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232, 1242 (TTAB 2015)
(“While we have considered each factor for which we have evidence, we focus our
analysis on those factors we find to be relevant.”). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the
similarities between the goods or services. See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340,

18 Applicant’s response to Opposer’s request for admission No. 2. (10 TTABVUE 100).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 7 -
71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 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.”); see also In re
i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The
likelihood of confusion analysis considers all DuPont factors for which there is record
evidence but ‘may focus … on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and
relatedness of the goods’”) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d
1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
A. Fame
Opposer has pleaded and argued that its PETER PIPER PIZZA marks are famous.
Fame, if it exists, plays a dominant role in the likelihood of confusion analysis because
famous marks enjoy a broad scope of protection or exclusivity of use. A famous mark
has extensive public recognition and renown. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc.,
293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214
F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose
Art Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Fame may be measured indirectly by the volume of sales of and advertising
expenditures for the goods and services identified by the marks at issue, “the length
of time those indicia of commercial awareness have been evident,” widespread critical
assessments and through notice by independent sources of the products identified by
the marks, as well as the general reputation of the products and services. Bose Corp.
Opposition No. 91230289
- 8 -
v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc., 63 USPQ2d at 1305-06, 1309. Raw numbers alone may be
misleading, however. Thus, some context in which to place raw statistics may be
necessary, for example, market share or sales or advertising figures for comparable
types of goods. Id. at 1309.
Finally, because of the extreme deference that we accord a famous mark in terms
of the wide latitude of legal protection it receives, and the dominant role fame plays
in the likelihood of confusion analysis, it is the duty of the party asserting that its
mark is famous to clearly prove it. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1720 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Leading Jewelers
Guild Inc. v. LJOW Holdings LLC, 82 USPQ2d 1901, 1904 (TTAB 2007)).
Opposer, in its brief, contends that its PETER PIPER PIZZA marks are famous
for the following reasons:19
• The PETER PIPER PIZZA marks have been in use for over forty years;20
• The revenue generated under the PETER PIPER PIZZA marks is
approximately $300 million per year across its 145 locations;21 and
• Opposer spends approximately $20 million annually advertising and
promoting the PETER PIPER PIZZA marks.22
However, this evidence does not establish that PETER PIPER PIZZA is famous.
Long use, without evidence of the extent of consumer exposure to or recognition of

19 Opposer’s Brief, pp. 16-17 (13 TTABVUE 18-19).
20 Toole Testimony Dep., p. 6 (12 TTABVUE 9).
21 Toole Testimony Dep., p. 6 (12 TTABVUE 9).
22 Toole Testimony Dep., p. 12 (12 TTABVUE 15).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 9 -
the mark over the years, is not sufficient by itself to prove fame. Wet Seal Inc. v. FD
Mgt. Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1629, 1635 (TTAB 2007); compare Nina Ricci, S.A.R.L. v. ETF
Enters., Inc., 203 USPQ 947, 951 (TTAB 1979) (“Not only has opposer enjoyed long
use of its ‘RICCI’ marks, but the record shows the fame, prestige and reputation
which the name ‘NINA RICCI’ has brought to opposer as evidenced by the numerous
newspaper articles and reports of opposer’s activities in the ladies’ apparel fields,
previously referred to.”).
While Opposer has 145 locations, that number includes 43 locations in Mexico.23
Because foreign use of a mark does not ordinarily influence purchaser perceptions in
this country, and the evidence does not demonstrate that it does in this case,
Applicant’s foreign use is irrelevant. See Double J of Broward Inc. v. Skalony
Sportswear GmbH, 21 USPQ2d 1609, 1612-13 (TTAB 1991) (information concerning
applicant’s foreign activities is not relevant to the issues in an opposition proceeding);
Johnson & Johnson v. Salve S.A., 183 USPQ 375, 376 (TTAB 1974) (since foreign
trademark use creates no rights in the United States, any information or evidence
pertaining to foreign use is thus immaterial to a party’s right to register its mark in
the United States); Oland’s Breweries [1971] Ltd. v. Miller Brewing Co., 189
USPQ481, 489 n.7 (TTAB 1975) (use or promotion of a mark confined to a foreign
country, including Canada, is immaterial to ownership and registration in U.S.), aff’d,
Miller Brewing Co. v. Oland’s Breweries, 548F.2d 349, 192 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1976).

23 Toole Testimony Dep., p. 6 (12 TTABVUE 9).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 10 -
Thus, we do not know what percentage of Opposer’s $300 million in revenue or $20
million in advertising and marketing represent activities in the United States.
Nevertheless, as noted above, 102 of the 145 restaurants or 70% are located in the
United States. Presumably, much of Applicant’s revenue is generated in the United
States and much of its advertising and marketing budget is spent in the United
States.24 Opposer’s revenues and advertising expenditures in the United States
undoubtedly are significant.
On the other hand, Opposer did not provide any context for us to assess the
meaning of Opposer’s revenues and advertising expenditures. For example,
• There is no testimony or evidence as to Opposer’s market share in the
restaurant business, in the pizza restaurant business, or in regard to pizza;
• There is no testimony or evidence as to how Opposer’s advertising and
marketing expenditures compare to Opposer’s competitors; and
• There is no testimony or evidence as to how many consumers have
encountered or are familiar with Opposer’s marks.25
In the likelihood of confusion analysis, “fame ‘varies along a spectrum from very
strong to very weak.’” Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, 857

24 Mr. Toole testified that each franchisee is required to spend 7% of its revenues on
marketing and advertising. Toole Dep., p. 12 (12 TTABVUE 15).
25 Mr. Toole testified that Opposer’s “legacy markets where we have been for the longest - -
Texas, Arizona, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, New Mexico, throughout Mexico - - as you
mentioned, those are the markets that we have been in the longest.” Toole Testimony Dep.,
pp. 44-45 (12 TTABVUE 47-48). Opposer intends to open restaurants in central and south
Florida and in Dallas, Texas. Id. at 6-7 (12 TTABVUE 9-10). Based on the record before us,
Opposer has a presence in five states.
Opposition No. 91230289
- 11 -
F.3d 1323, 122 USPQ2d 1733, 1734 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co.,
343 F.3d 1340, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Opposer’s testimony and
evidence shows that Opposer’s PETER PIPER PIZZA is a successful and growing
brand, not that the PETER PIPER PIZZA trademark is famous. The evidence
establishes that PETER PIPER PIZZA is a commercially strong mark entitled to a
broad scope of protection or exclusivity of use in connection with pizza and restaurant
services, but it does not have the extensive public recognition and renown of a famous
mark.
B. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods and in
connection with similar services.

Applicant introduced excerpts from third-party websites using PETER PIPER as
a trademark:26
• Peter Piper’s Pickle Palace (peterpiperspicklepalace.com), with three
locations in Kutztown, Gilbertsville, and Leesport, Pennsylvania,
advertising pickles and olives;27
• Peter Piper Pepper soy sauce (jaredpacific.com) advertising soy sauce;28 and

26 The Peter Piper Memorial Conference sponsored by The Caloosa Veterinary Medical
Society “offering programs for veterinarians, technicians, practice management, and
reception,” is not relevant because those activities have nothing to do with the goods and
services identified in the pleaded registrations or involved applications. Blatstein Dep.,
Exhibit 14 (20 TTABVUE 69). See SBS Products Inc. v. Sterling Plastic & Rubber Products
Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1147, 1149 n.6 (TTAB 1988) (“[E]ven if evidence of such third-party use were
submitted, it would be of no aid to respondent herein where the third-party usage was for
goods unrelated to either petitioner's skin care products or respondent's stuffing box
sealant.”).
27 Blatstein Dep. Exhibit 10 (20 TTABVUE 50-53).
28 Blatstein Dep., Exhibit 11 (20 TTABVUE 54).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 12 -
• Peter Piper Porter, a porter brewed by Salamander Brewing
(untapped.com).29
Applicant also introduced a “Peter Piper Pickled Prawns” Martha Stewart recipe
(marthastewart.com).30
While Applicant has not presented evidence concerning the extent or impact of
these uses, it nevertheless presented evidence of these marks [incorporating the
name “Peter Piper”] being used in Internet commerce for food and beverages or their
sale and preparation. “Evidence of third-party use of similar marks on similar goods
[or services] is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a
narrow scope of protection.” Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin,
396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Internet
printouts, such as those offered by Applicant, “on their face, show that the public may
have been exposed to those internet websites and therefore may be aware of the
advertisements contained therein.” Rocket Trademarks Pty Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., 98
USPQ2d 1066, 1072 (TTAB 2011). While the Federal Circuit has held that “extensive
evidence of third-party use and registrations is ‘powerful on its face,’ even where the
specific extent and impact of the usage has not been established,” see Jack Wolfskin
Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797
F3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Juice Generation, Inc. v.
GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 2015)), the record

29 Blatstein Dep., Exhibit 13 (20 TTABVUE 63-68).
30 Blatstein Dep., Exhibit 12 (20 TTABVUE 55-61).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 13 -
of third-party use in this case reflects a much more modest accumulation of evidence
than that found convincing in Jack Wolfskin and Juice Generation wherein “a
considerable number of third parties’ use [of] similar marks was shown.” Id.
Ultimately, we do not believe the much more limited evidence of weakness here is
nearly as persuasive as in either Juice Generation or Jack Wolfskin.
In assessing the strength of Opposer’s mark, we must also analyze its conceptual
strength or inherent strength. See In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 96
USPQ2d 1681, 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A mark’s strength is measured both by its
conceptual strength (distinctiveness) and its marketplace strength (secondary
meaning).”); Top Tobacco, L.P. v. North Atlantic Operating Co., Inc., 101 USPQ2d
1163, 1171-72 (TTAB 2011) (the strength of a mark is determined by assessing its
inherent strength and its commercial strength); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea
Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1899 (TTAB 2006). We find that the mark PETER PIPER
PIZZA (“Pizza” disclaimed) used in connection with pizza and restaurant services is
an arbitrary term and, therefore, inherently distinctive.31 There is nothing that
prohibits Opposer from adopting the name of a public domain nursery rhyme
character and using it as a trademark for goods or services unrelated to the subject
of the nursery rhyme. Cf. In re United Trademark Holdings, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1796,
1798-99 (TTAB 2017) (LITTLE MERMAID is merely descriptive of a doll featuring

31 Applicant concedes that Opposer’s mark PETER PIPER PIZZA is not descriptive when
used in connection with pizza and restaurant services. Applicant’s Brief, p. 2 (16 TTABVUE
5). Also, at the oral hearing, Applicant argued that PETER PIPER PIZZA is suggestive. Even
if we accepted Applicant’s argument, PETER PIPER PIZZA would be inherently distinctive.
Opposition No. 91230289
- 14 -
the appearance of a young or small mermaid conveying the commercial impression of
the fictional public domain character); In re Carlson Dolls Co., 31 USPQ2d 1319, 1320
(TTAB 1994) (MARTHA WASHINGTON for “historical dolls” is merely descriptive
because the mark identifies an historical figure). The cases Applicant cite in its brief
do not hold otherwise.32 See, e.g., Am. Montessori Soc’y, Inc. v. Ass’n Montessori
Internationale, 155 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1967) (“if the term ‘MONTESSORI’ is
generic and/or descriptive as applied to the ‘MONTESSORI’ teaching methods, it is
equally so as used in connection with toys, games, teaching aids, and other material
employed in connection with said methods”); Atmore & Son, Inc. v. United Biscuit Co.
of Am., 123 UPSQ 241, 242 (TTAB 1959) (“purchasers would not be likely to assume,
merely because of the similarity of the marks [consisting of or comprising JACK
HORNER], that a mincemeat pie filling and sandwich cookies emanate from the same
source.”).
C. Similarity or dissimilarity of the marks.
We now turn to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the similarity
or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation
and commercial impression. du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567. “The proper test is not a side-
by-side comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently
similar in terms of their commercial impression’ such that persons who encounter the
marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Coach Servs.,
101 USPQ2d at 1721; see also Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits

32 Applicant’s Brief, pp. 12-13 (16 TTABVUE 15-16).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 15 -
Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); San Fernando
Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elec. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA
1977); Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d
mem., 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The marks are similar because they share the name PETER PIPER. Opposer’s
addition of the descriptive word “Pizza” has little, if any, bearing in our analysis
because it is a generic term when used in connection with pizza and restaurant
services. It is well-settled that disclaimed, descriptive matter may have less
significance in likelihood of confusion determinations. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf
Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Regarding descriptive
terms, this court has noted that the ‘descriptive component of a mark may be given
little weight in reaching a conclusion on the likelihood of confusion.’”) (quoting In re
Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Dixie
Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Code
Consultants, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (TTAB 2001) (disclaimed matter is often
“less significant in creating the mark’s commercial impression”). While our analysis
of the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks must be predicated on the marks in
their entireties, there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more
or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, such as a common
dominant element, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a consideration of the
marks in their entireties. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 224 USPQ at 751; see also In re
Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 16 -
In addition, the importance of the name PETER PIPER in Opposer’s marks
PETER PIPER PIZZA and Applicant’s mark PETER PIPER SMARTRUCK is further
established because PETER PIPER is the first part of the marks. See Palm Bay
Imports Inc., 73 USPQ2d at 1692 (“Veuve” is the most prominent part of the mark
VEUVE CLICQUOT because “veuve” is the first word in the mark and the first word
to appear on the label); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d
874, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (upon encountering the marks,
consumers will first notice the identical lead word); In re Integrated Embedded, 120
USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (dominance of BARR in the mark BARR GROUP
is reinforced by its location as the first word in the mark); Presto Prods. Inc. v. Nice-
Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a
mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and
remembered”). Thus, consumers encountering PETER PIPER SMARTRUCK who are
familiar with Opposer’s PETER PIPER PIZZA may mistakenly believe that PETER
PIPER SMARTRUCK is a food truck, or similar vehicle, with Internet capability and,
thus, a variation of or new method of distributing the PETER PIPER PIZZA pizza
and restaurant services with which they are familiar.33

33 “Smart” is defined, inter alia, as “operating by automation” or “using a built-in
microprocessor for automatic operation, for processing of data, or for achieving greater
versatility.” Merriam-Webster.com. The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary
definitions, including online dictionaries. In re Cordua Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229
n.4 (TTAB 2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Threshold.TV Inc.
v. Metronome Enters. Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1031, 1038 n.14 (TTAB 2010); In re Red Bull GmbH,
78 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2006).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 17 -
While there is no ironclad rule that marks must be found to be similar where one
incorporates the entirety of another, it often increases the similarity between the two,
and does so here. See, e.g., In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 USPQ2d 1342, 94 USPQ2d
1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applicant’s mark ML is similar to opposer’s mark ML
MARK LEES both for personal care and skin products); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli
Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406, 407 (CCPA 1967) (THE LILLY as a mark
for women's dresses is likely to be confused with LILLI ANN for women's apparel
including dresses); Hunter Indus., Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651, 1660 (TTAB
2014) (applicant’s mark PRECISION is similar to opposer’s mark PRECISION
DISTRIBUTION CONTROL); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)
(CAREER IMAGE for women's clothing stores and women's clothing likely to cause
confusion with CREST CAREER IMAGES for uniforms including items of women's
clothing). In U.S. Shoe, the Board observed that “Applicant's mark would appear to
prospective purchasers to be a shortened form of registrant's mark.” 229 USPQ at
709.
Likewise, consumers may perceive PETER PIPER to be a shortened form of
Opposer’s mark PETER PIPER PIZZA. Mr. Toole testified that Opposer’s customers
refer to Opposer as PETER PIPER.34 See Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice,
Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 USPQ 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Although the record does
not indicate that applicant's business is commonly referred to as “Giant”, it does
indicate that people have called it by that name, omitting the word “Hamburgers”.

34 Toole Dep., p. 10 (12 TTABVUE 13).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 18 -
Thus, in a conversation between two consumers in opposer's area about a place of
business called “Giant”, there likely would be confusion about which “Giant” they
were talking about.”); Big M Inc. v. U.S. Shoe Co., 228 USPQ 614, 616 (TTAB 1985)
(“[W]e cannot ignore the propensity of consumers to often shorten trademarks and,
in the present case, this would be accomplished by dropping the ‘T.H.’ in referring to
registrant's stores [T.H. MANDY].”).
We find that Applicant’s marks PETER PIPER and PETER PIPER SMARTRUCK
are similar to Opposer’s mark PETER PIPER PIZZA in appearance, sound,
connotation, and commercial impression.
D. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods and services.
Applicant is a service provider for airports.
We create unique experiences inside of airports and we do
that a couple of different ways. We build, own and operate
our own restaurants, retail grab-and-go markets and
locations, consumer locations within the airport.35
Applicant’s PETER PIPER and PETER PIPER SMARTRUCK services are intended
to be
… a back-end solution for order fulfillment. It would
receive orders and fulfill - - pick, pack and sort – different
orders for different kinds of goods, whether it’s magazines,
food, beverage – food, prepackaged food, beverage,
headphones, different gifts, neck pillows, anything. It’s an
order fulfillment back-end solution.36

35 Blatstein Dep., pp. 6-7 (20 TTABVUE 6).
36 Blatstein Dep., p. 17 (30 TTABVUE 18) (improperly designated confidential). Applicant
filed applications to register PETER PIPER and PETER PIPER SMARTRUCK which puts
consumers and competitors on notice as to the goods and services for which registration is
sought. Thus, it is hard to fathom how testimony expounding on the description of goods and
services can be designated as confidential when that testimony does not contain any trade
Opposition No. 91230289
- 19 -
* * *
What Peter Piper is is [sic] it’s a vending apparatus that
picks, packs and sorts items.37
* * *
Because [Applicant’s PETER PIPER] is not a restaurant.
It’s not a restaurant or food and beverage location. It’s a
mobile – It’s a technology. It’s a mobile vending apparatus
and would only be branded with the brand that it is going
to be - - the product that it’s going to be served with.38
Applicant “intends to use its marks solely in connection with its unique food delivery
services at United States transportation venues, whereby customers can remotely
order various food items that will be delivered to them for consumption on
transportation carriers.”39 There is nothing in Applicant’s description of goods or
services precluding pizza from being a product available using Applicant’s services.40
Nevertheless, in assessing the similarity or dissimilarity of the goods and services,
we must consider the goods as they are described in the application and registration.
See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110
USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys, Inc. v. Houston Comput. Servs.
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The authority is legion
that the question of registrability of an applicant’s mark must be decided on the basis

secret or commercially sensitive information. Pursuant to Trademark Rule Trademark Rule
2.116(g), we are not bound by Applicant’s improper designation of the Blatstein testimony as
being confidential. See n.8 supra.
37 Blatstein Dep., p. 36 (20 TTABVUE 13).
38 Blatstein Dep., p. 41 (20 TTABVUE 14).
39 Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s interrogatory Nos. 1-5 (9 TTABVUE 104-09) (improperly
designated confidential).
40 Id.
Opposition No. 91230289
- 20 -
of the identification of goods set forth in the application regardless of what the record
may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant's goods, the particular channels
of trade or the class of purchasers to which the sales of goods are directed.”).
Also, we may not read limitations into the description of goods or services. In re
i.am.symbolic, LLC, 123 USPQ2d at 1748; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038,
216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“There is no specific limitation and nothing in
the inherent nature of Squirtco’s mark or goods that restricts the usage of SQUIRT
for balloons to promotion of soft drinks. The Board, thus, improperly read limitations
into the registration.”); Thor Tech, 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638 (TTAB 2009) (“We have no
authority to read any restrictions or limitations into the registrant’s description of
goods.”). Accordingly, it is irrelevant that Opposer does not currently provide any
products or services in airports because there is nothing in Opposer’s description of
services for restaurant services that prevents Opposer from rendering restaurant
services in airports.41 Likewise, we cannot give any probative value to Applicant’s
argument that it does not intend to use its marks in connection with offering food-
related services or products sold directly end consumers at airports, because there is
nothing in Applicant’s description of goods and services that prevents Applicant from
offering those goods and services to the ultimate consumers at airports.42
Applicant is seeking to register its marks for:

41 Applicant’s Brief, p. 5 (16 TTABVUE 8) (citing Toole Dep., p. 36 (12 TTABVUE 39).
42 Id. at page 6 (16 TTABVUE 9) (citing Blatstein Dep., pp. 40-41 (20 TTABVUE 14); see also
Blatstein Dep., p. 18 (30 TTABVUE 19) (end consumer will not see the vending apparatus)
and p. 56 (30 TTABVUE 57) (PETER PIPER will not be the main branding to customer facing
units).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 21 -
Mobile automated machine that accepts orders for,
dispenses and packages for delivery various food and retail
items; Vending machines, mobile vending machines, and
automatic vending machines;
Motor vehicles, namely, automobiles that accepts orders
for, dispenses and packages for delivery various food and
retail items;
Order fulfillment services; retail store services featuring
machines for order fulfillment; rental and leasing of
machines for order fulfillment in the nature of vending
machines;43 and
Order fulfillment services; wholesale and retail store
services featuring mobile vending machines for order
fulfillment; leasing and rental of mobile vending machines;
Mobile vending in the field of convenience store items.44

43 A “vending machine” is defined “a coin-operated machine for selling small articles,
beverages, etc.” Dictionary.com based on the RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY
(2018).
During the 1940s and ’50s the vending machine business was
concentrated in plants and factories, and by the end of that
period, machines were being used to sell a wide variety of freshly
prepared as well as prepackaged foods to replace or supplement
traditional in-plant food service facilities. …
The ability of vending machines to sell products at competitive
prices around the clock without regard to holidays is now widely
recognized. The business has grown beyond plants and factories,
and machines are commonly used in schools, colleges and
universities, recreation centres, health care facilities, offices,
and the like.
Vending machines, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. The Board may take judicial notice of
information from encyclopedias. B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design Inc., 846 F.2d
727, 6 USPQ2d 1719, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“dictionaries and encyclopedias may be
consulted”).
44 A “convenience store” is defined as “a retail store that carries a limited selection of basic
items, as packaged foods and drugstore items, and is open long hours for the convenience of
shoppers.” Dictionary.com based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2018).
Located primarily near residential areas, convenience stores are
relatively small outlets that are open long hours and carry a
limited line of high-turnover convenience products at high
Opposition No. 91230289
- 22 -
Applicant’s description of goods and services thus includes machines and services
that provide food delivery.
The description of goods and services in Opposer’s pleaded registrations are pizza
and restaurant services. Opposer’s arcades attached to restaurants feature vending
machines that dispense candy and other non-perishable items, but not other types of
food.45 Customers “can order through [Opposer’s] website or through these Door
Dash/Grub Hub platforms and have their Peter Piper meal delivered.”46 Opposer
maintains an online ordering platform, permitting guests to order Opposer’s food
products using desktops, laptops, and mobile devices.47 Moreover, it is common
knowledge that many pizza restaurants deliver.
It is only necessary that there be a viable relationship between the goods and
services to support finding a likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding
Corp., 222 USPQ 355, 356 (TTAB 1983). The issue here, of course, is not whether
purchasers would confuse the parties’ goods and services, but rather whether there
is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of these goods and services. In re Cook
Medical Technologies LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1377, 1380 (TTAB 2012); Helene Curtis

prices. Although many have added food services, consumers use
them mainly for “fill-in” purchases, such as bread, milk, or
miscellaneous goods.
Marketing and merchandising, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA.
45 Toole Dep., p. 20 (12 TTABVUE 23).
46 Toole Dep., p. 10 (12 TTABVUE 13).
47 Id. at 9 (12 TTABVUE 12).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 23 -
Indus. Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1618, 1624 (TTAB 1989); In re Rexel Inc.,
223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984).
Consumers familiar with Opposer’s PETER PIPER PIZZA pizza and restaurant
services encountering Applicant’s PETER PIPER and PETER PIPER
SMARTRUCKS marks in connection with vending machines featuring various food
products, motor vehicles that take orders and dispense, package and deliver various
food items, and order fulfillment services featuring food could because of the
similarity of the marks mistakenly believe that the goods and services originate from
the same source or are in some way associated with the same producer. Coach Servs.,
101 USPQ2d at 1722; Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. VigiLanz Corp., 94 USPQ2d
1399, 1410 (TTAB 2010). Reading the description of goods and services broadly, as
we must, we find that the parties’ goods and services are related.
E. Established, likely-to-continue channels of trade and buyers to whom sales are
made.

Where, as here, there are no limitations in the pleaded registration’s or involved
applications’ descriptions of goods or services, we must presume that the goods and
services are offered in all channels of trade that would be normal for such goods and
services and that they would be purchased by all potential customers. See Citigroup
Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir.
2011); CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Paula
Payne Prods. Co. v. Johnson Publ’g Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76, 77-78
(CCPA 1973).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 24 -
While restaurant and pizza services may be offered in different channels of trade
than vending machines and vending machine services, they are offered in the same
channels of trade as automobiles that deliver food and order fulfillment services
(including those provided by vending machines) that may include pizza. Moreover,
the goods and services described in the applications and registrations are offered to
the same ordinary consumers.
We find that the channels of trade and buyers to whom sales are made are similar.
F. Conditions under which sales are made, i.e., “impulse” vs. careful,
sophisticated purchasing.

Applicant argues that its customers will not be average consumers shopping at
retail stores, but rather airports and airlines seeking to offer products through
machines, and that it will take weeks to complete the purchasing process and obtain
the necessary approvals for operating the machines.48 However, as noted above, there
is nothing in Applicant’s description of goods and services that precludes sales to the
ultimate, ordinary consumers. We cannot resort to extrinsic evidence to restrict the
consumers to whom sales will be made and, thus, improperly characterize the sales
process. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 110 USPQ2d at
1163-64 (recognizing that the Board properly considered all potential investors for
the recited services, not just applicant’s actual investors); In re Sailerbrau Franz
Sailer, 23 USPQ2d 1719, 1720 (TTAB 1992) (finding that all purchasers of wine may
not be discriminating); In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB

48 Applicant’s Brief, pp. 15-16 (16 TTABVUE 18-19).
Opposition No. 91230289
- 25 -
1986) (evidence that relevant goods are expensive wines sold to discriminating
purchasers must be disregarded given the absence of any such restrictions in the
application or registration).
G. Balancing the factors.
Because the marks are similar, the goods and services are related and are offered
in some of the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers, we find that
Applicant’s marks PETER PIPER and PETER PIPER SMARTRUCK for the
identified goods and services are likely to cause confusion with the registered mark
PETER PIPER PIZZA for pizza and restaurant services.
Decision: The opposition is sustained and registration of Applicant’s marks is
refused.