Rivercat Foods, Inc.v.Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2005

No. 91150539re (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2005)

Mailed:
Aug. 26, 2005

Grendel

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______

Rivercat Foods, Inc.
v.
Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC
_____

Opposition No. 91150539
to application Serial No. 78975148
filed on March 29, 2001
_____

On Motion for Reconsideration
_____

Rivercat Foods, Inc., pro se.

Lori Krafte of Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald for Sacramento
River Cats Baseball Club, LLC.
______

Before Hairston, Chapman and Grendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Opposer has filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Board’s May 24, 2005 decision dismissing its opposition to
registration of applicant’s mark.1 Familiarity with that

1 Opposer’s motion bears certificates of mailing and service
dated June 17, 2005. However, the date stamp indicating receipt
of the paper by the Board indicates that the paper was received
on July 13, 2005, a date beyond the one-month deadline for filing
a motion for reconsideration. See Trademark Rule 2.129(c), 37
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Opposition No. 91150539
2
decision is presumed. Applicant filed no response to
opposer’s motion.2
We hereby reconsider our finding, in the prior
decision, that applicant’s mark and opposer’s mark have
different connotations and different overall commercial
impressions, i.e., that applicant’s mark would be perceived
as the name of its baseball team. Instead, we now find that
the marks have the same connotation and commercial
impression, and that the marks are similar, for purposes of
the first du Pont evidentiary factor.
Opposer also requests that we reconsider our decision
to the extent that it suggests that we failed to consider
all normal trade channels for the parties’ respective goods,
and to the extent that we considered the only relevant trade
channel at issue to be that of applicant’s baseball game
events. We hereby clarify our prior decision as follows.
We presume that opposer’s food items and applicant’s
clothing items are marketed in all of the normal channels of
trade for such products, and not just at applicant’s
baseball game events. However, opposer presented no
evidence at trial showing what the normal trade channels for

C.F.R. 2.129(c). In the absence of any further evidence to the
contrary, however, we will presume that the date set forth on the
certificate of mailing is accurate, and that the motion for
reconsideration therefore was timely filed and served. Trademark
Rule 2.197, 37 C.F.R. §2.197.

2 A response to a motion for reconsideration is not required.
See TBMP §543 (2d ed. rev. 2004).
Opposition No. 91150539
3
the respective goods are, much less that those trade
channels overlap in any way that would lead purchasers to be
confused as to the sources of the respective goods. In the
absence of any such evidence regarding trade channels, our
failure to discuss trade channels other than applicant’s
baseball game events (which is the only trade channel as to
which there was evidence in the record) was not error.
In summary, we grant opposer’s motion for
reconsideration to the extent that we hereby clarify our
previous decision in the manner discussed above. Even with
such reconsideration, however, we remain of the opinion that
opposer has failed to carry its burden of establishing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that a likelihood of
confusion exists.
Decision on Reconsideration: The Board’s prior
decision is clarified as discussed above. The dismissal of
the opposition stands.3

3 Opposer’s time for appeal of the Board’s decision dismissing
the opposition runs from the date of this decision on
reconsideration. See Trademark Rule 2.145(d), 37 C.F.R.
§2.145(d).