RJ Brands, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2020

88179597 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2020)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: July 14, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re RJ Brands, LLC
_____

Serial No. 88179597
_____

Christopher W. Niro of Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa,
for RJ Brands, LLC.
Daniel F. Capshaw, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,
Chris A. F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Kuhlke, Greenbaum and Dunn,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark Judge:
RJ Brands, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register for the
mark COOKING FORWARD, in standard characters, COOKING disclaimed, for
goods and services ultimately identified as:
electric milk frother, electric can opener, electric food
processor, electric food chopper, electric vacuum food sealer
with cutter for household purposes, electric knife
sharpener, electric hand mixer, electric food blender,
electric immersion food blender, electric coffee grinders,
kitchen machines, namely, electric standing mixer,
International Class 7;
Serial No. 88179597
- 2 -
Computer and computer mobile application software in the
fields of cooking and the culinary arts featuring software
for connecting, operating, integrating, controlling, and
managing cooking appliances and use in social networking,
International Class 9;
Programmable electronic devices for connecting, operating,
integrating, controlling and managing cooking appliances
sold as a component of baking ovens, cooking ovens, electric
panini press grill, electric sandwich maker, multi-purpose,
electric countertop food preparation apparatus for cooking,
baking, broiling, roasting, toasting, searing, browning,
barbecuing and grilling food, electric Belgian waffle maker,
electric waffle maker, electric skillet, electric kettle,
electric glass kettle also featuring a tea infuser, electric
coffee maker, electric slow cooker, electric triple slow
cooker also featuring a buffet server, electric egg cooker,
electric hot water pot, electric warming tray, warming tray
electric buffet trivet, electric popcorn poppers, air fryer,
electric sous vide cooker, electric food dehydrator machine,
electric precision induction cooktop, electric glasstop food
warming tray, electric griddle, electric toaster oven,
electric toaster, convection oven, electric deep fryer, electric
crepe maker, electric rice cooker, electric refrigerator;
electric pressure cooker, International Class 11;
wine opener, carafes, carafes also featuring an infuser,
International Class 21;
Providing a members-only interactive website in the fields
of cooking and the culinary arts featuring technology which
provides members with the ability to access online recipes,
learn information about cooking, learn information about
cooking products and appliances, curate information on
specific cooking devices, compile a personalized recipe
database, follow certain cooking professionals and engage
in social networking, International Class 42; and
Membership club services, namely, providing on-line
information in the fields of cooking and the culinary arts,
International Class 43.1

1 Application Serial No. 88179597 was filed on November 2, 2018 based on an intent to use
the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).

Serial No. 88179597
- 3 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that
Applicant’s mark, when used in connection with the identified goods and services, so
resembles the registered mark for “Providing a website featuring
information relating to recipes and cooking techniques appropriate for home cooks,”
in International Class 43, as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception.2
When the Section 2(d) refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. On October 18, 2019, the Examining Attorney denied the request,
the appeal resumed and briefs have been filed. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Evidentiary Matter
The Examining Attorney’s objection to Applicant’s evidence submitted for the first
time with the brief and references thereto in the brief is sustained. Trademark Rule
2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d) (record “should be complete prior to the filing of an
appeal”). See In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1165 n.3
(TTAB 2013) (new evidence submitted with brief is “untimely and therefore not part
of the record for this case”); see also In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742,
1744 (TTAB 2018), aff’d without decision, 777 Fed. Appx. 616 (unpublished). In
addition, the objection to the website hyperlinks and references to the purported

2 Registration No. 5626309, issued on December 11, 2018. The mark is described as consisting
of “the stylized letters ‘CIF’ in the middle of a circle. The ‘F’ in ‘CIF’ is stylized with two
cooking utensils, a spatula and a spoon. Bordering the center circle is a thick outline and
super imposed on the filled in outline are the words ‘COOKING IT’ along the top of the circle
outline and the words ‘FORWARD’ along the bottom of the circle outline.”
Serial No. 88179597
- 4 -
contents therein in Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is sustained. In re ADCO
Industries – Technologies, L.P., 2020 USPQ2d 53786, at *2 (TTAB 2020) (web
addresses or hyperlinks are insufficient to make the underlying webpages of record);
In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1195 n.21 (TTAB 2018) (Board
does not consider websites for which only links are provided); In re Olin Corp., 124
USPQ2d 1327, 1332 n.15 (TTAB 2017) (“Because the information displayed at a link’s
Internet address can be changed or deleted, merely providing a link to a website is
insufficient to make information from that site of record.”).
To the extent any of that evidence was submitted during prosecution of the
application, it has been considered based on the prosecution record.
II. Likelihood of Confusion
When the question is likelihood of confusion, we analyze the facts as they relate
to the relevant factors set out in 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 Co., 315 F.3d 1311,
65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We consider the du Pont factors for which there is
evidence and argument. See In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 129 USPQ2d 1160,
1162-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019) See also M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d
1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (even within the du Pont list of factors,
only factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered). Further,
“[a]lthough confusion, mistake or deception about source or origin is the usual issue
posed under Section 2(d), any confusion made likely by a junior user ’s mark is cause
for refusal; likelihood of confusion encompasses confusion of sponsorship, affiliation
Serial No. 88179597
- 5 -
or connection.” Hilson Research, Inc. v. Society for Human Resource Management, 27
USPQ2d 1423, 1429 (TTAB 1993); see also Majestic, 65 USPQ2d at 1205 (“...mistaken
belief that [a good] is manufactured or sponsored by the same entity ... is precisely
the mistake that Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act seeks to prevent”).
In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities
between the marks and the similarities between the goods and services. See In re
Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 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 [du Pont] 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. Similarity/Dissimilarity of the Marks
In comparing the marks, we compare the marks in their entireties as to
“appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.” Palm Bay Imps. Inc.
v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d
1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567). “Similarity in any
one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re
Inn at St. John’s, 126 USPQ2d at 1746) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812
Serial No. 88179597
- 6 -
(TTAB 2014). “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., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668
F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Our analysis cannot be
predicated on dissecting the marks into their various components; that is, the
decision must be based on a comparison of the entire marks, not just part of the
marks. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
See also Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 212 USPQ 233, 234
(CCPA 1981) (“It is axiomatic that a mark should not be dissected and considered
piecemeal; rather, it must be considered as a whole in determining likelihood of
confusion.”). However, “in articulating reasons for reaching a conclusion on the issue
of confusion, there is nothing improper in stating that, for rational reasons, more or
less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate
conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties .” Nat’l Data, 224
USPQ at 751.
Applicant argues the Examining Attorney did not consider the marks in their
entireties. Applicant points to the design element and the added word “IT” in
Registrant’s mark and concludes these differences combined with the “suggestive”
nature of the word “COOKING” for these goods and services, are sufficient to
distinguish the marks.
Serial No. 88179597
- 7 -
Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation
and commercial impression because they both include the words COOKING and
FORWARD in the same order with COOKING preceding the word FORWARD.
Registrant’s mark contains other elements that present points of difference. We first
find that the phrase COOKING IT FORWARD is the dominant element in
Registrant’s mark. Nat’l Data, 224 USPQ at 751; see also In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d
1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The literal portion of a mark is
more likely to be remembered and used when obtaining goods and services. Viterra,
101 USPQ2d at 1911(the verbal portion of a word and design mark likely will be the
dominant portion, given that the literal component of brand names likely will appear
alone when used in text and will be spoken when requested by consumers); In re Max
Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2010).
The design elements in the registered mark are minimal, a background circle and
stylized letters “CIF” which are the acronym for the wording “COOKING IT
FORWARD.” In addition, the stylized F made with a spatula and spoon underscore
the connotation and commercial impression of “COOKING.” In re Aquitaine Wine
USA, 126 USPQ2d at 1187 (“[W]here . . . we are comparing a mark in standard
characters to a mark that includes a pictorial representation of that term, the fact
that the word + design mark includes such a pictorial representation will be taken
into account to determine likelihood of confusion in terms of the marks’ overall
connotation and commercial impression.”); In re Max Capital, 93 USPQ2d at 1248
(holding applicant’s mark, MAX with pillar design, and registrant’s mark, MAX,
Serial No. 88179597
- 8 -
likely to cause confusion, noting that the “addition of a column design to the cited
mark . . . is not sufficient to convey that [the] marks . . . identify different sources for
legally identical insurance services”). The acronym similarly points back to the full
wording in the mark “COOKING IT FORWARD.” Finally, Applicant’s mark is
applied-for in standard characters and is not limited to any particular depiction. The
rights associated with a mark in standard characters reside in the wording and not
in any particular display. In re RSI Sys., LLC, 88 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 2008); In re
Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); TMEP § 1207.01(c)(iii)
(Oct. 2018). We must consider Applicant’s mark “regardless of font style, size, or
color,” Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98
USPQ2d 1253, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2011), including iterations that present Applicant’s
mark in stylized form in a circle.
The question remains whether COOKING FORWARD is sufficiently similar to
the phrase COOKING IT FORWARD to cause likely confusion. We acknowledge the
word COOKING is, at minimum, suggestive of these services.3 However, the marks
present a similar commercial impression starting with “COOKING” and ending with
“FORWARD” and share similar connotations with the identical words “COOKING”

3 Applicant has disclaimed the word apart from the mark as shown; however, the registration
contains no such disclaimer. The absence of a disclaimer does not mean that a word or phrase
in a registration is distinctive in the registered mark, so that that part of the mark must be
treated the same as an arbitrary feature. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 128
USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he record evidence shows that, regardless of
whether ‘Co.’ and ‘Club’ were disclaimed, they do not serve source-identifying functions); In
re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The registration affords
prima facie rights in the mark as a whole, not in any component. Thus, a showing of
descriptiveness or genericness of part of a mark does not constitute an attack on the
registration.”).
Serial No. 88179597
- 9 -
and “FORWARD.”4 In addition, Registrant’s mark with the wording “COOKING IT
FORWARD” incorporates all elements of Applicant’s mark “COOKING FORWARD”
and Applicant’s mark could be viewed as a shortened version of Registrant’s phrase.
Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d
1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming TTAB’s finding that applicant’s mark STONE
LION CAPITAL incorporated the entirety of the registered marks LION CAPITAL
and LION, and that the noun LION was the dominant part of both parties’ marks);
In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985) (holding CAREER IMAGE
(stylized) for clothing and retail women’s clothing store services, and CREST
CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms, likely to cause confusion, noting that
CAREER IMAGE would be perceived by consumers as a shortened form of CREST
CAREER IMAGES).
Overall we find the marks to be similar and this weighs in favor of likely confusion.
B. Relatedness of the Goods, Services, Trade Channels, Classes of
Consumers
We must make our determinations based on the goods and services as they are
identified in the application and cited registration. See In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105
F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Stone Lion Capital v.
Lion Capital, 110 USPQ2d at 1161; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281

4 We take judicial notice of the following dictionary definition for the word “forward”: “in or
toward the future.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
(ahdictionary.com 7/13/2020). The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions,
including online dictionaries that exist in printed format or regular fixed editions. 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); In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (TTAB 2006).
Serial No. 88179597
- 10 -
F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston
Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The goods and/or services do not have to be identical or even competitive in order
to find that there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498,
1499 (TTAB 2010); In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1368 (TTAB
2009). The issue is not whether the goods and/or services will be confused with each
other, but rather whether the public will be confused as to their source. See Recot Inc.
v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the
goods [or services] in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another
in kind, the same goods [or services] can be related in the mind of the consuming
public as to the origin of the goods [or services]. It is this sense of relatedness that
matters in the likelihood of confusion analysis.”). It is sufficient that the goods and/or
services of the applicant and the registrant are related in some manner or that the
conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they are likely to be
encountered by the same persons under circumstances that, because of the marks
used in connection therewith, would lead to the mistaken belief that they originate
from the same source. See, e.g., Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101
USPQ2d at 1722 (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB);
On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed.
Cir. 2000).
Registrant’s services are “providing a website featuring information relating to
recipes and cooking techniques appropriate for home cooks.” Applicant argues that
Serial No. 88179597
- 11 -
“only one of Applicant’s identified services and Registrant’s services could potentially
be competitive”; the other goods and services “are merely in the same general and
broad field i.e., cooking.” App. brief, 8 TTABVUE 16-17. The Examining Attorney
argues the goods and services are related “as each party provides common cooking
related goods and/or services which would be used together by everyday home cooking
consumers.” Ex. Att. brief, 10 TTABVUE 9. In support of his position, he submitted
several examples of third-party websites offering various items of Applicant’s and
Registrant’s goods and services under a single mark.
We address the argument and evidence for the goods and services in each of
Applicant’s International Classes. Applicant’s services in International Class 43 are
“membership club services, namely, providing on-line information in the fields of
cooking and the culinary arts.” The Examining Attorney argues that the services are
identical in that both provide information related to cooking. In addition, Applicant’s
broadly written service encompasses home cooks and Registrant’s services do not
exclude provision of the services through a membership club. As discussed above,
Applicant basically concedes these services are “potentially competitive.” App. brief,
8 TTABVUE 16-17.
Applicant’s International Class 42 services “Providing a members-only interactive
website in the fields of cooking and the culinary arts featuring technology which
provides members with the ability to access online recipes, learn information about
cooking, learn information about cooking products and appliances, curate information
on specific cooking devices, compile a personalized recipe database, follow certain
Serial No. 88179597
- 12 -
cooking professionals and engage in social networking” provide a means to access
information for cooking. The Examining Attorney provided several website excerpts
where third parties providing online cooking information also provide website
technology to access such information such as search engines and other technology
solutions similar to those provided by Applicant and are offered in the same channels
of trade. Ex. Att. brief, 10 TTABVUE 10-11. A few examples are listed below:
www.surlatable.com showing online technology for
accessing/searching for recipes such as provided by
Applicant as well as provision of online recipes and cooking
information such as provided by Registrant under the SUR
LA TABLE mark (Feb. 11, 2019 Office Action, TSDR pp. 5-
9);
www.recipes.instantpot.com and www.instantpot.com
showing online technology for accessing/searching for
recipes such as provided by Applicant as well as provision
of online recipes and cooking information such as provided
by Registrant under the INSTANT POT mark (March 27,
2019 Final Action pp. 30-34);
www.cuisinart.com showing online technology for
accessing/searching for recipes such as provided by
Applicant as well as provision of online recipes and cooking
information such as provided by Registrant under the
CUISINART mark (Id. pp. 67-69);
www.bellahousewares.com showing online technology for
accessing/searching for recipes such as provided by
Applicant as well as provision of online recipes and cooking
information such as provided by Registrant under the
BELLA mark (Id. pp. 98-105);
www.ninjakitchen.com showing online technology for
accessing/searching for recipes such as provided by
Applicant as well as provision of online recipes and cooking
information such as provided by Registrant under the
NINJA mark (Id. pp. 139-140);
Serial No. 88179597
- 13 -
www.nuwavenow.com showing online technology for
accessing/searching for recipes such as provided by
Applicant as well as provision of online recipes and cooking
information such as provided by Registrant under the
NUWAVE mark (Id. pp. 182-183);
www.oster.com showing online technology for
accessing/searching for recipes such as provided by
Applicant as well as provision of online recipes and cooking
information such as provided by Registrant under the
OSTER mark (Id. pp. 233-239); and
www.hamiltonbeach.com showing online technology for
accessing/searching for recipes such as provided by
Applicant as well as provision of online recipes and cooking
information such as provided by Registrant under the
HAMILTON BEACH mark (Id. pp. 265-266, 271-272).
With regard to the various kitchen tools and appliances, and wine openers and
carafes in International Classes 7, 11 and 21, the Examining Attorney submitted
third-party website excerpts showing third-party producers of kitchen appliances and
cooking goods also provide online cooking information and recipes under the same
marks and through the same channels of trade. Ex. Att. brief, 10 TTABVUE 11-12. A
few examples are listed below:
www.surlatable.com showing class 21 wine openers such
as provided by Applicant as well as online recipes and
cooking information such as provided by Registrant, all
under the SUR LA TABLE mark (Id. pp. 5-11);
www.williams-sonoma.com showing provision of online
recipes and cooking information such as provided by
Registrant as well as class 7 electric blenders and class 21
carafes such as provided by Applicant, all under the
WILLIAMS SONOMA mark (February 8, 2019 Office
Action, TSDR pp. 17-33);
www.recipes.instantpot.com and www.instantpot.com
showing provision of online recipes and cooking
information such as provided by Registrant as well as class
Serial No. 88179597
- 14 -
7 electric blenders and class 11 electric pressure cookers
and multi-purpose electric countertop food preparation
devices, including with smart embedded technology, such
as provided by Applicant, all under the INSTANT POT
mark (March 27, 2019 Office Action TSDR pp. 30-66);
www.cuisinart.com showing provision of online recipes and
cooking information such as provided by Registrant as well
as class 7 electric blenders, electric hand mixers, electric
can openers, electric food processors and class 11 electric
coffee makers embedded with smart technology, and class
21 wine openers, such as provided by Applicant, all under
the CUISINART mark (Id. pp. 67-97);
www.bellahousewares.com showing provision of online
recipes and cooking information such as provided by
Registrant as well as class 7 electric blenders, electric
immersion blenders, electric can openers and class 11
programmable slow cookers, programmable coffee makers
and multicookers, such as provided by Applicant, all under
the BELLA mark (Id. pp. 98-138);
www.ninjakitchen.com showing provision of online recipes
and cooking information such as provided by Registrant as
well as class 7 electric blenders and food processors and
class 11 electric pressure cookers, such as provided by
Applicant, all under the NINJA mark (Id. pp. 139-154); and
www.cruxkitchen.com and www.macys.com showing
provision of online recipes and cooking information such as
provided by Registrant as well as class 7 electric blenders,
electric coffee grinders and class 11 programmable sous
vide cookers, programmable multi-cookers, programmable
slow cookers and programmable coffee makers such as
provided by Applicant, all under the CRUX mark (Id. pp.
155-181).
Finally, with regard to Applicant’s “Computer and computer mobile application
software in the fields of cooking and the culinary arts featuring software for
connecting, operating, integrating, controlling, and managing cooking appliances and
use in social networking” in International Class 9, the Examining Attorney submitted
Serial No. 88179597
- 15 -
website excerpts showing that providers of cooking information also commonly
provide software applications under the same marks. Ex. Att. brief, 10 TTABVUE 12.
For example:
https://instapot.com showing the INSTANT POT software
application and cooking information (Id. pp. 42-46);
https://anovaculinary.com showing ANOVA software
application and cooking information (Id. pp. 309-319); and
www.getmagicbullet.com MAGIC BULLET software
application and cooking information (Id. pp. 320-327).
These examples show consumers are exposed to Applicant’s types o f goods and
services offered under the same mark as Registrant’s types of services. We find these
examples sufficient to show these goods and services are sufficiently related for likely
confusion to occur. Moreover, as the Examining Attorney argues, all of these goods
and services are complimentary in use.
Applicant acknowledges the third-party evidence but asserts that:
The Examining Attorney failed to cite a single instance
where an online recipe company became a manufacturer of
consumer cooking goods. While Applicant agrees that some
third parties offer both the goods and services mentioned
above, Applicant respectfully disagrees with this line of
reasoning for this particular instance. The Board should
follow DuPont and examine the legitimate present-day
business practice of Registrant to determine whether its
service is “highly relevant” to Applicant’s goods and
services.
App. brief, 8 TTABVUE 17.
Applicant then explains that “there is no indication that Registrant is in any business
or commerce that would result in consumers encountering the two marks” and “it
would be highly improbable that an individual blogger, such as Registrant, would
Serial No. 88179597
- 16 -
enter into a saturated, highly competitive, and capital intense consumer goods
business.” App. brief, 8 TTABVUE 18. Applicant concludes that “it is unfair an
improper to give Registrant exclusive rights over other goods and services when there
is no evidence of its bona fide intent to expand its line of services, or producing cooking
apparatuses.”5 Id. Applicant’s argument is misplaced. As explained above, we cannot
limit our analysis to Applicant’s and Registrant’s actual scope of use “We have no
authority to read any restrictions or limitations into the registrant’s description of
goods.” In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638 (TTAB 2009). Nor may an
applicant restrict the scope of the goods covered in the cited registration by argument
or extrinsic evidence. In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d at 1165; In
re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1647 (TTAB 2008); In re Bercut-Vandervoort
& Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986). The registration receives all presumptions
under Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). Rather, we must
determine consumer perception in a particular industry, not as to particular
companies or individuals. If evidence shows that consumers are exposed to the same
goods and services under the same mark, this is evidence of likely confusion
regardless of whether a Registrant is not registered for or does not in reality sell a
particular good or service.

5 Applicant couches the argument as “bridging the gap.” The doctrine of “bridging the gap” or
“natural expansion” generally is used in the context of parties’ dueling claims of priority .
Orange Bang, Inc. v. Olé Mexican Foods, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1102, 1119 (TTAB 2015). It is not
applicable in an ex parte proceeding and the Board considers the concept in ex parte
proceedings through a traditional relatedness of goods and services approach. In re Kysela
Pere et Fils, Ltd., 98 USPQ2d 1261, 1266 (TTAB 2011); In re Ginc UK Ltd., 90 USPQ2d 1472,
1480 n.9 (TTAB 2007).
Serial No. 88179597
- 17 -
Applicant argues that its goods are sold in brick-and-mortar stores which is a
distinct trade channel from Registrant’s services offered over the Internet. However,
Applicant’s identification of goods is not limited to brick-and-mortar stores and the
Internet and online stores are an ordinary channel of trade for such goods. Further,
Applicant argues its customers are consumers “looking to purchase various small
kitchen appliance[s], consumers sharing and finding recipes that can easily be made
with the Applicant’s cooking appliances, and those looking for a cooking experience
whether they are inexperienced with cooking or looking to perfect their cooking
techniques.” App. brief, 8 TTABVUE 19. Registrant’s potential consumers are also
“sharing and finding recipes” and are “looking for a cooking experience.”
We find Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods and services to be related and the trade
channels and classes of consumers overlap. This favors a finding of likelihood of
confusion.
III. Conclusion
In view of the similar marks, related goods and services and overlap in trade
channels and classes of consumers, confusion is likely between Applicant’s mark
COOKING FORWARD and Registrant’s mark .
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed.