Seenergy Foods, Inc.v.Lico Brands, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 9, 1998

No. 91098146 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 1998)

Paper No. 21
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB JULY 9, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______
Seenergy Foods, Inc.
v.
Lico Brands, Inc.
_____
Opposition No. 98,146
to application Serial No. 74/433,052
filed on September 7, 1993
_____
Jess M. Collen of McGlew & Tuttle, P.C. for Seenergy Foods,
Inc.
Rosemary S. Tarlton of Howard, Rice, Niemerovski, Canady,
Falk & Rabkin for Lico Brands, Inc.
______
Before Quinn, Hairston and Walters, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Lico Brands, Inc. seeks registration of the mark
CASALINGA for “canned goods, namely, canned tomatoes and
tomato based food sauces.”1
Registration has been opposed by Seenergy Foods, Inc.
on the grounds that opposer is the owner of the mark

1 Application Serial No. 74/433,052 filed September 7, 1993, and
based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. The
English translation of CASALINGA is “homemade” or “homestyle.”
Opposition No. 98,146
2
CASALINGA and design for a variety of food products; that
opposer’s application Serial No. 74/576,969 to register this
mark has been refused in view of applicant’s application;
that applicant’s mark, if used on the identified goods, so
resembles opposer’s mark, as to be likely to cause
confusion; that applicant has not used its mark in commerce
prior to opposer’s date of first use; and that applicant’s
mark is merely descriptive of its goods.
Applicant, in its answer, admits that confusion is
likely from contemporaneous use of the marks, but denies the
remaining allegations in the notice of opposition.
The record consists of the pleadings; the file of the
involved application; and opposer’s notice of reliance on
what appears to be the results of a search of an on-line
Italian dictionary; a newspaper excerpt; and a copy of a
document apparently retrieved from a search of the Internet.
Only applicant filed a brief. An oral hearing was not
requested.
As plaintiff in this proceeding, it was incumbent upon
opposer to establish not only its standing, but with respect
to the claim of likelihood of confusion, its priority; and
with respect to the claim of mere descriptiveness, to
present facts and circumstances which would tend to show
that CASALINGA immediately describes an ingredient, quality,
Opposition No. 98,146
3
characteristic, or function of applicant’s goods. The
materials submitted by opposer under notice of reliance are
wholly inadequate for any of these purposes.2 In view
thereof, and since opposer has offered no testimony or other
evidence to establish its standing, priority or that
CASALINGA is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods,
opposer has failed to prove its case.
Decision: The opposition is dismissed with prejudice.
T. J. Quinn
P. T. Hairston
C. E. Walters
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board

2 We should add that opposer failed to indicate the general
relevance of these materials, and the relevance thereof is not
readily apparent from the text of the materials.