The Inspirational Network, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 1998

No. 74715137 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 1998)

Paper No. 9
PTH
THIS DISPOSTION IS NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB NOV. 19, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re The Inspirational Network, Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/715,137
_______
Karl S. Sawyer, Jr. of Kennedy, Covington & Hickman, L.L.P
for The Inspirational Network, Inc.
Barney L. Charlon, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
105 (Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hohein, Hairston and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Inspirational Network, Inc. has appealed from the
final refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to
register the mark ULTRA-C for nutritional supplement,
namely, vitamin C.1 The Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act,
contending that applicant’s mark, if applied to the
Ser No. 74/715,137
2
identified goods, would so resemble the mark ULTRA-CEE,
which is registered for vitamins,2 as to be likely to cause
confusion.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed
briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
Turning first to the goods, we note that applicant’s
brief is silent on this factor for good reason. Inasmuch
as the goods in the cited registration are vitamins,
unlimited as to type, and the goods set forth in the
application are a nutritional supplement, namely vitamin C,
applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical.
Also, absent any limitations in the respective
identifications, the goods must be presumed to move through
all normal channels of trade for goods of this type and to
reach all normal purchasers and users. See Miles
Laboratories, Inc. v. Naturally Supplements, Inc., 1 USPQ2d
1445 (TTAB 1986) and cases cited therein.
Turning then to the marks, the Examining Attorney
contends that applicant’s mark ULTRA-C and the cited mark
ULTRA-CEE are identical in sound and connotation and
substantially similar in appearance. In support of the
refusal to register, the Examining Attorney made of record

1 Application Serial No. 74/715,137 filed August 14, 1995;
alleging a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 74/715,137
3
an excerpt from Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1979)
wherein the term “cee” is defined as “the letter c.”
Applicant, however, argues that the registered mark is
weak and entitled to a limited scope of protection; and
that the marks are distinguishable because applicant’s mark
ends with the single letter “C,” whereas the registered
mark ends in the suffix “CEE.” In support of its
contention that applicant’s mark is weak, applicant
submitted a list of registered marks which contain the term
ULTRA for vitamin and mineral supplements. We should note
that the submission of a list of registered marks is not
the proper way to make such material of record. Rather,
plain copies of the registrations or the electronic
equivalent thereof, namely printouts of the registrations
from the Office’s X-search automated records, are required
for this purpose. See in re Hub Distributing, Inc., 218
USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983). However, inasmuch as the Examining
Attorney did not object to the list of registered marks, we
have considered the material.
In this case, the various registrations of marks
containing the word ULTRA indicate that this word was
chosen by the trademark owners to suggest that their

2 Registration No. 1,102,507 issued September 19, 1978; Sections
8 & 15 affidavit filed.
Ser No. 74/715,137
4
vitamins and mineral supplements are of the highest
potency. However, assuming that marks containing the term
“ULTRA” are weak, even weak marks are entitled to
protection where confusion is likely. In this case, the
marks at issue are identical in sound and connotation and
substantially similar in appearance, and the goods are
legally identical. Further, because the term “cee” means
the letter “c,” consumers are unlikely to distinguish the
marks on the basis of the “C” and “CEE” portions.
In sum, we find that consumers familiar with the
registered mark ULTRA-CEE for vitamins would be likely to
believe, upon encountering the mark ULTRA-C for vitamin C,
that the goods originate with or are associated with the
same source.
Ser No. 74/715,137
5
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
G. D. Hohein
P. T. Hairston
H. R. Wendel
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board
Ser No. 74/715,137
6