Trek Bicycle Corporationv.Natural Balance Foods Limited

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2019

91221706 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019)

Mailed: March 13, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Trek Bicycle Corporation
v.
Natural Balance Foods Limited
_____

Opposition No. 91221706
_____

Mary Catherine Merz and Jennifer A. Widmer of Merz & Associates PC,
for Trek Bicycle Corporation.

Rebeccah Gan of Wenderoth LLP,
for Natural Balance Foods Limited.
_____

Before Cataldo, Wellington, and Wolfson,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Natural Balance Foods Limited, seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark depicted below for
Nut and dried fruit-based snack bars containing fruit, nuts,
herbs, spices and natural flavorings; nut and dried fruit-
based low carbohydrate snack bars containing fruit, nuts,
herbs, spices and natural flavorings; snack foods, namely,
processed and flavor infused raisons
in International Class 29, and
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE
TTAB
Opposition No. 91221706
- 2 -
Grain-based snack bars containing dried fruit, natural
flavorings and nuts; cereal products, namely, snack bars;
low carbohydrate grain-based snack bars containing dried
fruit, natural flavorings and nuts
in International Class 30.1

Trek Bicycle Corporation (“Opposer”) has opposed registration of Applicant’s mark
on the basis of alleged likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d).2 Opposer pleaded prior use and ownership of 32 registrations
for TREK and “TREK-type marks” in connection with, inter alia, “bicycles, bicycle
frames, and bicycle parts and accessories.”3 We focus on the following marks, because
they are most closely related to Applicant’s mark:

1 Application Serial No. 79151576, filed January 9, 2014, based on Applicant’s request for
extension of protection from International Registration No. 1214866, registered January 9,
2014 under Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1141(f). The description of the
mark reads: “The mark consists of the term ‘TREK’ with the letters ‘JC’s’ written vertically
to the bottom left of the letter ‘T’ in the term, with a horizontal band directly below the term;
to the left of the term is a hiker wearing a cap and backpack with a mountain landscape in
the background; the entire mark is surrounded by a rectangular board with vertical bands
on the right and left side of the boarder.” Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
2 1 TTABVUE 20. Citations to material or testimony in the record that has not been
designated confidential include the TTABVUE docket entry number and the TTABVUE page
number. See Turdin v. Trilobite, Ltd., 109 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6 (TTAB 2014). For material
or testimony that has been designated confidential, the TTABVUE docket entry number
wherein such material or testimony has been designated confidential is listed as the citation.
3 1 TTABVUE 16.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 3 -
Registration No. 1168276 for TREK for “bicycles and
bicycle frames”;
Registration No. 3397739 for TREK BICYCLE STORE
(“Bicycle Store” disclaimed) for “retail stores featuring
bicycles”;
Registration No. 3516346 for TREK for “online retail and
wholesale store services featuring a wide range of
consumer products except footwear all provided via the
Internet”;
Registration No. 3576106 for TREK STOP for “retail
vending services in the field of automated vending
machines that dispenses bicycle parts, bicycle accessories,
energy bars, beverages and gels”; and
Registration No. 3709688 for TREK for “powders used in
the preparation of sports drinks and energy drinks.”
If likelihood of confusion is found as to the marks and goods/services in these
registrations, it is unnecessary to consider Opposer’s other pleaded registrations and
common law marks. Conversely, if likelihood of confusion is not found as to the marks
and goods/services in these registrations, we would not find likelihood of confusion as
to the marks and goods or services in the other pleaded registrations or Opposer’s
asserted common law marks. See, e.g., Fiserv, Inc. v. Elec. Transaction Sys. Corp., 113
USPQ2d 1913, 1917 (TTAB 2015); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243,
1245 (TTAB 2010).
Applicant denied the salient allegations in Opposer’s pleading and asserted
several affirmative defenses that it did not pursue at trial;4 accordingly they are
considered waived. See Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d

4 5 TTABVUE 5.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 4 -
1424, 1426 n.3 (TTAB 2013); Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1616 n.3 (TTAB
2013). Applicant also asserted as an “affirmative defense” that the notice of opposition
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; because Applicant did not file
a motion to dismiss the opposition on the basis of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), we treat the
“defense” as having been waived. See Motion Picture Ass’n of Am. v. Respect
Sportswear Inc. 83 USPQ2d 1555, 1557 n.5 (TTAB 2007).
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 file of the subject application. The record also includes:
A. Opposer’s Testimony and Evidence
1. The testimony deposition of Opposer’s head of global marketing, Dean Gore,
with Exhibits 1-43 (“Gore testimony”).5

2. The testimony deposition of Opposer’s chief financial officer, Chad Brown,
with Exhibits 44-54 (“Brown testimony”).6

3. Notices of Reliance on:
a. Printouts from the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Search System
(TESS) database of Opposer’s pleaded registrations (Exhibits A-FF);7

b. Excerpts from publically available magazines and Internet websites
purporting to show how Opposer’s TREK mark is used (Exhibits A-
GG);8

c. Three nonprecedential TTAB decisions involving Opposer (Exhibits
A-C);9

5 48 TTABVUE (public version); 49 TTABVUE (confidential version).
6 50 TTABVUE (public version); 51 TTABVUE (confidential version).
7 36 TTABVUE, First Notice of Reliance.
8 37 TTABVUE, Second Notice of Reliance.
9 38 TTABVUE, Third Notice of Reliance. In its brief, Opposer requested judicial notice be
taken of a fourth decision, issued in Trek Bicycle Corp. v. Celestron Acquisition LLC,
Opposition No. 91221706
- 5 -

d. Applicant’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Requests for
Admission Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 9-11 and related Exhibits A-C;10

e. Applicant’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories
Nos. 8 and 9;11

f. Screenshots from Applicant’s Facebook page accessed on September
13, 2017 (Exhibits A-S);12
g. Screenshots from www.Amazon.com purporting to show Applicant’s
products being offered for sale (Exhibits A-P);13
h. Screenshots from Applicant’s Twitter account accessed on September
15, 2017 (Exhibits A-K);14

i. Screenshots from Applicant’s Instagram account accessed on
September 15, 2017 (Exhibits A-G);15

Opposition Nos. 91213696, 91213957 and 91213962. The Board does not take judicial notice
of USPTO records, including prior decisions that reside therein. Cf. N.J. Inst. of Tech. v.
Medjet, Inc., 47 Fed. Appx. 921, 927 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (in a patent case, court declined to take
judicial notice of the decisions and orders entered in a prior state court action); Beech Aircraft
Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290, 1293 (TTAB 1986) (Board refused to take
judicial notice of petitioner’s pleaded, and rejected, application for purposes of establishing
petitioner’s standing); Wright Line Inc. v. Data Safe Services Corp., 229 USPQ 769, 770 n.5
(TTAB 1985) (“Board does not take judicial notice either of applications (or registrations)
which reside in the Office, or of papers which may appear therein”). As to the three decisions
that are of record, they are not binding on the Board, but have been considered for whatever
persuasive value they may hold. In re Constr. Research & Tech. GmbH, 122 USPQ2d 1583,
1585 n.6 (TTAB 2017) (“Board decisions which are not designated as precedent are not
binding on the Board, but may be cited and considered for whatever persuasive value they
may hold.”); In re the Procter & Gamble Company, 105 USPQ2d 1119, 1120-21 (TTAB 2012).
10 39 TTABVUE, Fourth Notice of Reliance.
11 40 TTABVUE, Fifth Notice of Reliance.
12 41 TTABVUE, Sixth Notice of Reliance.
13 42 TTABVUE, Seventh Notice of Reliance.
14 43 TTABVUE, Eighth Notice of Reliance. (44 TTABVUE is a duplicate copy). The Notice of
Reliance indicates that the screenshots are from “Applicant’s Facebook page,” but the web
address is that of a Twitter account, https://twitter.com/eattrek?lang=en.
15 45 TTABVUE, Ninth Notice of Reliance. Opposer again mislabels the materials as being
from “Applicant’s Facebook page,” but the web address accessed is an Instagram account,
https://www.instagram.com/eattrek/.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 6 -
j. Screenshots from third-party websites purporting to show channels
of trade and customers for energy bars (Exhibits A-I);16

k. Screenshots from third-party screenshots to show that energy bars
are sold at bicycle shops (Exhibits A-O).17
4. Rebuttal Notices of Reliance on:

a. Online dictionary definitions of “trail mix”;18 and

b. Screenshots from third-party websites containing information about
the companies identified in Applicant’s Notice of Reliance, Exhibits
E-W.19
B. Applicant’s Evidence
Applicant submitted a Notice of Reliance on

1. Opposer’s Responses to Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories (Exhibit
C);20 and

2. Screenshots from third-party websites to show use of “trek” in connection
with snack bars and general use of the terms “trek mix” and “trail mix”
(Exhibits F-W).21

II. STANDING AND PRIORITY
Because Opposer has properly made its pleaded registrations of record, showing
that Opposer is the owner and that the registrations are valid, Opposer has
established its standing. Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d
1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.,

16 46 TTABVUE, Tenth Notice of Reliance.
17 47 TTABVUE, Eleventh Notice of Reliance.
18 57 TTABVUE.
19 58 TTABVUE.
20 52 TTABVUE. Exhibits A, B and D were stricken by Board order on February 1, 2018. 56
TTABVUE.
21 52 TTABVUE, Exhibits F-W.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 7 -
222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Lipton Industries, Inc. v.
Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982). For the same
reasons, Section 2(d) priority is not at issue in this case as to the marks and the goods
and services covered by the registrations. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen,
Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974).
III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Our determination of the issue of likelihood of confusion is based on an analysis
of all of the facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the likelihood
of confusion issue. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ
563 (CCPA 1973). In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are
the similarities between the marks and the relatedness of the goods or services. See
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24 (CCPA
1976). We consider these factors and the other likelihood of confusion factors for
which the parties introduced evidence or arguments, and treat the remaining factors
as neutral.
A. Strength of Opposer’s Mark
We begin our likelihood of confusion analysis with the strength of Opposer’s mark
and the scope of protection to which it is entitled. In determining strength of a mark,
“we consider both inherent strength, based on the nature of the mark itself, and
commercial strength or recognition.” Bell’s Brewery, Inc. v. Innovation Brewing, 125
USPQ2d 1340, 1345 (TTAB 2017) (citing Couch/Braunsdorf Affinity, Inc. v. 12
Interactive, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1458, 1476 (TTAB 2014)); see also In re Chippendales
USA Inc., 622 F.3d 1346 , 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A mark’s strength
Opposition No. 91221706
- 8 -
is measured both by its conceptual strength (distinctiveness) and its marketplace
strength (secondary meaning).”); Top Tobacco, L.P. v. N. Atlantic Operating Co., Inc.,
101 USPQ2d 1163, 1171-72 (TTAB 2011); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc.,
80 USPQ2d 1881, 1899 (TTAB 2006). Commercial strength may be measured
indirectly, by volume of sales and advertising expenditures and factors such as length
of use of the mark, widespread critical assessments, unsolicited mention of the mark
in connection with the goods or services, and general reputation of the goods or
services. Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods. Inc., 293 F.3d 1367, 63 USPQ2d 1303, 1305
(Fed. Cir. 2002); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D&D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347,
1354 (TTAB 2014).
Opposer contends that its TREK mark has become famous. The fifth du Pont
factor requires us to consider evidence of the fame of Opposer’s mark and to give great
weight to such evidence if it exists. See Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., 63 USPQ2d
at 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Recot Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 54 F.2d 1894 (Fed. Cir.
2000); and Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 USPQ2d
1453 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Fame of an opposer’s mark or marks, if it exists, plays a
“dominant role in the process of balancing the DuPont
factors,” Recot, 214 F.3d at 1327, 54 USPQ2d at 1456, and
“[f]amous marks thus enjoy a wide latitude of legal
protection.” Id. This is true as famous marks are more
likely to be remembered and associated in the public mind
than a weaker mark, and are thus more attractive as
targets for would-be copyists. Id. Indeed, “[a] strong mark
... casts a long shadow which competitors must avoid.”
Kenner Parker Toys, 963 F.2d at 353 , 22 USPQ2d at 1456.
A famous mark is one “with extensive public recognition
and renown.” Id.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 9 -
Bose Corp. v. QSC Audio Prods., 63 USPQ2d at 1305.
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. Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem Corp., 111
USPQ2d 1419, 1437-38 (TTAB 2014); Leading Jewelers Guild Inc. v. LJOW Holdings
LLC, 82 USPQ2d 1901, 1904 (TTAB 2007). However, the fame of a mark is not “an
all-or-nothing measure” when considered in the context of a likelihood of confusion
analysis. Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, 857 F.3d 1323,
122 USPQ2d 1733, 1734 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Rather, likelihood of confusion fame “varies
along a spectrum from very strong to very weak.” Palm Bay Imps., 73 USPQ2d at
1694 (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1063 (Fed.
Cir. 2003)). The fact that a mark is famous for likelihood of confusion purposes in one
field of goods or services does not mean that the fame extends to all other markets.
See, e.g., Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. AKEA, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734 (TTAB 2014)
(opposer’s IKEA mark was famous for purposes of likelihood of confusion for its “retail
store services in the field of furniture, housewares, and home furnishings,” but not
for other goods or restaurant services); Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Pierce Foods
Corp., 231 USPQ 859 (TTAB 1986) (HARLEY-DAVIDSON and HARLEY deemed
famous marks in field of motorcycles and accessories but not necessarily for other
collateral goods sold largely through Harley-Davidson’s licensees); see also Tuxedo
Monopoly v. Gen. Mills Fun Group, 209 USPQ 986 (CCPA 1981) (MONOPOLY mark
Opposition No. 91221706
- 10 -
is famous but “[w]hen a famous mark, as applied to certain goods or services, is not a
coined term but has other common meanings, the strength of that mark is diluted in
relation to other goods or services”) (citing Am. Can Co. v. Dixie Wax Paper Co., 160
USPQ 721 (1969) (fact that “DIXIE” was famous for paper cups did not support
cancellation of and opposition to registration of “DIXIE” as part of a composite mark
for waxed paper).
On the record before us, we find that Opposer’s mark TREK has received
significant public exposure in connection with bicycles and bicycle accessories, but it
is not famous for food or beverages. Although Opposer has presented very impressive
evidence regarding its sales, advertising, and market share for its bicycle and related
products, the record is either lacking or ambiguous when it comes to Opposer’s
promotion of its marks as a retail store selling snack bars or as a source of energy
drinks. Regarding the TREK mark, Opposer’s global marketing head, Mr. Gore,
testified that Opposer sells snack bars and an energy drink mix through two major
channels of distribution: “We sell to our retailers and they stock it in their physical
brick and mortar bike stores, and then we also do sell direct to consumers through
Trek.com in the United States.”22 Because none of the snack bars display a TREK
mark, Opposer refers to these products as “non-proprietary” or “non-prop.”23 There
are roughly 2000 dealers of Trek products in the United States, 150 of which are

22 48 TTABVUE 34.
23 50 TTABVUE 13, 35.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 11 -
owned by Opposer.24 Snack bars purchased from Opposer “are shipped in boxes that
have Trek on it to Trek customers, but the individual bar itself would not have the
word Trek on it. They’re not made by Trek.”25 In 2010, Opposer launched the “Trek
Super Fuel nutritional supplement,” which is a powder to which water is added to
make a drink.26 Opposer advertised this product in its non-bike product catalogs to
its retailers,27 and invoices from 2011-2013 show retailers purchased the “Trek Super
Fuel EX energy drink,”28 but Mr. Gore did not know if the drink mix was currently
available.29 Mr. Brown, Opposer’s chief financial officer, stated that he thought it was
“currently out of stock,” and did not know “when we’ll have more in inventory.”30
Neither of Opposer’s witnesses could quantify the amount of sales in units or dollar
figures for Opposer’s energy drink mix, but Mr. Brown testified under seal to sales of
“non-prop food,” referring to Exhibit 44 “Sales and Expenditures 2010-2016”
(confidential).31 The figures in Exhibit 44 suggest that non-prop food sales do not
represent a substantial percentage of Opposer’s business. Total marketing expenses

24 Id.
25 Brown test., 50 TTABVUE 13.
26 48 TTABVUE 38.
27 See, e.g., 48 TTABVUE 38, Exhibit 23 (confidential).
28 48 TTABVUE 40, Exhibits 25 and 26; 50 TTABVUE 24.
29 48 TTABVUE 43.
30 50 TTABVUE 21. Mr. Gore also offered conflicting testimony regarding whether Opposer,
in 2007, licensed its mark for a liquid “Trek Sports Drink.” Although he described it as a
licensed product, and attached a copy of a photograph of the drinks, 48 TTABVUE 193
(Exhibit 28), he also stated that Opposer does not “sell drinks that are already formulated
with liquid in them.” 48 TTABVUE 72. When questioned, “you did sell it at one time?” Mr.
Gore said “no.” Id.
31 50 TTABVUE 10, Exhibit 44 (confidential) Sales and Expenditures 2010-2016.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 12 -
were also listed on the exhibit but expenses for non-prop food or the Trek drink mix
were not separately delineated. Regarding the TREK STOP mark, Opposer’s venture
into “retail vending services in the field of automated vending machines that
dispenses bicycle parts, bicycle accessories, energy bars, beverages and gels” appears
to have occurred around 2010, when Opposer introduced a TREK STOP vending
machine that was installed at a local bike shop.32 Nutritional products were available
at the vending machine, but only one such machine was ever installed, and Mr. Gore
did not know if it is still active.33 This evidence fails to show that Opposer’s registered
TREK and TREK STOP marks are commercially strong for snack bars or energy
drinks.
Concerning conceptual strength of the marks, Applicant argues that TREK is
weak, being a term used in the snack food industry in combination with the term
“mix,” for a type of snack food that consists of a combination of nuts, fruits, seeds,
chocolate chips and the like, known as “TREK MIX.” In support of its argument,
Applicant submitted copies of screenshots from several online vendors selling “trek
mix” and one from a website offering a recipe for “Trek Mix Bars.” For example:
1. The website dontfearthevegan.com offers a recipe for making Trek Mix Bars,
and the author of the recipe uses the term “trek mix” to describe the mix of
ingredients: “The initial recipe used [a] variety of nuts which I replaced with our

32 48 TTABVUE 41.
33 48 TTABVUE 78, Exhibit 27. The photograph of the vending machine does not show what
is offered inside, as the picture is taken from the side of the machine.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 13 -
favorite trek mix which contains almonds, pistachios, cashews, dried cherries and
chocolate.”34
2. Trader Joe’s sells a number of different varieties of “trek mix,” such as “Omega
Trek Mix Handfuls”35 and “Organic Trek Mix.”36

The advertising copy for the Organic Trek Mix reads:
“Organic Simply Cashew, Almond & Cranberry Trek Mix
is great for snacking whenever you need a sweet and
crunchy fix. Feeling adventurous? Take it on a hike into
the wilderness or bike ride through your neighborhood
(either of these qualify as treks, in our estimation) for a
quick and tasty energy boost.”37

34 52 TTABVUE 119, Exhibit G.
35 At traderjoes.com 52 TTABVUE 123, Exhibit H.
36 At traderjoes.com, 52 TTABVUE 129, Exhibit J.
37 Id.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 14 -
3. In the online article “One Regular Guy Writing about Food, Exercise and
Living Past 100,” the writer asks, “What about the New Costco Trek Mix?” and
includes a picture of the product:38

The evidence supports Applicant’s contention that “trek mix” has a meaning in
the snack food industry as denoting a sweet and/or salty high-energy mixture of
seeds, nuts, dried fruits, chocolate and the like. We agree that the term “trek” may
therefore have some meaning in relation to snack foods that decreases its conceptual
strength as a trademark for snack foods. However, the fact that “trek mix” may
impart a particular meaning to a snack bar (such as that it is a trail mix or trek mix-
based product), this purported meaning does not carry over to TREK bicycles, on-line
retail store services, or powders for making energy drinks. Further, as the advertising
copy from Trader Joe’s alludes in the statement “either of these qualify as treks, in
our estimation,” the word “trek” has another meaning connected with hiking and
outdoor activity, “to make one’s way arduously.”39 Conceptually, the duality of these

38 At guysandgoodhealth.com, 52 TTABVUE 176, Exhibit P. We have taken into account the
evidence provided by Opposer that suggests Costco is a members-only retailer. 58 TTABVUE
9.
39 From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trek, accessed March 5, 2019. The
Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions from references that are the electronic
Opposition No. 91221706
- 15 -
meanings points to TREK as being suggestive in connection with snack bars, energy
drinks, and retail bicycle services.
Considering the record as a whole, although Opposer’s TREK mark may be
considered famous for bicycles and bicycle accessories, there is insufficient evidence
to show that Opposer is generally known to be in the energy food or drink business
or that the renown of its TREK brand for bicycles and related goods extends to
Opposer as a source of “sports and energy drinks.” While it is certainly possible for
marks to be strong or famous for more than one type of goods and/or services, this is
not the case here. The evidence is insufficient to show Opposer’s TREK marks may
be considered strong for any goods other than bicycles, bicycle parts, and retail stores
featuring bicycles. We disagree with Applicant that Opposer’s TREK mark is weak
and entitled only to a narrow scope of protection. Conceptually, the mark appears to
be suggestive of the goods and the evidence of the commercial strength of the TREK
mark with regard to bicycles and related goods and services has not been shown to
apply to food or beverage items. We thus accord Opposer’s TREK mark the scope of
protection to which suggestive marks are entitled, keeping in mind the mark’s wider
scope of protection in the bicycle industry.

equivalent of a print reference work. See Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food
Imports Co., Inc., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332, 1334 n.1 (TTAB 2009).
Opposition No. 91221706
- 16 -
B. THE MARKS
We now consider the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks at issue 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) (citing du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567). In
comparing the marks, we bear in mind that 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).
Nonetheless, “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.” In re Nat’l Data
Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Applicant has applied to register the mark for snack foods.
Opposer owns registrations for TREK for “bicycles and bicycle frames”; “online retail
and wholesale store services featuring a wide range of consumer products except
footwear all provided via the Internet”; and “powders used in the preparation of
sports drinks and energy drinks.” The marks are similar in appearance,
pronunciation, connotation and commercial impression due to the presence in each of
the identical suggestive term TREK. This term forms the entirety of Opposer’s mark
Opposition No. 91221706
- 17 -
and is the dominant portion of Applicant’s mark, as it is the largest literal element
(the “J.C.’s” portion being practically illegible). And while Applicant’s mark consists
of an illustration of the packaging for the product and includes a design element of a
hiker pausing before a mountain range, purchasers will remember and refer to the
goods as TREK snack bars. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d
1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“In the case of a composite mark containing both words
and a design, ‘the verbal portion of the mark is the one most likely to indicate the
origin of the goods to which it is affixed.’”) (citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579,
1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)); see also Joel Gott Wines, LLC v.
Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1431 (TTAB 2013) (“words are normally
given greater weight because they would be used by consumers to request the
products”); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987). Furthermore,
the design of an individual with a backpack hiking, or trekking, on uneven terrain
with mountains in the background draws further attention to the word TREK as it
appears in Applicant’s mark.
“Marks have frequently been found to be similar where one mark incorporates the
entirety of another mark, as is the case here.” Tivo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC, 129
USPQ2d 1097, 1115 (TTAB 2018); see also Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion
Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1322 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming
Board’s finding that the mark STONE LION CAPITAL incorporated the entirety of
the registered marks LION CAPITAL and LION, that the noun LION was the
dominant part of both parties’ marks, and that confusion was likely). Applicant’s
Opposition No. 91221706
- 18 -
mark is similar to Opposer’s TREK mark in appearance,
pronunciation and connotation, and overall, the marks create similar commercial
impressions.
With respect to Opposer’s registered TREK STOP mark, we find that the mark
also is dominated by the term “TREK” because it is the first word in the mark, it
identifies a vending machine that dispenses, inter alia, TREK bicycle goods for which
Opposer is famous. The term “stop” in the mark brings to mind the action of stopping
to shop at the vending machine and thus carries a somewhat descriptive connotation.
See, e.g., Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1846 (Fed.
Cir. 2000) (the ‘descriptive component of a mark may be given little weight in
reaching a conclusion on the likelihood of confusion.’”) (quoting Nat’l Data, 224 USPQ
at 752). Overall, however, the mark is suggestive as a play on the phrase “truck stop”
and because of the presence of the suggestive term “trek.”
Because Applicant’s mark is similar in appearance, sound, connotation and
commercial impression to Opposer’s TREK and TREK STOP marks, the first du Pont
factor strongly favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
C. THE GOODS; TRADE CHANNELS; CLASSES OF CONSUMERS
Where likelihood of confusion is asserted by an opposer, “the issue must be
resolved on the basis of not only a comparison of the involved marks, but also on
consideration of the goods named in the application and in opposer’s registration and,
in the absence of specific limitations in the application and registration, on
Opposition No. 91221706
- 19 -
consideration of the normal and usual channels of trade and methods of distribution.”
CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing
Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1042-43, 216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, we determine the relatedness of the goods at issue by comparing Applicant’s
goods as identified in the application, namely,
Nut and dried fruit-based snack bars containing fruit, nuts,
herbs, spices and natural flavorings; nut and dried fruit-
based low carbohydrate snack bars containing fruit, nuts,
herbs, spices and natural flavorings; snack foods, namely,
processed and flavor infused raisons” and “grain-based
snack bars containing dried fruit, natural flavorings and
nuts; cereal products, namely, snack bars; low
carbohydrate grain-based snack bars containing dried
fruit, natural flavorings and nuts,
and those goods and services of Opposer for which it has proven priority or for which
it owns registrations. See In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981) (determining
relatedness of goods as they are recited in Applicant’s application). The respective
goods need not be identical or even competitive in order to find that they are related
for purposes of our likelihood of confusion analysis but need only be “related in some
manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they
could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods emanate from the same source.”
Coach Servs., 101 USPQ2d at 1722; see also In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe,
Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The issue, of course, is
not whether purchasers would confuse the goods or services, but rather whether there
is a likelihood of confusion as to their source. Recot Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322,
54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737
(TTAB 2018).
Opposition No. 91221706
- 20 -
As noted above, we focus on the following registrations, and accordingly, their
goods and services:
Registration No. 1168276 for TREK for “bicycles and
bicycle frames”;
Registration No. 3397739 for TREK BICYCLE STORE
(“Bicycle Store” disclaimed) for “retail stores featuring
bicycles”;
Registration No. 3516346 for TREK for “online retail and
wholesale store services featuring a wide range of
consumer products except footwear all provided via the
Internet”;
Registration No. 3576106 for TREK STOP for “retail
vending services in the field of automated vending
machines that dispenses bicycle parts, bicycle accessories,
energy bars, beverages and gels”; and
Registration No. 3709688 for TREK for “powders used in
the preparation of sports drinks and energy drinks.”
Opposer argues that the respective goods and services are related, for several
reasons. First, Opposer argues that it sells non TREK-branded food to its dealers and
end consumers in packaging that contains the TREK mark.40 Second, Opposer relies
on its registrations, for “retail vending services in the field of automated vending
machines” that dispense “energy bars, beverages and gels” (Reg. No. 3576106) and
“on-line retail and wholesale services featuring a wide range of consumer products”
(Reg. No. 3516346), to underscore the relationship between its distribution services
and Applicant’s snack foods. Opposer also relies on its registration for “powders used
in the preparation of sports drinks and energy drinks” (Reg. No. 3709688) as

40 64 TTABVUE 6.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 21 -
supporting its claim that the goods are related. Finally, Opposer contends that the
fame of its TREK mark for bicycles and related goods extends an umbrella of
protection to Opposer’s use of the mark in connection with food and beverages.
Applicant argues that the parties’ goods are significantly different and that its
goods are not within Opposer’s “realm of expansion.”41 Under this doctrine, a senior
user that cannot prove actual sales penetration into the junior user’s product area,
and cannot prove that the reputation of its mark extends into that area, may still
make a claim that the junior user is using its mark on goods that fall within the senior
user’s “zone (or “realm”) of natural expansion.” In USPTO proceedings, the issue is
not whether an intervening user should be enjoined, but whether a party can claim
priority because “customers are likely to link a mark in its expansion market with
the original, senior usage.” McCarthy, J. Thomas, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND
UNFAIR COMPETITION § 24:21 (5th ed.). Regardless of the basis for the doctrine,
Opposer contends that it is inapplicable because Applicant’s goods are sold “within
the realm of the bicycle industry.”42 (emphasis in original).
In support of its assertion that Applicant’s goods may be considered as being sold
“within the realm of the bicycle industry,” Opposer submitted several pages from

41 61 TTABVUE 19.
42 64 TTABVUE 9.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 22 -
Applicant’s Facebook page, showing Applicant’s TREK bars being sold with a cycling
theme,43 such as the following:44

Opposer’s witness, Dean Gore, also noted that Applicant’s TREK bars were reviewed
at bikeradar.com, “one of the more popular cycling news websites in the United
States.”45 Mr. Gore testified that many retail bike shops sell snack or energy bars,

43 48 TTABVUE 55, Exhibit 42, id. at 232-236. Opposer also submitted several
advertisements for Clif Bar energy bars that include pictures of cyclists on mountain or
seaside trails. 46 TTABVUE 18, 20, and 21.
44 At www.facebook.com/eattrek, 41 TTABVUE 21.
45 48 TTABVUE 23; Id. at 155-158, Exhibit 11.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 23 -
including its own dealers;46 and that “[p]robably the most common thing [cyclists]
carry is energy food.”47 Opposer submitted a copy of a webpage from Opposer’s
trek.com website, where Opposer offers nutritional products for sale:48

Media submitted by Opposer also suggests a connection with snack food and
cycling. Results of a “2012 Readers’ Choice Results” survey conducted by

46 48 TTABVUE 24 “Q Do Trek dealers sell some of these bars? A Absolutely.”; 48 TTABVUE
87 (Clif Bars is “a common energy bar you would find at a bike shop.”).
47 48 TTABVUE 33.
48 48 TTABVUE 33 (“We’re looking at a page that’s in Trek.com. It’s a page that is the start
of our nutrition offerings, nutrition products.”); Exhibit 19, id. at 181. Opposer did not submit
other webpages to show the type of nutritional products it allegedly sells. As for whether
Opposer sells Trek-branded snack bars, Opposer proffered inconsistent testimony. On the
one hand, Opposer stated that the snack bars it sold to its company-owned stores or
independent dealers were not branded TREK in any way, such as in packaging or in
advertising materials. Gore confidential testimony at 49 TTABVUE 17 (48 TTABVUE 69).
On the other hand, Opposer stated that it shipped snack bars in boxes that “have Trek on it.”
Brown testimony, 37 TTABVUE 68. The manner in which “Trek” may have appeared on
packaging, whether as a mark or trade name in a return address, for example, was not
discussed, Opposer did not adduce any packaging evidence for the record, and dates of use
were not clarified. We find that under these circumstances, the testimony is insufficient to
establish that Opposer’s TREK mark appeared on packaging for snack bars, or that any such
use predated Applicant’s constructive use date.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 24 -
bicycling.com listed readers’ top three “favorite midride fuels” as “energy bars, energy
gels, [and] energy chews.”49 In 2017, bicycling.com ran an online article entitled “The
Best New Nutrition Products for Cyclists in 2017” with a lead photo of a cyclist
holding a snack bar between his teeth.50 Finally, Opposer has shown limited
engagement in co-branding initiatives involving food products, such as breakfast
cereal.51
Considering the evidence and testimony of record, however, we agree with
Applicant that snack bars do not fall within Opposer’s natural realm of expansion.
Moreover, although Opposer owns a TREK registration for powdered drinks, and a
TREK STOP registration for the distribution of vending machines that dispense
snack bars, these goods and services have not been shown to be related to Applicant’s
snack bars.52 On the other hand, we find the evidence and testimony shows an overlap
of trade channels and classes of consumers under buying conditions that strongly
favor a finding of likelihood of confusion. First, Opposer’s registrations for “online
retail and wholesale store services featuring a wide range of consumer products
except footwear all provided via the Internet,” “retail stores featuring bicycles,” and

49 48 TTABVUE 146.
50 46 TTABVUE 16.
51 48 TTABVUE 14 and Exhibit 3 (“We’re looking at a Wheaties box with Lance Armstrong
riding a Trek bicycle on the cover.”); 50 TTABVUE 37 (referencing confidential 51 TTABVUE
17).
52 Regarding Opposer’s use and registration of the TREK STOP mark, we do not find the
evidence and testimony highly probative of a relationship between snack food and vending
machine distribution services. Because the distribution services of the TREK STOP
registration include “bicycle parts, bicycle accessories, energy bars, beverages and gels,” we
have accorded the registration a presumption of validity under Trademark Act Section 7(b).
Opposition No. 91221706
- 25 -
“powders used in the preparation of sports drinks and energy drinks” have probative
value to the extent that they serve to suggest that a bicycle retail store may sell a
wide variety of consumer products over the Internet, sell powdered drinks both on-
line and at retail stores, and distribute snack bars via vending machines. In addition,
Opposer has shown that it is common for bike shops in general to sell snack bars and
that snack bars are a significant food source for cyclists. Copies of webpages from 15
third-party cycling or sports and fitness-related websites advertise a variety of brands
of snack bars, energy drinks, and drink mixes.53 For example:
• Landis Cyclery sells “featured bikes,”54 energy bars, drink mixes and an
energy drink, including a “Clif Clif Bar” and “Clif Clif Shot Electrolyte
Drink Mix.”55
• Black Mountain Bicycles sells “bicycles,” “accessories,” and energy bars,
waffles, and drink mixes, including Hammer Nutrition “Hammer” energy
bars;56 while Black Mountain Bicycles does not offer Hammer Nutrition
drink mixes, the Bicycle Village website sells several drink mixes from
Hammer Nutrition, such as “Hammer Nutrition HEED (High Energy
Electrolyte Drink)” mix.57

53 47 TTABVUE.
54 The bicycle-related goods and services listed above that appear in quotations, such as
“featured bikes,” indicates a link to bicycle goods on the webpage displaying snack bars or
drinks.
55 At landiscyclery.com, 47 TTABVUE 9-10, Exhibit A.
56 At blackmountainbicycles.com, 47 TTABVUE 13-15, Exhibit C.
57 Bicycle Village also sells energy bars, Honey Stinger waffles, and Skratch Labs cookie mix.
47 TTABVUE 19-20.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 26 -
• Cycle World sells “bikes” and energy bars, waffles, liquid drinks and drink
mixes, including a “PowerBar Performance Energy Bar” and “PowerBar
New! Ironman Perform™-Mixed Berry (Single Serve)” drink on webpages
displaying photographs of its storefront and interior and the goods:58

58 At cycleworldmiami.com, 47 TTABVUE 23-25, Exhibit G.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 27 -
• Bicycles East also displays a photo of its interior on the pages advertising
energy bars and drinks:59

• High Mountain Sports includes a link to “Bike” on its website, and on the
same page lists both snack bars and energy gels for sale, including “GU
Energy Chews” and “GU Energy Gel”:60

59 At bicycleseast.com, 47 TTABVUE 21-22, Exhibit F.
60 47 TTABVUE 37.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 28 -

Although we agree with Applicant that common sales by mass retailers are
generally insufficient to show relatedness, here there are common trade channels in
a niche market (snack food sold in bike shops) and the common sales are directed to
a discrete class of purchasers (cycling enthusiasts). We thus find Opposer’s limited
activities, coupled with its dominance in the bicycle industry, sufficient to make
confusion likely, at the least as to a perception of sponsorship or affiliation between
the parties were both to use similar marks for their respective goods.
Opposition No. 91221706
- 29 -
Accordingly, while the second du Pont factor, the similarity or dissimilarity of the
goods, favors a finding of no likelihood of confusion, the third du Pont factor, the
demonstrated identity in specific channels of trade (bike shops) and classes of
consumers (cyclists) for the parties’ goods and services is particularly significant and
favors finding of likelihood of confusion.
IV. CONCLUSION
After considering all of the evidence made of record pertaining to the issue of
likelihood of confusion, as well as all of the arguments related thereto, including any
evidence and arguments not specifically discussed in this opinion, we conclude that
confusion is likely between Applicant’s mark for the Class 29 and 30
goods listed in its application, and Opposer’s mark TREK for “online retail and
wholesale store services featuring a wide range of consumer products except footwear
all provided via the Internet” and “powders used in the preparation of sports drinks
and energy drinks,” given the identity of the channels of trade and classes of
consumers in the niche cycling market where Opposer’s TREK mark is famous.
Despite the lack of strong evidence of the relatedness of the goods and services, the
goods and services of the parties being sold under their similar respective marks are
likely to be encountered by the same classes of purchasers under similar buying
conditions and circumstances surrounding their marketing such that confusion is
likely. Hence, if consumers already familiar with Opposer’s TREK powder mix for
sports and energy drinks, Opposer’s TREK retail store services, and Opposer’s well-
Opposition No. 91221706
- 30 -
known TREK mark for bicycles were to encounter Applicant’s snack bars sold under
its TREK and design mark in one of Opposer’s or a third-party’s bike store, they would
likely consider Applicant’s goods to be produced, sponsored, or affiliated with
Opposer.
Decision: The opposition on the ground of likelihood of confusion is sustained.