April 26th, 2017
The Board affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal of iSatori Bio-Gro for “dietary and nutritional supplements” in view of the registered marks BIOGROW, BIOGROWN, and BIOGROWTH, owned by the same entity, for “nutritional supplements.’ The goods are in part identical, but applicant argued that the term “iSatori” distinguished the marks, just as in yesterday’s case, the word CROSBY distinguished CROSBY QUIC-TAG from QUICK TAG. Nope, said the Board. In re iSatori, Inc., Serial No. 86397344 (April 18, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Adlin).
As to the identical goods, the Board must presume that they travel in the same, normal channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. Not only do these factors weigh heavily in favor of a finding of likely confusion, but they reduce the degree of similarity between the marks necessary to support a Section 2(d) refusal.
The Board found the marks to be highly similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In fact, applicant’s mark may be seen as another variation of registrant’s marks.
The Board found that the added word “iSatori” may exacerbate confusion, based in part on the appearance of applicant’s specimen of use (above), in which BIO-GRO is displayed in larger letters than iSatori.
The Board noted that in a number of analogous cases, the addition of a house mark to a registered mark has been found to be “in essence, an ‘aggravation rather than a justification.'”Although BIOGROW is somewhat suggestive of nutritional supplements, “it is nowhere near as suggestive as the marks in which the addition of a house mark was found to be sufficiently distinguishing to avoid a likelihood of confusion.” For example, in Knight Textile, the mark ESSENTIALS was found to be highly suggestive for clothing in light of 23 third-party registrations for marks that included the word ESSENTIALS. Here the evidence in not on a part with that evidence; dictionary definitions of BIO and GROW and 12 third-party registrations for marks including the term BIO for nutritional supplements [but not GROW].
In short, ESSENTIALS, and English word commonly used by numerous parties for clothing, is significantly more suggestive than BIOGROW and forms thereof, which is not a word and which has not been revealed to be used by anyone other than Applicant and Registrant for nutritional supplements.
Finally, the Board accepted applicant’s argument that the goods would be purchased with a heightened degree of care, but that factor was “easily outweighed” by the other du Point factors that favored the Section 2(d) refusal.
Finding confusion likely, the Board affirmed.