Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA658272
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`02/26/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91212477
`Defendant
`GFA Brands, Inc.
`JOHANNA M WILBERT
`QUARLES & BRADY LLP
`411 E WISCONSIN AVE, SUITE 2040
`MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4497
`UNITED STATES
`tm-dept@quarles.com, johanna.wilbert@quarles.com, dav-
`id.cross@quarles.com, DRC@quarles.com, marta.levine@quarles.com, an-
`drea.fowler@quarles.com
`Brief on Merits for Defendant
`Matthew T. Ingersoll
`matthew.ingersoll@quarles.com
`/MTI/
`02/26/2015
`Applicant GFA's Trial Brief.pdf(1681292 bytes )
`Appendix A - Applicant's Evidence of Record.pdf(127394 bytes )
`Appendix B - Applicant's Evidentiary Objections.pdf(27326 bytes )
`Appendix C - Authorities that do not appear in the USPQ.pdf(4057629 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 85/751,520: EARTH BALANCE
`Published for Opposition March 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91212477
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`BALANCE BAR COMPANY,
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`v.
`
`GFA BRANDS, INC.,
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ............................................................................................. 2
`I.
`Testimonial Deposition Transcripts ....................................................................... 2
`II.
`Stipulated Evidence ............................................................................................... 3
`III.
`GFA Brands’ Notice of Reliance ........................................................................... 5
`IV.
`Opposer’s Notices of Reliance ............................................................................... 7
`V.
`Application Files and Pleadings ............................................................................. 8
`OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSER’S EVIDENCE .............................................................................. 8
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES................................................................................................... 8
`RECITATION OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 8
`I.
`GFA Brands has Used the EARTH BALANCE Marks Since 1998 ..................... 8
`II.
`No Actual Confusion Despite same Channels of Trade and Advertising
`Methods as Balance Bar....................................................................................... 10
`GFA Brands’ Survey Evidence Proves No Likelihood of Confusion ................. 12
`III.
`GFA Brands Uses SMART BALANCE Marks With No Confusion .................. 12
`IV.
`Balance is Widely Used in Third Party Trademarks Without Confusion ............ 14
`V.
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 20
`I.
`GFA Brands Is Entitled to Register the EARTH BALANCE Mark
`Because There Is No Likelihood of Confusion .................................................... 20
`A.
`Balance Bar has not met its burden under the DuPont factors ................ 20
`B.
`Factor 1: The marks are dissimilar.......................................................... 21
`1.
`The marks must be viewed in their entireties .............................. 22
`2.
`“EARTH” is transformative and the dominant portion of
`Applicant’s EARTH BALANCE mark ....................................... 24
`BALANCE is a weak mark .......................................................... 25
`(a)
`Balance is highly suggestive or descriptive of
`Balance Bar’s goods ........................................................ 25
`The Third Party Registrations Containing
`“BALANCE” Are Probative of the Weakness of
`“BALANCE.” .................................................................. 26
`The marks create distinct commercial impressions ..................... 28
`The marks’ dissimilarities make confusion unlikely ................... 30
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`(b)
`
`i
`
`

`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`II.
`
`Factor 6: Extensive third party use has weakened the BALANCE
`mark ......................................................................................................... 30
`Factors 7 and 8: There is no evidence of actual confusion ..................... 33
`Factor 13: The parties’ previous discussions regarding the use of
`BALANCE are irrelevant; and GFA’s prior enforcement strategy
`is not an admission that confusion is likely, and regardless, it is
`inapposite today ....................................................................................... 35
`1.
`The parties’ prior dealings over use of BALANCE are
`irrelevant .........................................................................................
`GFA Brands’ prior enforcement strategy is not an
`admission ..................................................................................... 36
`GFA Brands’ past enforcement strategy is irrelevant for
`purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis today .................. 37
`The Philip Johnson Survey Is Proof of No Likelihood of Confusion .................. 39
`A.
`The Philip Johnson Eveready Format Survey .......................................... 39
`B.
`Jacoby’s and Balance Bar’s Principal Criticism ...................................... 41
`C.
`Awareness of the Balance Bar Mark Among the Relevant
`Consuming Public .................................................................................... 42
`The Eveready Survey Has Been the Industry Standard for Over 35
`Years ........................................................................................................ 43
`Jacoby’s Critique is Not Supported by Case Law and Lacks
`Empirical Foundation............................................................................... 44
`Jacoby’s Opinion Based on the Swann Article Ignores that the
`Goal of a Survey is to Reflect Market Realities ...................................... 47
`Jacoby’s and Balance Bar Company’s other criticisms of the
`Johnson Survey have no Merit ................................................................. 49
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No.
`
`Cases
`
`Akiro LLC v. House of Cheatham,
`946 F. Supp. 2d 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ............................................................................... 45
`
`Carl Karcher Enters., Inc. v. Stars Rests. Corp.,
`35 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1125 (T.T.A.B. 1995) ............................................................. 44, 49
`
`Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards,
`148 F.3d 1373, 47 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................... 22, 23
`
`Clinique Labs., LLC v. Absolute Dental, LLC,
`No. 91181263, 2011 WL 1652171 (T.T.A.B. 2011) (unpublished, non-precedential) .... 49
`
`Domino’s Pizza Inc. v. Little Caesar Enters., Inc.,
`7 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1359 (T.T.A.B. 1988) ..................................................................... 37
`
`E&J Gallo Winery v. Proximo Spirits,
`103 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1640 (E.D. Cal. 2012) .......................................................... 43, 46
`
`E&J Gallo Winery v. Proximo Spirits, Inc.,
`2011 WL5922090 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011) ............................................................. 46, 47
`
`Frank Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co.,
`667 F.2d 1005, 212 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 233 (Fed. Cir. 1981) .............................................. 22
`
`Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Fruit of the Earth, Inc.,
`3 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1531 (T.T.A.B. 1987) ..................................................................... 25
`
`Full Speed Ahead, Inc. v. SRAM Corp.,
`No. 91171889, 2008 WL 5256412 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2008) (unpublished, non-
`precedential) ...................................................................................................................... 31
`
`G.H. Mumm & Cie v. Desnoes & Geddes, Ltd.,
`16 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................... 33
`
`General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Co.,
`824 F.2d 622, 3 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1442 (8th Cir. 1987) ......................................... 22, 30
`
`In re Bed & Breakfast Registry,
`791 F.2d 157, 229 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 818 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................ 23
`
`iii
`
`

`
`In re Carefirst of Md., Inc. Firsthealth of the Carolinas, Inc.,
`77 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1492, 2005 WL 2451671 (T.T.A.B. 2005) ............................. 22, 23
`
`In re E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ....................................... passim
`
`In re Hair Masters Serv., Inc.,
`907 F.2d 157, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................ 37
`
`In re Hunke & Jochheim,
`185 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 188 (T.T.A.B. 1975) ................................................................. 25, 28
`
`Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc.,
`576 F.2d 926, 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 151 (C.C.P.A. 1978) .......................................... 21, 37
`
`Kargo Global, Inc. v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.,
`2007 WL2258688 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2007) ..................................................................... 49
`
`King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc.,
`182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 108 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ....................................................................... 33
`
`Knight Textile Corp. v. Jones Inv. Co.,
`75 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1313 (T.T.A.B. 2005) ............................................................ passim
`
`Miles Labs. Inc. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements, Inc.,
`1 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1445 (T.T.A.B. 1986) ..................................................................... 44
`
`Mr. Hero Sandwich Sys., Inc. v. Roman Meal Co.,
`781 F.2d 884, 228 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 364 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................ 33
`
`Nat’l Distillers Prods. Co., LLC v. Refreshment Brands, Inc.,
`198 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ............................................................................... 48
`
`Nat’l Football League Props., Inc. v. Pro Style, Inc.,
`16 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (E.D. Wis. 1998) .............................................................................. 49
`
`Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772,
`396 F.3d 1369, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................... passim
`
`Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co.,
`No. 91178996, 2012 WL 1881493 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2012) (unpublished, non-
`precedential) ................................................................................................................ 22, 24
`
`Rocket Trademarks Pty Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A.,
`98 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1066 (T.T.A.B. 2011) ................................................................... 23
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd.,
`393 F.3d 1238, 73 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................... 24
`
`Starbucks U.S. Brands LLC v. Ruben,
`78 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1741, (T.T.A.B. 2006) .................................................................. 44
`
`Syndicat Des Proprietaires Viticulteurs De Chateauneuf-Du-Pape v. Pasquier Desvignes,
`No. 91179408, 2013 WL 5407284 (June 14, 2013) (unpublished, non-precedential) ..... 31
`
`Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.,
`534 F.2d 915, 189 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976) ................................................ 31
`
`Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc.,
`531 F.2d 366, 188 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 623 (7th Cir. 1976) .................................................. 40
`
`West Fla. Seafood v. Jet Rests. Inc.,
`31 F.3d 1122, 31 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1660 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ........................................... 20
`
`Witco Chem. Co. v. Whitefield Chem. Co.,
`418 F.2d 1403, 164 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 43 (C.C.P.A. 1969) ................................................ 21
`
`Zillow, Inc. v. Super T Fin. DBA Loanzilla,
`No. 91203730, 2014 WL 3752422 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2014) (unpublished, non-
`precedential) ...................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Dr. John P. Liefeld, “How Surveys Overestimate the Likelihood of Consumer Confusion,”
`93 TMR 939 (2003) .......................................................................................................... 49
`
`Jerre Swann “Likelihood of Confusion Studies and the Straitened Scope of Squirt,”
`98 TMR 739 (2008) .................................................................................................... 42, 48
`
`Joseph N. Welch II, Use of Experts,
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Practice 267 (ABA Section of Intell. Prop. L., 2d ed.
`2012) ................................................................................................................................. 44
`
`MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (Third) §21.493 (1995) ................................................. 40, 42
`
`Robert H. Thornburg, Trademark Surveys: Development of Computer Based Survey Methods,
`4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 91, 105 (2005) ............................................................ 43
`
`Shari Seidman Diamond, “Reference Guide on Survey Research,” Reference Manual on
`Scientific Evidence 411 (3d ed. 2011), Federal Judicial Counsel .................................... 40
`
`v
`
`

`
`THE COMPACT OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
`894 (2d ed. 1991) .............................................................................................................. 27
`
`Treatises
`
`2 J. Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition,
`§ 11:90 (4th ed.) ................................................................................................................ 26
`
`6 J. Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition,
`§ 32:173.50 (4th ed.) ................................................................................................... 45, 46
`
`6 J. Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition,
`§ 32:174 (4th ed.) .............................................................................................................. 43
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Applicant, GFA Brands, Inc. (“GFA Brands”), seeks to register its EARTH BALANCE
`
`mark for use in connection with a variety of items including “nut and seed-based snack bars.”
`
`Balance Bar opposes this registration based on an alleged likelihood of confusion. The DuPont
`
`factors, including real world market realities, belie Balance Bar’s concerns regarding confusion
`
`and support the allowance of the EARTH BALANCE application for use of EARTH BALANCE
`
`on nut and seed-based snack bars. EARTH BALANCE and BALANCE BAR products have co-
`
`existed in the market with no evidence of any instances of actual confusion since 1998. Since
`
`this first use of the EARTH BALANCE trademark, GFA Brands has expanded both its EARTH
`
`BALANCE and SMART BALANCE product lines to include a wide range of nationally
`
`distributed products, including a variety of snack foods. Despite seventeen years of market co-
`
`existence, Balance Bar has failed to develop any evidence of actual confusion between any
`
`EARTH BALANCE or SMART BALANCE product and any Balance Bar product.
`
`The record establishes that the lack of actual confusion is attributable to the visual and
`
`phonetic differences between EARTH BALANCE and Balance Bar’s BALANCE, BALANCE
`
`BAR, BALANCE GOLD, BALANCE BAR GOLD, BALANCE BARE, and BALANCE PURE
`
`marks (the “Balance Bar Marks”). GFA Brands’ EARTH BALANCE mark starts with the word
`
`“EARTH” while all of the Balance Bar Marks start with the word “BALANCE.” This difference
`
`is significant, because the grocery and health stores where the products are sold already stock
`
`many products that use the word “balance” in their marks. GFA Brands’ own SMART
`
`BALANCE product line is one example of other “balance” marks sold in the same stores as
`
`Balance Bar’s products. The extensive use of “balance” has conditioned customers to
`
`distinguish between, and therefore notice, obvious differences between trademarks containing
`
`1
`
`

`
`the term “balance.” As a result, the visual and phonetic differences between SMART
`
`BALANCE and BALANCE BAR (or any of the other Balance Bar Marks) make confusion
`
`unlikely.
`
`The lack of a likelihood of confusion has been confirmed by GFA Brands’ survey expert,
`
`Mr. Philip Johnson, who conducted a survey and concluded that there is not a likelihood of
`
`confusion. As Balance Bar’s own expert explained, Johnson is an accomplished survey expert,
`
`and he used the standard Eveready format for his survey. It follows that Balance Bar’s
`
`opposition should be dismissed, and GFA Brands should be allowed to expand its EARTH
`
`BALANCE mark to nut and seed-based snack bars as well as the other goods in the pending
`
`application.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`The evidence of record consists of the following:1
`
`I.
`
`TESTIMONIAL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS
`
`The certified transcripts of the testimonial depositions of the following witnesses:2
`
`1) Patrick Cornacchiulo, Vice-President of Marketing of NBTY, taken on July 30, 2014, and
`
`filed with the Board on January 29, 2015 (including public and confidential portions),
`
`including Opposer’s Exhibits 50–51 and Applicant’s Exhibits 1–10;
`
`2) Erin Lifeso, Senior Director of Marketing for Balance Bar of NBTY, taken on July 30,
`
`2014, and filed with the Board on January 29, 2015 (including public and confidential
`
`portions), including Opposer’s Exhibits 52–73 and Applicant’s Exhibits 11–12;
`
`
`1 A detailed index of the evidence made of record by GFA Brands is attached as Appendix A.
`2 References to deposition testimony will be designated as, for example “’477 _____ Tr. at ___,
`Ex. __.”
`
`2
`
`

`
`3) Howard Seiferas, Senior Vice President, Sales Services and Logistics of GFA Brands,
`
`taken on September 19, 2014, and filed with the Board on January 23, 2015, including
`
`Applicant’s Exhibits 13–15; and
`
`4) Adriane Little, Category Manager Earth Balance of Boulder Brands, taken on October
`
`15, 2014, and filed with the Board on January 23, 2015 (including public and confidential
`
`portions), including Applicant’s Exhibits 16–49.
`
`II.
`
`STIPULATED EVIDENCE
`
`On August 14, 2014, the Board granted a Stipulation for Introducing Evidence at Trial,
`
`filed by the parties on August 6, 2014, which introduced the following testimony from a previous
`
`opposition proceeding captioned Balance Bar Company v. GFA Brands, Inc., Nos. 91196954
`
`and 91197748, of the following witnesses:3
`
`1) The trial testimony examination of Patrick Cornacchiulo, Vice-President of Marketing of
`
`NBTY, taken May 1, 2014, and filed with the Board on January 29, 2015 (including
`
`public and confidential portions), including Opposer’s Exhibits 33–49;
`
`2) Erin Lifeso, Senior Director of Marketing for Balance Bar of NBTY, taken on April 30,
`
`2014, and filed with the Board on January 29, 2015 (including public and confidential
`
`portions), including Opposer’s Exhibits 1–32 and Applicant’s Exhibits 1–3;
`
`3) William E. Hooper, Senior Advisor to the Marketing Groups and Board Member of GFA
`
`Brands, taken on July 15, 2014, and filed with the Board on October 20, 2014 (including
`
`public and confidential portions), including Applicant’s Exhibits 4–24; and
`
`
`3 References to previous trial testimony will be designated as, for example “’954 ______ Tr. at
`__, Ex. __.”
`
`3
`
`

`
`4) Timothy Kraft, Senior Vice-President, Associate General Counsel at GFA Brands, taken
`
`on July 23, 2014, and filed with the Board on October 20, 2014, including Applicant’s
`
`Exhibits 41–44.
`
`On October 17, 2014, the parties filed Joint Stipulation Regarding Testimony Evidence,
`
`which introduced the following testimony by affidavit in lieu of live deposition, for the following
`
`witnesses:4
`
`1) William Shanks, Investigations Manager and Designated Lead Investigator at Marksmen,
`
`Inc., dated October 13, 2014, and filed with the Board on October 20, 2014, including
`
`Applicant’s Exhibits A–J;
`
`2) Kiersten Van Horne, Licensed Private Investigator at Marksmen, Inc., dated October 14,
`
`2014, and filed with the Board on October 20, 2014, including Applicant’s Exhibit A;
`
`3) Marie Flemmings, Licensed Private Investigator at Marksmen, Inc., dated October 20,
`
`2014, and filed with the Board on October 20, 2014, including Applicant’s Exhibits A–B;
`
`4) Chris Rodermond, Licensed Private Investigator at Marksmen, Inc., dated October 17,
`
`2014, and filed with the Board on October 20, 2014, including Applicant’s Exhibits A–E;
`
`5) Philip Johnson, formerly Chief Executive Officer of Leo J. Shapiro & Associates and
`
`GFA Brands’ survey expert, dated October 17, 2014, and filed with the Board on October
`
`20, 2014, including Applicant’s Exhibits 1–2; and
`
`6) Jacob Jacoby, Merchants Council Professor of Consumer Behavior and Retail
`
`Management, of Stern School of Business, New York University and Balance Bar’s
`
`rebuttal survey expert, dated December 2, 2014, and filed with the Board on December 3,
`
`2014, including Opposer’s Exhibits 1–2.
`
`4 References to Testimony by Affidavit will be designated as, for example “______ Aff. at __,
`Ex. __.”
`
`4
`
`

`
`III. GFA BRANDS’ NOTICE OF RELIANCE
`
`GFA Brands’ Notices of Reliance (“NOR”), filed October 20, 2014, including the
`
`exhibits submitted therewith, which introduced the following:5
`
`1) USPTO records for Applicant’s SMART BALANCE and EARTH BALANCE
`
`registrations (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,200,663, 2,237,867, 2,276,285, 2,952,127, 2,958,216,
`
`3,649,833, 3,708,400, 3,747,526, 3,865,917, 3,958,463, 3,967,828, 4,029,021, 4,029,650,
`
`4,112,473 and 4,203,379);
`
`2) Packaging for third party products, including Nestle Nutrition BOOST “Balanced
`
`Nutritional Drink™,” Triple Leaf Tea SUGAR BALANCE herbal dietary supplement,
`
`Enzymatic Therapy ESTROBALANCE dietary supplement, Nature’s Plus MEGA B-100
`
`BALANCED B-COMPLEX dietary supplement, and “bring balance to your body™”
`
`Tropical Soother Lozenges-Dietary Supplement, Whole Foods B DAILY ESSENTIALS
`
`BALANCED B-COMPLEX dietary supplement, Woodstock Herbal Products BP
`
`BALANCE FORMULA dietary supplement, MegaFood BALANCED B COMPLEX
`
`whole food multivitamin dietary supplement, CVS/pharmacy BALANCED B-50 dietary
`
`supplement, Nature Made BALANCED B-100 COMPLEX dietary supplement, Abbott
`
`ENSURE “COMPLETE, BALANCED NUTRITION” nutrition shake, Old Orchard
`
`HEALTHY BALANCE juice cocktail blend, Lowes Foods B-COMPLEX 50
`
`BALANCED B-COMPLEX dietary supplement, Gruma Corporation MISSION CARB
`
`BALANCE whole wheat tortillas, PharmAssure BALANCED B COMPLEX dietary
`
`supplement, General Mills FIBER ONE MEAL BAR “balanced nutrition for a healthy
`
`lifestyle™,” SIMPLY BALANCED peach slices freeze dried fruit, SIMPLY
`
`
`5 Notices of Reliance and accompanying exhibits filed during GFA Brands’ testimony period are
`designated “GFA __ NOR, Ex. __.”
`
`5
`
`

`
`BALANCED whole grain popcorn, SIMPLY BALANCED vanilla bean granola,
`
`SIMPLY BALANCED fruit strips, SIMPLY BALANCED nut & seed bars, SIMPLY
`
`BALANCED organic white grape juice, SIMPLY BALANCED essence water coconut
`
`pineapple, PROBALANCE™ Protein Shot XL dietary supplement;
`
`3) Printouts of websites showing third parties use: Amazon.com, Inc., Swanson Health
`
`Products, Vitacost.com, Hi-Health Supplement Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`
`Doctor Wilson’s Original Formulation, LuckyVitamin.com, Sears Brands, LLC,
`
`OVitaminPro.com, Windhawk, LLC, My Natural Market, Youngevity, Wegmans Food
`
`Markets, Futurebiotics, LLC, and Target Brands, Inc.;
`
`4) Printouts from Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com for third party cookbooks and
`
`other books using the term “Balance;”
`
`5) USPTO records for various third party registrations (U.S. Reg. Nos. 3,038,361,
`
`3,345,420, 2,468,897, 2,507,231, 2,615,417, 2,578,776, 2,445,383, 3,403,538, 2,058,099,
`
`2,171,979, 3,296,020, 3,574,732, 3,925,693, 3,167,953, 3,849,379, 3,833,070, 3,865,915,
`
`4,023,084, 4,115,211, 4,175,696, 3,823,699, 4,434,063, 4,356,355, 4,090,745, 4,090,736,
`
`3,559,685, 2,831,479, 2,840,590, 2,082,582, 1,393,763, 4,427,797, 3,904,906, 2,361,008
`
`and 2,916,468);
`
`6) Opposer’s Objections and Responses to Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 7–8,
`
`12, 16–17;
`
`7) Opposer’s Objections and Responses to Applicant’s Second Set of Interrogatories No. 26;
`
`8) Excerpts from Applicant’s Smart Balance and Earth Balance websites, and excerpts from
`
`the Made Just Right by Earth Balance website;
`
`6
`
`

`
`9) Trial testimony of William Hooper, taken July 15, 2014, and all exhibits annexed thereto,
`
`from the proceeding captioned Balance Bar Company GFA Brands, Inc., Nos. 91196954
`
`and 91197748;
`
`10) Trial testimony of Timothy Kraft, taken July 23, 2014, and all exhibits annexed thereto,
`
`from the proceeding captioned Balance Bar Company GFA Brands, Inc., Nos. 91196954
`
`and 91197748; and
`
`11) The discovery deposition of corporate representative of Opposer, Patrick Cornacchiulo,
`
`conducted on June 19, 2014, and all exhibits annexed thereto.
`
`IV. OPPOSER’S NOTICES OF RELIANCE
`
`Opposer’s Notices of Reliance, filed August 19, 2014 and December 3, 2014, including
`
`the exhibits submitted therewith, which introduced the following:6
`
`1) USPTO records for Opposer’s registrations containing the term BALANCE (U.S. Reg.
`
`Nos. 2,636,101, 2,659,753, 2,745,850, 2,999,244, 3,036,771, 3,436,917, 3,760,265,
`
`3,937,988, and 4,062,172);
`
`2) Select pages from the website www.balance.com, as of May 24, 2014 as well as August
`
`18, 2014;
`
`3) GFA Brands, Inc.’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Requests for Admission and
`
`accompanying exhibits;
`
`4) GFA Brands, Inc.’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 4–5, 14–17,
`
`20 and 26;
`
`
`6 Notices of Reliance and accompanying exhibits filed during Balance Bar’s testimony period are
`designated “BB __ NOR, Ex. __.”
`
`7
`
`

`
`5) Select Docket Sheets, Notices of Opposition and Petitions for Cancellation involving
`
`Balance Bar Company;
`
`6) Applicant’s Trial Brief filed in Opposition Proceeding No. 91194974;
`
`7) Excerpts from the discovery deposition of corporate representative of Applicant, Adriane
`
`Little, conducted on June 10, 2014, and Exhibit 2 annexed thereto; and
`
`8) Article entitled “Likelihood of Confusion Studies and Straitened Scope of Squirt”
`
`authored by Jerre B. Swan and published in the May–June 2008 edition of The
`
`Trademark Reporter (Vol. 98, No. 3).
`
`V.
`
`APPLICATION FILES AND PLEADINGS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b), the files of the trademark application (U.S. Ser. No.
`
`85/751,520) involved and the pleadings in this opposition are deemed to be of record.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO OPPOSER’S EVIDENCE
`
`Pursuant to Trademark Rules 2.122 and 2.123 and the Federal Rules of Evidence,
`
`attached as Appendix B is a brief containing GFA Brands’ evidentiary objections to certain
`
`testimony and exhibits offered by Opposer, Balance Bar.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`GFA Brands agrees that Balance Bar has accurately stated the issues.
`
`RECITATION OF FACTS
`
`I.
`
`GFA BRANDS HAS USED THE EARTH BALANCE MARKS SINCE 1998.
`
`GFA Brands has been using the EARTH BALANCE trademark in grocery stores since
`
`1998, when GFA Brands first launched a butter substitute that was a natural alternative to butter.
`
`(’477 Little Tr. at 7:25–8:8; 9:19–10:22.) The EARTH BALANCE mark was originally selected
`
`to communicate to consumers that products bearing the EARTH BALANCE mark were natural
`
`and organic products. (Id. at 8:9–15.) Recent consumer research has confirmed that this original
`
`8
`
`

`
`intention has been successful and today consumers differentiate the EARTH BALANCE brand
`
`as “natural, earthy, and outdoorsy.” (Id. at 38:8–39:22, Ex. 34.)
`
`Since 1998, GFA Brands has expanded the goods offered under the EARTH BALANCE
`
`trademark. Specifically, GFA Brands sells culinary spreads, peanut butter, alternative
`
`mayonnaise, soy milk, popcorn, potato chips, puffs, crackers, and mac & cheese under the
`
`EARTH BALANCE mark in addition to the butter substitutes it originally sold. (Id. at 9:6–12;
`
`19:11–20:8; 20:24–21:11; 25:14–26:8.) In addition to its common law rights, GFA Brands has
`
`obtained several trademark registrations for EARTH BALANCE. Adriane Little, GFA Brands’
`
`Category Manager for the Earth Balance Brand, authenticated the registrations for, use of, and
`
`status of the following EARTH BALANCE trademarks:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`EARTH BALANCE for butter substitutes, cheese, low fat and nonfat cheese
`substitutes, margarine substitutes, shortening, low fat and nonfat shortening,
`snack food dips and vegetable oils, first used on butter substitutes in 1998 (Reg.
`No. 2,237,867) (Id. at 10:5–12:16, Exs. 17, 18);
`EARTH BALANCE for peanut butter, first used in 2008 (Reg. No. 3,708,400)
`(Id. at 12:18–13:7, Exs. 19, 20);
`EARTH BALANCE for soy milk, first used in 2010 (Reg. No. 3,967,828) (Id. at
`16:1–16, Ex. 21); and
`EARTH BALANCE for mayonnaise and soy mayonnaise, first used in 2011
`(Reg. No. 4,029,650) (Id. at 16:18–17:8, Ex. 22.)
`
`
`
`In addition to these four registrations, GFA Brands’ First Notice of Reliance included
`
`proof of GFA Brands’ registration of three other EARTH BALANCE trademarks including
`
`registrations for milk, soy eggnog, and vegetable-based spreads. (GFA 1st NOR, Exs. A-12, A-
`
`14, and A-15.)
`
`In her trial deposition, Ms. Little testified about periods of use, and authenticated product
`
`packaging, product pictures, and advertisements for the physical products that GFA Brands has
`
`sold in connection with the EARTH BALANCE trademarks. (’477 Little Tr. at 7:25–8:8; 9:19–
`
`12:16; 13:8–21; 19:15–26:8, Exs. 20, 24–27.) This testimony establishes concurrent use of the
`
`9
`
`

`
`EARTH BALANCE mark and the Balance Bar Marks dating from 1998 through the present.
`
`(Id. at 7:25–8:8; 9:19–10:22.)
`
`II.
`
`NO ACTUAL CONFUSION DESPITE SAME CHANNELS OF TRADE AND
`ADVERTISING METHODS AS BALANCE BAR.
`
`GFA Brands’ and Balance Bar’s trademarks have coexisted in the market for over fifteen
`
`years while using the same advertising methods and promotional channels without any evidence
`
`of actual confusion. In fact, GFA Brands and Balance Bar have been using the trademarks at
`
`issue to sell products in the very same stores. GFA Brands sells its EARTH BALANCE
`
`products nationally through three major classes of trade: conventional grocery stores, natural
`
`grocery stores, and mass merchants such as Wal-Mart. (’477 Little Tr. at 32:1–13.) More
`
`specifically, GFA Brands currently sells and has historically sold its EARTH BALANCE
`
`products in stores such as Trader Joe’s, Wal-Mart, Kroger, and Publix. (Id. at 35:11–25, Ex. 32.)
`
`GFA Brands also sells products bearing the EARTH BALANCE trademark to distributors who
`
`then sell to grocery stores. Specifically, GFA Brands sells to distributors including UNFI, which
`
`distributes to Whole Foods, Nature’s Best, which distributes to Sprouts, and KeHE, which
`
`distributes to natural and conventional stores that have natural products sets. (Id. at 34:5–35:15,
`
`Ex. 32.)
`
`Balance Bar sells to the very same stores to whom GFA Brands sells. Confidential
`
`testimony from Balance Bar’s witnesses as well as a comparison of the customer lists from the
`
`two parties confirms that there is significant overlap. (’477 Lifeso at 26:2–27:23, Exs. 66–67;
`
`’477 Cornacchiulo Tr. at 13:22–14:9; ’477 Little Tr. at 34:5–35:15, Ex. 32; GFA 6th NOR, Ex.
`
`F-2 at 3–4.) In fact, Balance Bar’s own trial brief states, “both Balance Bar and Applicant sell
`
`products through many of the same retail outlets.” (BB Br. at 10.) Given that Balance Bar was
`
`10
`
`

`
`founded and began using its mark in 1992, the EARTH BALANCE mark and the BALANCE
`
`BAR Marks have co-existed in the same stores for over fifteen years.
`
`Similarly, GF