View a Sample Chapter

§ 4:10.3 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSIONNUTRI SCIENCEand other NUTRIprefixmarks forvitamin foodsupplementsversus NUTRI/SYSTEM 2000for low-caloriefoods, 272NUTRI/SYSTEM versus NUTRI-TRIM both forweight loss centers, 273METRECAL fordietary productsversus MINIKAL for dietaryfood products, 274RESIFLEX forpatient caretubesversusSTERI-FLEX for sterilizeddisposable medicaltubing, 275TEKTRONIX versus DAKTRONICS both forelectronic goods, 276AQUASEALand other AQUAprefixmarksversus AQUA STREAM bothfor plumbingproducts, 277GENUINE SKIN versus GENUINE RIDE SKINCARE both for skincare products. 277.1Whether the common portion is strong or weak is always subject toproof—for example, evidence of fame or the extent of third-party use.Thus, an apparently weak, common portion may in fact prove to besufficiently strong for the senior user to prevail. Likelihood of confusionwas found in these cases:ORAL-B versus ORAL-ANGLEboth for toothbrushes 278272. Con-Stan Indus. v. Nutri-Sys. Weight Loss Med. Ctrs., 212 U.S.P.Q. 953(T.T.A.B. 1981) (no family).273. Nutri/Sys., Inc. v. Con-Stan Indus., Inc., 809 F.2d 601, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1809(9th Cir. 1987).274. Mead Johnson & Co. v. Peter Eckes, 195 U.S.P.Q. 187 (T.T.A.B. 1977).275. Cutter Lab., Inc. v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 189 U.S.P.Q. 108 (T.T.A.B.1975).276. Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 187 U.S.P.Q. 588 (T.T.A.B. 1975), aff’d,534 F.2d 915, 189 U.S.P.Q. 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976).277. Am. Standard, Inc. v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 200 U.S.P.Q. 457 (T.T.A.B. 1978)(no family).277.1. Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care, L.L.C., 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1334 (T.T.A.B.2006).278. Gillette Can., Inc. v. Ranir Corp., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1768 (T.T.A.B. 1992).4–60