IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: WONDERSPREAD likely to be confused with WONDER Bread, (Oct 16, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson

An opposition by the owners of Wonder Bread was sustained because the marks were similar and the goods were related.

An applicant was properly denied registration for the proposed mark WONDERSPREAD for use with “nut butters” on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the registered marks WONDER used with Wonder Bread, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held. The marks were similar and the goods were related, (Flowers Bakeries Brands, LLC v. OWN Your Hunger Inc., No. 91278157 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2024)).

OWN Your Hunger, Inc. (OWN) sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark WONDERSPREAD for use with “nut butters” in International Class 29. Flowers Bakeries Brands, LLC (Flowers) filed a Notice of Opposition based on a likelihood of confusion with its registered WONDER marks used with bread and bakery products. After briefly noting the pleaded registrations showed Flowers’ entitlement to a statutory cause of action and priority, the Board considered the DuPont factors for which there was evidence of record.

Similarity of the marks. The Board found that the shared element WONDER was the dominant element of the marks. While OWN argued that the marks differed in sound, the Board held that they were close enough that, in combination with the habit of consumers to shorten marks, they were highly similar. The WONDER element carried the same laudatory meaning in both cases.

Similarity of the goods, channels of trade, classes of consumers. The Board found that the goods were related because they were complementary, used together, and sold to the same purchasers through the same channels of trade.

Fame. The registered WONDER marks had been in use for over a century and Flowers was able to point to extensive marketing through national advertising, as well as unsolicited publicity, including being featured in the music video of a song by Lady Gaga. The Board found the registered marks famous for likelihood of confusion purposes.

Actual confusion. A lack of actual confusion evidence was not very meaningful, according to the Board, because OWN had only been using its mark in the United States since 2021 and sold its products only on its own website and on Amazon.com.

Balancing the factors, the Board found that a likelihood of confusion did exist. The Board sustained the opposition.

The Case is Opposition No. 91278157.

Judge: Johnson, M.

Attorneys: Theodore H. Davis Jr. (Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP) for Flowers Bakeries Brands, LLC. Brittany Faye Meyer-Belnap (United States) for OWN Your Hunger Inc.

Companies: Flowers Bakeries Brands, LLC; OWN Your Hunger Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO