In re Premera Blue Cross
Decision Date | 22 May 2009 |
Docket Number | 78917213 |
Parties | In re Premera Blue Cross |
Court | Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |
THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Sarah E. Nagae of Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC for Premera Blue Cross.
Steven Foster, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106 (Mary I Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
Before Drost, Zervas, and Kuhlke Administrative Trademark Judges.
Drost Administrative Trademark Judge:
On June 26, 2006, Premera Blue Cross (applicant) filed an intent-to-use application to register the mark LIFEWISE CARE BRIDGE, in standard character form, for services ultimately identified as:
Providing health care information, namely, resource information, immunization reminder services and online health care resource information; providing telephone and online health care information, namely, health guidelines related to the identification, diagnosis and treatment of diseases providing information on cancer screening and cancer treatment programs; providing online information on health care, nutrition, pregnancy, illness, alternative medicine children's health care, and senior health care; providing online health care information about wellness, health treatment options, health facilities and health-related questions and answers; providing pharmacy information services, namely, providing telephone and online health care information regarding prescription and non-prescription drugs and drug interactions; providing information for the management of multiple medications in Class 44.[1]
The examining attorney has refused to register applicant's mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)) because of a prior registration for the mark LIFEWISE, in typed or standard character form, for "educational services in the field of health care by means of conducting classes and seminars, providing exercise facilities and physical fitness programs and the distribution of related printed material" in Class 41.[2]
Is applicant's mark LIFEWISE CARE BRIDGE for its services involving providing health care information likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)) in view of a registration for the mark LIFEWISE for educational services in the field of health care by means of conducting classes and seminars, providing exercise facilities and physical fitness programs and the distribution of related printed material?
The examining attorney's evidence of third-party, use-based registrations show that applicant's services involving providing health care information are related to registrant's educational services in the field of health care by means of conducting classes.[3] See Registration No. 2432744 ( ); No. 2871812 ( ); No. 2975139 ( ); No. 3424444 ( ); No. 3210350 ( ); No. 3221442 ( ); No. 3127706 ( ); and No. 2900854 (CONDITIONCARE CONNECTION for "providing health care information by telephone and Internet" and "providing seminars and workshops in the field of health").
Applicant is the owner of the following ten registrations.
The examining attorney argues that the Brief at 2-3. Regarding applicant's claimed registrations, the examining attorney points out that "none of the prior registrations owned by the applicant cover any of the services for which the applicant now seeks registration… The much closer relationship between the services of the respective parties would lead consumers to wrongly believe that the registrant's services under the mark LIFEWISE came from the same source as the related services of the applicant, whose mark includes prominent use of the same term as its 'house mark.'" Brief at 3.
Applicant argues that the CARE BRIDGE portion of its mark "is distinctive in its own right." Reply Brief at 1. Also applicant points out that "registrant's services do not include the provision of health information other than within a class or seminar setting… Appellant's services do not include the offering of classes or seminars." Id. at 3. Finally, applicant argues that its "health care information services are related to its health insurance services, as it is routine for a health insurance company to also offer health care information, for example, on its web site and through mailings." Id. at 4.
When there is a question of likelihood of confusion, we analyze the facts as they relate to the relevant factors set out in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). See also In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial