## Facts

- A bakery sought federal registration of the word mark **MARTIN’S** for “wheat bran and honey bread.”
- The PTO refused registration under Lanham Act § 2(d) based on a prior registration of the identical word mark **MARTIN’S** for “cheese.”
- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), by a divided vote, affirmed the § 2(d) refusal for the word mark on the ground that use on bread and cheese would likely cause consumer confusion.
- In separate proceedings not appealed, the TTAB allowed registration of a composite mark including additional wording and a design, subject to a disclaimer requirement.
- The applicant appealed the TTAB’s refusal of the word mark registration to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s finding that registering **MARTIN’S** for bread would be likely to cause confusion with the identical registered mark **MARTIN’S** for cheese under Lanham Act § 2(d).
2. Whether the TTAB properly considered the complementary (conjoint) use and common marketing proximity of bread and cheese in evaluating likelihood of confusion.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register **MARTIN’S** for bread.
- The court held that the TTAB’s likelihood-of-confusion determination was supported by substantial evidence.
- The court approved considering bread and cheese as related goods because they are commonly used together, sold through overlapping retail channels, and often displayed in close proximity.
- The court agreed that purchasers exercise relatively low care for inexpensive, frequently purchased staple food items, increasing the risk of confusion when identical marks are used.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion under Lanham Act § 2(d) is assessed based on probative record facts using the multifactor framework associated with *In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.*
- Identity of marks in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression strongly favors a finding of likely confusion.
- Goods need not be identical or directly competitive to be related for § 2(d) purposes; complementary goods and customary joint use can support relatedness.
- Overlapping channels of trade and low purchaser care for routine, low-cost items are probative of likely confusion.
- Conjoint use of goods is a proper consideration in the overall likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

## Conclusion

The court upheld refusal of the word mark **MARTIN’S** for bread because identical marks used on complementary, commonly co-marketed staple foods sold through similar outlets to ordinary consumers supported a fact-based finding of likely confusion under § 2(d).


In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984)