Decisions · Opposition No. 91223683
Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC
Opposition No. 91223683 · Decided 2022-06-15 · Opposition
What happened
The Board sustained Made in Nature’s opposition and refused registration of Pharmavite’s NATURE MADE mark for Class 29 foods such as soy-based food bars, fruit-based meal replacement bars, dried fruits, dried fruit-based snacks, yogurts, soups and dried vegetables, finding the mark highly similar to Made in Nature’s MADE IN NATURE marks for fresh, dried and chocolate-covered fruits and vegetables — the same words simply transposed — with goods identical in part (dried fruits and fruit/vegetable snacks) and overlapping channels and purchasers.
The marks
Applicant
NATURE MADE (standard characters)
Soy-based food bars and snack foods, fruit-based meal replacement bars, vegetable-based food bars, nut/seed snack bars, soy milk substitutes, yogurts and yogurt beverages, soups, coffee creamers, dried and candied fruits, dried fruit-based snacks, fruit jellies and purees, dried vegetables, and vegetable- and fruit-based snack foods (Class 29; Application Serial No. 85862772, intent to use)
Opposer's mark
MADE IN NATURE (standard characters and design forms); ORGANIC MADE IN NATURE (13 registrations, plus common-law MADE IN NATURE rights)
Fresh, dried, dehydrated and prepared fruits and vegetables, dried fruit-based snacks and fruit-based snack foods, and chocolate covered fruit (Classes 29, 30, 31); common-law dried fruits since as early as 1996
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Similar | Same two words MADE and NATURE spoken in reverse order, dropping only the preposition ‘in’ |
| appearance | Similar | Reverse combination of the same words; standard-character application could appear in the same font, size, color and stylization as the prior marks |
| meaning | Similar | Both phrases mean created by or from nature, focusing on the same natural-origin characteristic of the goods |
| commercial impression | Similar | Transposed marks convey substantially the same commercial impression under the DIET-RITE/RITE DIET line of cases |
The Board found the marks similar in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression — indeed ‘highly similar’ — because NATURE MADE is simply MADE IN NATURE transposed.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Dispositive | NATURE MADE is a reverse combination/transposition of MADE IN NATURE conveying the same meaning; found highly similar. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Dispositive | Goods identical in part for the Class 29 and 30 applications and related for all three, per the identifications, 31 relevant third-party registrations, 138 retailer websites and both parties' testimony. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Favored Opposer | Unrestricted identifications; channels and ordinary general-public purchasers presumed identical or shown to overlap. |
| 4 | Conditions of sale and buyer sophistication | Favored Opposer | Low-cost groceries bought quickly and often on impulse; least sophisticated potential purchaser standard applied. |
| 5 | Fame of the prior mark | Neutral | Fame not proven; marks conceptually weak (highly suggestive) but registered and of moderate commercial strength. |
| 6 | Number and nature of similar marks in use | Favored Applicant | Admissible third-party registrations showed the individual terms NATURE and MADE weak, making the marks highly suggestive — but weak marks are still protected. |
| 7 | Nature and extent of actual confusion | Neutral | No actual confusion, but the intent-to-use goods have essentially not been sold, so there was no reasonable opportunity for confusion. |
| 12 | Extent of potential confusion | Favored Opposer | Potential confusion found substantial, not de minimis. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential consolidated opposition holding transposed marks (MADE IN NATURE vs. NATURE MADE) highly similar and refusing a famous supplement brand’s food/beverage extension; also instructive on mass third-party-registration weakness evidence (975 filed, ~90 relevant), fame versus moderate commercial strength, neutral actual-confusion analysis for intent-to-use goods, and untimely Morehouse defenses, with pointed practice guidance on record management.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC
The Board sustained Made in Nature’s opposition and refused registration of Pharmavite’s NATURE MADE mark for Class 30 foods such as cereal bars, grain-based food bars, crackers, bakery…
Opposition No. 91223352 · 2022-06-15 · NATURE MADE (standard characters) v. MADE IN NATURE (standard characters and design forms); ORGANIC MADE IN NATURE (13 registrations, plus common-law MADE IN NATURE rights)
Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC
The Board sustained Made in Nature’s opposition and refused registration of Pharmavite’s NATURE MADE mark for Class 32 beverages such as nutritional-supplement energy drinks, vitamin and…
Opposition No. 91227387 · 2022-06-15 · NATURE MADE (standard characters) v. MADE IN NATURE (standard characters and design forms); ORGANIC MADE IN NATURE (13 registrations, plus common-law MADE IN NATURE rights)
Major League Baseball Players Association v. Michael P. Chisena
The Board sustained the MLBPA’s opposition and refused registration of Michael Chisena’s HERE COMES THE JUDGE mark for t-shirts and other clothing, finding that MLBPA licensees sold apparel…
Opposition No. 91240180 · 2023-04-12 · HERE COMES THE JUDGE (standard characters, Serial No. 87528440) v. HERE COMES THE JUDGE and related common-law 'Judge Marks' (pleaded as JUDGE, alone and with other terms) used on licensed Aaron Judge apparel
Major League Baseball Players Association v. Michael P. Chisena
The Board sustained the MLBPA’s opposition and refused registration of Michael Chisena’s ALL RISE mark for t-shirts and other clothing, finding that MLBPA licensees sold ALL RISE apparel…
Opposition No. 91242556 · 2023-04-12 · ALL RISE (standard characters, Serial No. 87528414) v. ALL RISE and related common-law 'Judge Marks' (pleaded as ALL RISE, alone and with other terms) used on licensed Aaron Judge apparel
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Written from the opinion; research-significance tier confirmed.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.