Oxford Healthspan LLC

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: August 6, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Oxford Healthspan LLC
_____
Serial No. 97096288
_____
Kevin M. Hayes of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP,
for Oxford Healthspan LLC.
Daniel Donegan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 104.
Zachary Cromer, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Pologeorgis, Lebow and O’Connor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lebow, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Oxford Healthspan LLC, seeks to register the mark PUREMIDINE (in
standard characters) on the Principal Register for “Nutritional supplements for pets”
(Int’l Class 5).1 After the Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal to
register Applicant’s mark based on likelihood of confusion with the identical mark
PUREMIDINE, registered on the Principal Register for “spermidine” and various
1 Application Serial No. 97096288 was filed on October 27, 2021, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s alleged bona fide intent to use the
mark in commerce.

Serial No. 97096288
- 2 -
spermidine mixtures, derivatives, and isomers used as raw ingredients in the
manufacture of foods and nutritional and dietary supplements (Int’l Class 1)2 under
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)), Applicant appealed and
requested reconsideration. The request for reconsideration was denied, and the
appeal proceeded. The appeal is briefed and ready for decision. For the reasons set
forth below, we affirm the 2(d) refusal.
I. Likelihood of Confusion – Applicable Law
“The Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that ‘so resembles a
registered mark as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods … of
the applicant, to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive.’ 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) (also
called Section 2(d)).” In re Charger Ventures LLC, 64 F.4th 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2023). “To determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists under section 2(d), the
Board considers the so-called DuPont factors in its analysis. In re E. I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (reciting thirteen factors to be
2 Registration No. 7300088 (the “Cited Registration”), issued February 6, 2024. More
specifically, the registration identifies: “Spermidine and mixtures containing Spermidine all
used as raw ingredients for the manufacture of foods and nutritional and dietary
supplements; derivatives of Spermidine being salts, polymers, esters, and acids, and
mixtures containing derivatives of Spermidine, all used as raw ingredients for the
manufacture of foods and nutritional and dietary supplements; Spermidine isomers and
mixtures containing Spermidine isomers all used as raw ingredients for the manufacture of
foods and nutritional and dietary supplements; derivatives of Spermidine isomers being
salts, polymers, esters, and acids, and mixtures containing derivatives of Spermidine
isomers, all used as raw ingredients for the manufacture of foods and nutritional and dietary
supplements,” in Class 1.
Citations to the prosecution file refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system and identify the documents by title, date, and page in the
downloadable .pdf version. Citations to the briefs and other materials in the appeal record
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE online docket system.

Serial No. 97096288
- 3 -
considered, referred to as ‘DuPont factors’).” Id.
We consider each DuPont factor for which there is evidence and argument, In re
Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019), but “we focus our analysis on
those factors we find to be relevant.” ProMark Brands, Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., No.
91194974, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 67, at *26-27. “The weight given to each factor depends
on the circumstances of each case.” Charger Ventures, 64 F.4th at 1381. “Each case
must be decided on its own facts and the differences are often subtle ones.” Indus.
Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 1199 (CCPA 1973).
“In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are the
similarities between the marks and the similarities between the [goods].” Monster
Energy Co. v. Lo, No. 91225050, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 14, at *18 (TTAB 2023) (citing
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103 (CCPA 1976)
(“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of
differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the
marks.”).
A. Similarity of the Marks
Under the first DuPont factor, we consider the similarity or dissimilarity of
Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks in their entireties, taking into account their
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. DuPont, 476 F.2d at
1361. Here, the marks are identical. “This finding under the first du Pont factor
strongly supports a conclusion that a likelihood of confusion exists.” In re Midwest
Gaming & Entm’t LLC, No. 85111552, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 55, at *4.

Serial No. 97096288
- 4 -
B. Similarity of the Goods
The second DuPont factor considers the “similarity or dissimilarity and nature of
the goods” described in the Application and Cited Registration. DuPont, 476 F.2d at
1361. “The goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of
confusion.” In re Samsung Display Co., No. 90502617, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 258, at *6
(citing On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (Fed. Cir.
2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “They need only be
‘related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are
such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from
the same source.’” Id. (quoting Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d
1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Our task is to determine “whether ‘the consuming public
may perceive [them] as related enough to cause confusion about the source or origin
of the [goods].’” In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Once again, the Application identifies “Nutritional supplements for pets,” and the
Cited Registration identifies
Spermidine and mixtures containing Spermidine all used as raw
ingredients for the manufacture of foods and nutritional and dietary
supplements; derivatives of Spermidine being salts, polymers, esters,
and acids, and mixtures containing derivatives of Spermidine, all used
as raw ingredients for the manufacture of foods and nutritional and
dietary supplements; Spermidine isomers and mixtures containing
Spermidine isomers all used as raw ingredients for the manufacture of
foods and nutritional and dietary supplements; derivatives of
Spermidine isomers being salts, polymers, esters, and acids, and
mixtures containing derivatives of Spermidine isomers, all used as raw
ingredients for the manufacture of foods and nutritional and
dietary supplements.

Serial No. 97096288
- 5 -
The bolded language above in the registered mark’s identification shows that
“spermidine,” a “polyamine compound … found in ribosomes and living tissues” and
“originally isolated from semen,”3 functions as a raw material intended for
incorporation into nutritional and dietary supplements.
In addition, the Examining Attorney made of record approximately twenty third-
party registrations that he asserts “feature[] similar or encompassing goods to those
in the instant application and the cited registration.”4 “[U]se-based, third-party
registrations, although not evidence that the marks shown therein are in use or that
the public is familiar with them, nonetheless also have probative value to the extent
that they serve to suggest that the goods listed therein are of a kind which may
emanate from a single source under a single mark.” Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth
Von Gott Inc., No. 9119765, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 314, at *27-28 (finding third-party
registrations covering both wine and water probative of the relatedness of those
beverages). See also In re Country Oven, Inc., No. 87354443, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381,
at *9-10 (“As a general proposition, third-party registrations that cover goods … from
both the cited registration and an Applicant’s application are relevant to show that
the goods … are of a type that may emanate from a single source under one mark.”).
Although none of the third-party registrations specifically identify nutritional
supplements for pets, the Class 5 identifications of nutritional and dietary
3 See https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=spermidine (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY, accessed July 15, 2026) from which we take judicial notice. See Univ. of Notre
Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., No. 91061847, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 146, at *7
(“[T]he Board may take judicial notice of use of a term in dictionaries.”).
4 8 TTABVUE 4 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).

Serial No. 97096288
- 6 -
supplements are unrestricted and thus are broad enough to include pet supplements.
A few of them do reference animal health or animal-feed additives in Class 1, further
supporting the relatedness of the goods. We list the first ten below:
Registration # Relevant Goods
6279592 Food protein as a raw material for the food industry;
unprocessed protein used in the food industry; proteins for
use in the manufacture of nutritional supplements (Class 1),
and nutritional supplement and dietary nutritional
supplements (Class 5).5
6914830 Proteins for the food industry; raw proteins for use in
manufacture; proteins for use in industry; proteins for use
in manufacture; proteins for use in the manufacture of food
supplements (Class 1), and dietary and nutritional
supplements (Class 5).6
5060277 Raw materials for human and animal health, namely,
chemicals for use in the manufacture of dietary and
nutritional supplements (Class 1), and Dietary
supplements, food supplements and nutritional
supplements (Class 5).7
7282462 Proteins for use in the manufacture of foodstuffs, beverages
and nutritional supplements, protein in raw material form
for industrial use, proteins for the food industry (Class 1),
and Dietary and nutritional supplements (Class 5).8
6709119 Protein for use in the manufacture of food, beverages and
nutritional supplements (Class 1), and Nutritional and
dietary supplements (Class 5).9
6640096 Active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of
5 May 30, 2025 Office Action, at TSDR 8-9.
6 Id. at 10-11.
7 Id. at 12-13.
8 Id. at 14-15.
9 Id. at 16-17.

Serial No. 97096288
- 7 -
dietary and nutritional supplements in bulk powder, tablet,
capsule, gel, powder, and liquid form (Class 1), and Dietary
and nutritional supplements (Class 5).10
6849273 Nutritional ingredients, namely, vitamins for use in the
manufacture of dietary supplements; none of the foregoing
being sold to consumers (Class 1), and dietary and
nutritional supplements (Class 5).11
7151966 Nutritional and dietary additives for use in the manufacture
of animal feeds and premixes, namely, enzymes, vitamins,
amino acids, fatty acids, microminerals, and antioxidants
(Class 1), and dietary supplements and additives for use as
nutritional supplements (Class 5).12
7503867 Antioxidants and proteins used in the manufacture of food
products and food supplements, antioxidants for use in
manufacture, proteins for use in the manufacture of food
supplements (Class 1), and Dietary and nutritional
supplements (Class 5).13
7139908 Plant extracts and chemical compounds for use in the
manufacture of dietary supplements, nutritional
supplements, and nutraceuticals, and for use as an
ingredient in the manufacture of foods, beverages, and
health care products (Class 1); and dietary and nutritional
supplements (Class 5).14
The Examining Attorney also introduced Internet evidence showing companies
that supply both finished dietary and nutritional supplements and the raw
ingredients needed to manufacture them, as well as evidence showing a direct
functional relationship between the goods. Evidence that “a single company sells the
10 February 19, 2025 Final Office Action, at TSDR 54-55.
11 Id. at 56-57.
12 Id. at 58-59.
13 Id. at 60-61.
14 Id. at 62-63.

Serial No. 97096288
- 8 -
goods ... of both parties, if presented, is relevant to a relatedness analysis.” Hewlett-
Packard, 281 F.3d at 1267; see also Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, No.
91223352, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 557, at *56-57 (third-party websites promoting sale of
both parties’ goods showed relatedness); In re Embiid, No. 88202890, 2021 TTAB
LEXIS 168, at 30 (evidence of third parties offering goods of both applicant and
registrant pertinent to relatedness of the goods). For example:
● Superior Supplement Manufacturing (superiorsupplementmfg.com) offers
numerous dietary supplements (e.g., antioxidant complex, green tea extract complex,
blood sugar complex, vitamin D3 + K2 complex), as well as numerous raw “Dietary
Supplement Ingredients We Can Manufacture Or Supply In Bulk” that you can use
“to start you’re [sic] own line of dietary supplements.”15
● Supplement Manufacturing Partner (smpnutra.com) offers dietary and
nutritional supplements (e.g., spermidine, bovine collagen peptides, and thyroid
supports), as well as raw materials (e.g., berberine HCL, shilajit power, and
unflavored colostrum powder), and touts itself as “Your Premier Private Label
Supplement Manufacturer.”16
● Bimini (biminipethealth.com) offers dietary and nutritional supplements for
pets in the form of soft chews, baked treats, powders, oil and water-based liquids, and
chewable tables, as well as raw ingredients that can be used to manufacture
supplements: “Whether you want to use one of our formulations or bring your own,
15 Id. at 93-120.
16 Id. at 33-41.

Serial No. 97096288
- 9 -
we’re ready to work with you to make high quality products.”17
● NutraPak USA (nutrapackusa.com), a nutraceutical and supplement supplier,
offers private label pet supplement manufacturing, explains that dietary
supplements are “any products that people take to improve their health, well-being,
or performance,” and “may be single substances such as a certain vitamin or a
formula consisting of many ingredients.”18 It further explains that supplement
manufacturers produce products for both humans and pets.19
● Verdure Science (vs-corp.com) is a supplement company that offers “[i]ngestible
solutions” “across an array of tangible health categories” that includes a “food and
beverage ingredient portfolio,” personal care solutions, and animal health solutions.20
“Ingredient solutions … support diverse manufacturing needs and health attributes
from dispersible solutions, ingredients in combination, … we are your partners in
plant-based ingestible ingredients solutions.”21
The Examining Attorney also introduced evidence from several websites that
provide instructions or guides on how consumers can make their own nutritional and
dietary supplements from raw ingredients, to show that the respective goods are
related in the minds of the relevant purchasers and that consumers seeking
nutritional supplements can purchase ingredients to make their own supplements,
17 Id. at 9-16.
18 Id. at 24.
19 Id. at 18.
20 Id. at 51-52.
21 Id. at 50.

Serial No. 97096288
- 10 -
in addition to purchasing finished supplements from others. For example:
● iPharmachine (ipharmachine.com) has an article titled “How to Make Your Own
Supplements in 2024: A Step-by-Step Guide” to help consumers in making sure their
supplements won’t bring side effects. The article goes on to describe three main
categories of homemade supplements: “vitamins and minerals,” “herbal
supplements,” and “protein powders.”22
● LFA Tablet Presses (lfatablepresses.com) has a similar article titled “How To
Make Your Own Supplements,” which explains that “[t]o make one’s own
supplements, all one needs is an empty capsule made of gelatin … and the herbs or
supplements that one wants to add to the mix.”23 Notice from this explanation that
one can add supplements to the ingredients of other supplements.
●Another website, BlateCo (blatepapes.com) provides “The Ultimate Guide To
Making Your Own Supplements.”24
● The Bulk Nutrients website (bulknutrients.com) has an article, “How to Make
Your Own Pre Workout Supplement,” which explains that by “[c]reating your own
homemade pre workout supplement using raw ingredients like caffeine, beta-alanine,
creatine, and citrulline-malate, you can not only save money, but see improvements
in energy, and potentially muscle growth.”25
Even if most end consumers don’t personally compound their own supplements,
22 Id. at 122-29.
23 Id. at 131-32.
24 Id. at 136-55.
25 Id. at 151.

Serial No. 97096288
- 11 -
the existence of these guides and tutorials indicates that the two categories of goods
are linked in the marketplace. People interested in nutritional supplements
encounter information linking the raw ingredients to the finished products, which
supports a conclusion that consumers would perceive a connection between the
sources of the raw ingredients and the finished supplements.
Summarizing, the Examining Attorney asserts that “[t]he totality of this third-
party registration and commercial webpage evidence shows that consumers
encounter the same mark for both types of goods and would expect the goods to
emanate from the same source. This is especially true given the identical nature of
the marks at issue, which does not require as close or as strong a showing of
relatedness between the goods.”26 In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Applicant disagrees that the goods are related, arguing they are “fundamentally
different in nature, purpose, and use.”27 Applicant focuses on their different “Raw vs.
Finished” nature.28 Specifically, Applicant argues that “[t]he Cited Registration’s
goods are inputs to manufacturing, typically purchased in bulk, accompanied by
technical specifications, purity grades, and compliance documentation,” whereas
“Applicant’s goods are finished products with dosage instructions, branding, and
retail packaging for animal consumption.”29 According to Applicant, “the
26 8 TTABVUE 10 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
27 6 TTABVUE 13 (Applicant’s Brief).
28 Id. at 14.
29 Id.

Serial No. 97096288
- 12 -
identification in the Cited Registration itself limits the use to raw ingredients ‘for the
manufacture of foods and nutritional dietary supplements.’”30 Applicant’s pet
supplements, it maintains, have “a different category and audience entirely and,
importantly, finished retail products.”31
Pointing out the distinction between the raw versus finished nature of the
respective goods does not overcome the refusal because the Cited Registration doesn’t
merely identify a chemical compound; it expressly indicates that spermidine and its
derivatives are “raw ingredients for the manufacture of foods and nutritional and
dietary supplements.” Indeed, the Cited Registration itself places the goods in the
supply chain for the very type of finished nutritional supplements identified in the
application. We agree with Applicant that there is no per se rule that raw materials
and finished consumer products are related. But the fact that one product is raw and
the other is finished doesn’t render them unrelated when the record shows a direct
manufacturing relationship between them.
Applicant also argues that “[t]he mere fact that different goods could be used
together or sequentially does not establish relatedness for source confusion absent
evidence that they travel in the same channels to the same customers or are
otherwise perceived as emanating from the same source.”32 This argument is also not
persuasive. While it’s true that the “mere possibility” that two products could be used
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.

Serial No. 97096288
- 13 -
together or sequentially is not, by itself sufficient to establish relatedness, that is not
the situation presented here. As noted above, the Cited Registration expressly
identifies spermidine and its derivatives as “raw ingredients for the manufacture of
foods and nutritional and dietary supplements,” which creates a direct, defined
manufacturing relationship between the goods of the Cited Registration and the
finished nutritional supplements identified in the Application.
Moreover, as discussed, the record is not limited to the registration language. The
Examining Attorney introduced affirmative third-party evidence—both use-based
and registrations and commercial website evidence—showing that companies in the
nutritional products industry supply both raw ingredients used to manufacture
nutritional and dietary supplements and finished nutritional and dietary
supplements including pet supplements. That evidence demonstrates that the goods
are of a type that may emanate from a single source under a single mark and that
they are perceived as related in the marketplace.
Applicant asserts “numerous cases have found no likelihood of confusion between
even identical marks for goods and services used in a common industry – where the
goods are different from each other and the record does not provide a sufficient
evidentiary basis for inferring that they would be encountered by the same consumers
under circumstances leading to confusion as to source.”33 Applicant cites several cases
to support that contention, including Hi Country Foods Corp. v. Hi Country Beef
Jerky, No. 91071584, 1987 TTAB LEXIS 39 (finding no likelihood of confusion
33 Id. at 11-12.

Serial No. 97096288
- 14 -
between HI-COUNTRY for jerky and sausage and HI COUNTRY for apple juice);
Borg-Warner Chemicals, Inc. v. Helena Chemical Co., No. 91067201, 1984 TTAB
LEXIS 9 (finding no likelihood of confusion between BLENDEX for a stabilizing
chemical composition for fertilizers and pesticides, and BLENDEX for synthetic
resinous compositions used in industrial arts); In re Fesco, Inc., 1983 TTAB LEXIS
84, at *8-9 (finding no likelihood of confusion between FESCO for distributorship
services in the field of farm equipment/machinery and FESCO for various processing
equipment and machinery); Chase Brass & Copper Co., Inc. v. Special Springs, Inc.,
1978 TTAB LEXIS 33 (finding no likelihood of confusion between BLUE DOT for
springs for automotive distributors and BLUE DOT for brass rods).
Those cases are distinguishable. In Hi Country Foods, the Board found, inter alia,
that “prepared beef snack foods and fruit juices, while both food products, are
completely different in character … and would not be expected to originate from the
same entity, even when sold under virtually identical trademarks ….” Hi Country
Foods, 1987 TTAB LEXIS 39, at *7. Here, the evidence shows that both supplements
and the raw ingredients used to make them are sometimes provided by the same
company under the same mark, and consumers can make their own supplements
from raw ingredients. In Borg-Warner Chemicals, the applicant’s stabilizing chemical
compositions were limited for use in connection with fertilizers and pesticides, while
the goods covered by the opposer were synthetic resinous compositions for use in the
industrial arts, and the Board found there was “insufficient evidence to establish a
reasonable basis for assuming the respective goods would be encountered by the same

Serial No. 97096288
- 15 -
purchasers.” Borg-Warner Chemicals v. Helena Chemical, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 9, at *7-
8. Not so here, where the record shows not only that consumers will encounter both
goods together in the marketplace, but they could use one (the goods of the Cited
Registration) to create the other (Applicant’s goods).
In In re Fesco, the Board found that the cited registrant’s tanks were “clearly
limited to processing equipment and machines and any assumption that the tanks
would be used in farming operations,” the activity of Applicant, was “unwarranted.”
Fesco, 1983 TTAB LEXIS 83, at *4-5. Here, there are no such limitations in the
respective identifications of the Application or the Cited Registration that prevent
them from being offered or used together. Finally, in Chase Brass & Copper v. Special
Springs, there was “no evidence of record to show that the goods of both parties
bearing the identical mark would be encountered by the same personnel in such
companies.” Chase Brass & Copper, 1978 TTAB LEXIS 33, at *7. In contrast, the
record in this case is plentiful in showing a relationship between the goods.
Applicant also cites Autozone, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 373 F.3d 786, 797 (6th Cir.
2004) for the proposition that “if the goods and services are somewhat related, but
not competitive, then the likelihood of confusion will turn on other factors.” But
Autozone is a 6th Circuit case. "The Board follows the precedent of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit and its predecessor, the Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals,” not 6th Circuit case law. “These cases are not helpful to us because we must
apply Federal Circuit law on all of the DuPont factors.” In re Marshfield Consulting
LLC, No. 88099557, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 238, at *15 n.16. Moreover, Autozone was an

Serial No. 97096288
- 16 -
infringement case, where the analysis differs from an ex parte appeal of a refusal to
register a mark. See, e.g., In re FCA US LLC, No. 85650654, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 116,
at *18.
Applicant, citing In re White Rock Distilleries Inc., No. 77093221, 2009 TTAB
LEXIS 601, maintains that because “the Cited Registration’s good is expressly limited
to an ingredient, or an ‘additive,’” it “cannot be related to the supplement itself and
cannot be considered complementary to a pet supplement.”34 Applicant contends that
a raw ingredient would not be sold at a pet store or veterinary clinic, and that the two
goods “would not be complementary in that they could not be sold together.”35
Applicant’s reliance on White Rock Distilleries is misplaced. In that case, the
Board found vodka and wine unrelated because the record contained insufficient
evidence that the goods were complementary or that consumers would expect them
to emanate from the same source. White Rock Distilleries, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 601, at
*8-9. Here, the registration itself defines the goods as ingredients for the manufacture
of nutritional and dietary supplements, and the Examining Attorney has introduced
sufficient affirmative evidence that companies in the nutritional products industry
supply both raw ingredients and finished nutritional and dietary supplements
(including pet supplements). Relatedness does not require that the goods be sold side-
by-side in the same retail outlet. The inquiry is whether the goods are of a type that
may emanate from a single source under a single mark, and whether the
34 Id. at 18.
35 Id.

Serial No. 97096288
- 17 -
circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that consumers would be likely
to believe they come from the same source. The record here supports that conclusion.
As mentioned, the Cited Registration doesn’t merely identify a compound that just
happens to be usable as an additive. It expressly describes spermidine and its
derivatives as “raw ingredients for the manufacture of foods and nutritional and
dietary supplements.” This language creates a direct manufacturing relationship
between the goods of the Cited Registration and the finished nutritional supplements
identified in the application. The Board has long recognized that goods may be related
where one is a component or ingredient specifically intended for use with the other.
See, e.g., In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The fact
that the cited goods are identified as ingredients rather than finished products does
not preclude a finding of relatedness.
The second DuPont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
C. Similarity of Trade Channels and Classes of Customers
The third DuPont factor considers “the similarity or dissimilarity of established,
likely-to-continue trade channels.” DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. As the Examining
Attorney notes, “in the present case, neither Applicant’s nor Registrant’s recited
goods include any limitation with respect to channels of trade or classes of consumer,”
and they are “presumed to move in all normal channels of trade and are available to
all classes of consumers.”36 See Packard Press, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 227 F.3d
1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Elbaum, 1981 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *3.
36 8 TTABVUE 11 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).

Serial No. 97096288
- 18 -
Applicant argues that the channels of trade for its goods, and those of the Cited
Registration, are entirely distinct. According argues that the raw ingredients of the
Cited Registration are sold only to manufacturers and formulators in industrial or
business-to-business channels, while Applicant’s finished nutritional supplements for
pets are sold to ordinary pet owners through retail pet stores, veterinary clinics, and
direct-to-consumer channels.37 Applicant also contends that a raw ingredient would
not be sold at a pet store or veterinary clinic and that the two types of goods “could
not be sold together.”38
But the Examining Attorney provided printouts from the websites of
manufacturers of private-label pet supplements that offer their goods to those looking
to sell supplements under their own brands, including veterinarians, such as those
provided by the Bimini Pet Health website:
39
37 6 TTABVUE 19-20 (Applicant’s Brief).
38 Id. at 18.
39 February 19, 2025 Final Office Action, at TSDR 11.

Serial No. 97096288
- 19 -
The excerpt explains that “[i]f you’re a veterinarian looking for exclusive, science-
supported high-quality supplements to sell in your clinic, this option is right for you.”
The evidence supports a finding that the channels of trade for Applicant’s goods
include contract manufacturers selling pet supplements to the trade.
In addition, the NutriPak USA website explains, inter alia, that “making pet
supplements is a quickly growing industry” and that “pet supplement manufacturers
may also make products for humans as well”: 40
The Examining Attorney also provided evidence of companies that offer both
private-label supplements for pets and raw ingredients for the manufacture of
supplements generally, one of which offers a spermidine product. For example,
Superior Supplement Manufacturing, discussed above, offers private-label
supplements, including for pets, as well as dietary-supplement ingredients that it can
manufacture or supply in bulk:41
40 Id. at 18.
41 Id. at 93-120.

Serial No. 97096288
- 20 -
SMP Supplement Manufacturing Partner, a private-label supplement
manufacturer, offers raw materials, spermidine, and pet supplements:42
42 Id. at 35, 38.

Serial No. 97096288
- 21 -
Moreover, the website of Verdure Sciences, a supplier of ingredients for
supplements, states that “[f]rom household companion animals to equine, pet owners
are increasingly seeking out functional ingredients to support animal health and
wellness.”43 Applications for several of the ingredients offered on that website include
43 Id. at 50-52 (highlighting added).

Serial No. 97096288
- 22 -
ingredients for “Food & Beverage,” “Personal Care” and “Animal Health:”44
Overall, the evidence supports a finding that Applicant’s “nutritional supplements
for pets” and the Cited Registrant’s goods (“Spermidine and mixtures containing
Spermidine all used as raw ingredients for the manufacture of goods and nutritional
and dietary supplements; derivatives of Spermidine being salts, polymers, esters, and
acids, and mixtures containing derivatives of Spermidine, all used as raw ingredients
for the manufacture of foods and nutritional and dietary supplements; Spermidine
isomers and mixtures containing Spermidine isomers all used as raw ingredients for
the manufacture of foods and nutritional and dietary supplements; derivatives of
Spermidine isomers being salts, polymers, esters, and acids, and mixtures containing
derivatives of Spermidine isomers, all used as raw ingredients for the manufacture
of foods and nutritional and dietary supplements”) are offered in at least one
overlapping channel of trade, namely, through manufacturers of private-label
supplements and supplement ingredients.
As noted above, the unrestricted identifications require us to presume that the
44 Id. at 51-52.

Serial No. 97096288
- 23 -
goods travel in all ordinary channels of trade for goods of their respective types. See
Packard Press v. Hewlett-Packard, 227 F.3d at 1361; Elbaum, 1981 TTAB LEXIS 68,
at *3. Here, the third-party evidence of record shows that companies in the
nutritional products industry supply both raw ingredients used to manufacture
nutritional and dietary supplements, and finished supplements themselves,
including pet supplements. And it shows that the channels of trade for raw
ingredients and finished supplements are not as rigidly segregated as Applicant
asserts. Companies that manufacture finished pet supplements also source or supply
the raw ingredients used in those products, and the same entities may market both
categories of goods. Some of this evidence also treats certain raw or bulk ingredients
themselves as part of the commercial spectrum of dietary and nutritional
supplements, further illustrating that companies in this industry do not maintain a
rigid separation between the two categories of goods. Because the goods are related
and the record shows companies operating on both the raw-ingredient and finished-
product sides of the nutritional supplement industry, we find that the channels of
trade and classes of purchasers overlap. The third DuPont factor thus weighs in favor
of finding a likelihood of confusion.
D. Purchasing Conditions
Under the fourth DuPont factor, we consider “[t]he conditions under which and
buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.”
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. Applicant contends that the purchasers of the goods of the
Cited Registration are sophisticated: “Professional ingredient buyers,” like those who
purchase goods from the cited registrant, “vet raw ingredients via spec sheets,

Serial No. 97096288
- 24 -
certifications, pricing in bulk, supply agreements, and compliance regimes,” and thus
make “informed, deliberate purchases unlikely to be swayed by surface similarity in
marks.”45 In contrast, argues Applicant, “[P]et supplement purchasers,” like
Applicant’s customers, “exercise care due to animal health, dosage, active
ingredients, and brand reputation” and their purchases “often involve researchers,
professional guidance, or repeat purchases.”46
But as the Examining Attorney notes, Applicant’s contentions “are entirely
conclusory and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever …. They are essentially bare
assertions.”47 See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting Enzo Biochem v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(“attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Even assuming that many
professional buyers of raw ingredients exercise elevated care, and that some
purchasers of pet supplements likewise exercise care, the record does not establish
that all relevant purchasers do so to a degree that would eliminate the likelihood of
confusion. Because the identifications of goods are unrestricted as to classes of
purchasers, we must consider the full range of potential purchasers, including less
sophisticated ones. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, L.P. v. Lion Capital LLP, 746
F.3d 1317, 1323-25 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, even sophisticated or careful purchasers
are not immune to source confusion. See In re Research & Trading Corp., 793 F.2d
45 Id. at 15.
46 Id.
47 8 TTABVUE 12 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).

Serial No. 97096288
- 25 -
1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“That the relevant class of buyers may exercise care does
not necessarily impose on that class the responsibility of distinguishing between
similar trademarks for similar goods.”); Weiss Assocs., Inc. v. HRL Assocs., Inc., 902
F.2d 1546, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1990). That is particularly true here, where the marks are
identical and the degree of care exercised by purchasers is less likely to prevent
confusion. See i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Moreover, as we have seen from the evidence in this case, it is not necessarily true
that the purchasers of the goods in the Cited Registration are “professional
ingredients buyers” as Applicant posits. The evidence shows that consumers can
purchase raw ingredients to make their own supplements, which appears to be a
trend in the marketplace. Thus, the line between the customers of the goods of the
Application and the Cited Registration is not so clear as to naturally preclude
ordinary purchasers who exercise ordinary care in their purchases.
The fourth DuPont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
E. No Actual Confusion
Applicant argues that “Applicant’s finished pet supplements (Class 5) and Cited
Registration’s raw spermidine ingredients for human food/supplement manufacture
(Class 1) … have coexisted without actual confusion” and “there is no evidence of
actual confusion,” thus invoking the eighth DuPont factor under which we consider
the “length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use
without evidence of actual confusion.”48 But the absence of any reported instances of
48 6 TTABVUE 6, 22 (Applicant’s Brief).

Serial No. 97096288
- 26 -
actual confusion would be meaningful only if the record revealed appreciable and
continuous use of Applicant’s mark for a significant period of time in the same
markets as those served by the Cited Registrant under its mark. Here, the
Application basis is still intent-to-use under Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), and
aside from the argument of Applicant’s counsel, which is no substitute for evidence,
see Cai v. Diamond Hong, 901 F.3d at 1371, the record is devoid of any evidence of
actual use of Applicant’s mark.
The eighth DuPont factor is neutral.
F. Conclusion
The DuPont factors concerning the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the
goods, and the similarity of trade channels and classes of customers all weigh in favor
a finding of likelihood confusion, the first particularly so. The DuPont factors
concerning the purchasing conditions and actual confusion are neutral. And there are
no factors weighing against a finding of likelihood of confusion. We thus conclude that
Applicant’s PUREMIDINE mark, as used in connection with the goods identified in
Applicant’s application so resembles the cited mark PUREMIDINE for the goods
listed in the cited registration as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to
deceive under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Decision: The refusal is affirmed.