Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Meridian Consumer Brands LLC ("Opposer" or "MCB"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10020, hereby opposes registration of the mark MERIDIAN FRESH, Application Serial No. 97/412,558, filed on May 12, 2022, and published for opposition in the Official Gazette on September 6, 2022, by Brindoval Home Goods In

II. THE OPPOSER AND ITS STANDING A. Identity and Business of Opposer

1. Meridian Consumer Brands LLC is a Delaware limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 450 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10016.

2. MCB is a leading consumer packaged goods company that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes branded household cleaning products, personal care products, and home fragrance products throughout the United States and, through licensed distributors, in select international markets.

3. MCB distributes its products through a comprehensive network of trade channels, including major national grocery chains, club warehouse stores, mass merchandisers, home improvement retailers, dollar stores, and e-commerce platforms, reaching consumers in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.

4. MCB's total revenue for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 ("FY 2022"), was approximately three hundred eighty-seven million dollars ($387,000,000), reflecting the company's significant commercial presence in the consumer products marketplace.

5. MCB is a portfolio company of Waypoint Capital Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with principal offices at 590 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10022. Waypoint Capital Partners LLC acquired MCB in 2019 and has since supported MCB's continued investment in brand development, product innovation, and national distribution expansion. At all times relevant to this proceeding, MCB has been

6. Opposer is the owner of the following valid and subsisting federal trademark registrations on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, each of which predates Applicant's filing date of May 12, 2022, and each of which is relevant to this opposition: (1) U.S. Registration No. 4,218,506 • Mark: MERIDIAN (standard character) • International Class: 3 • Identification of Goods: Cleaning p

7. Each of the foregoing registrations was issued prior to Applicant's application filing date of May 12, 2022, and remains in full force and effect as of the date of this Notice of Opposition. None of the foregoing registrations has been cancelled, surrendered, abandoned, or subjected to any pending cancellation proceeding. C. Continuous Use and Commercial Strength

8. Opposer has used the MERIDIAN mark continuously in interstate commerce in connection with household cleaning products since approximately 2011 — a period of more than eleven years prior to the filing date of the opposed application. Throughout this period, Opposer has maintained substantially exclusive use of the MERIDIAN mark in connection with cleaning preparations in the marketplace.

9. MCB's MERIDIAN-branded household cleaning product line, which includes all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, disinfecting sprays, floor cleaners, and related cleaning preparations, generated approximately ninety-four million five hundred thousand dollars ($94,500,000) in net revenue in FY 2022. This revenue figure represents approximately 24.4% of MCB's total revenue for the same fiscal year and reflects the comme

10. From 2011 through 2022, MCB has invested a cumulative total of approximately forty-seven million two hundred thousand dollars ($47,200,000) in advertising, marketing, and promotional expenditures dedicated to the MERIDIAN cleaning product line. This figure represents an average annual investment of approximately three million nine hundred thirty thousand dollars ($3,930,000) per year over the twelve-year period.

11. Through such extensive, continuous, and substantially exclusive use, promotion, and sales over a period exceeding eleven years, Opposer's MERIDIAN marks have acquired strong consumer recognition, significant goodwill, and broad marketplace awareness among consumers of household cleaning products in the United States. The MERIDIAN mark is widely recognized as identifying MCB as the source of high-quality household

12. As the owner of prior federal registrations for marks that are likely to be confused with Applicant's applied-for mark, Opposer is a party with a real interest in this proceeding and a reasonable belief that it would be damaged by registration of the applied-for mark, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1063. See Ritchie v. Veltason, 170 F.3d 1092, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Empresa Cub

13. Registration of the applied-for mark MERIDIAN FRESH for cleaning preparations would damage Opposer by, among other things: (a) creating a likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and Opposer's prior marks among consumers encountering the respective parties' goods in the marketplace; (b) diluting the distinctiveness, exclusivity, and commercial value of Opposer's MERIDIAN marks; (c) impairing the subst

14. Accordingly, Opposer has standing to bring and maintain this opposition.

15. On May 12, 2022, Applicant Brindoval Home Goods Inc. filed Application Serial No. 97/412,558 to register the mark MERIDIAN FRESH in standard character form for goods identified in International Class 3, described as "cleaning preparations," on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

16. The application was examined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, passed to publication, and published for opposition in the Official Gazette on September 6, 2022. A copy of the published application is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference.

17. Applicant Brindoval Home Goods Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business at 7200 France Avenue South, Suite 300, Edina, Minnesota 55435. Upon information and belief, Applicant is a regional big-box home goods retailer operating approximately one hundred forty-eight (148) retail store locations across twelve (12) Midwestern and Mountain West states, with a growing direct-to-consumer e-co

18. Upon information and belief, in approximately July 2022, Applicant launched a private-label line of household cleaning products under the mark MERIDIAN FRESH, including, without limitation, all-purpose spray cleaner, glass cleaner, disinfecting wipes, and dish soap. These products are sold in all of Applicant's approximately 148 retail store locations and through Applicant's e-commerce platform.

19. The goods sold by Applicant under the MERIDIAN FRESH mark are cleaning preparations that are identical to or closely overlapping with the goods covered by Opposer's prior registrations, and they are marketed to the same general class of ordinary household consumers through the same or overlapping channels of trade.

IV. GROUNDS FOR OPPOSITION — LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) A. Statement of the Legal Standard

20. Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), provides in pertinent part that no trademark shall be registered on the Principal Register if it "[c]onsists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connecti

21. The determination of whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two marks is made by weighing all relevant factors, as set forth by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973). These factors — commonly referred to as the "du Pont factors" — include, but are not limited to: (i) the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entire

22. Not all of the du Pont factors are necessarily relevant in every case, and any single factor may be dispositive. See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In cases involving identical goods, the first du Pont factor — the similarity of the marks — need not be as great to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Migh

23. Application of the relevant du Pont factors to the present case demonstrates that registration of Applicant's mark MERIDIAN FRESH for cleaning preparations is barred by Section 2(d) because such registration would create a likelihood of confusion with Opposer's prior registered marks. B. Similarity of the Marks (First *Du Pont* Factor)

24. Applicant's mark MERIDIAN FRESH incorporates Opposer's registered mark MERIDIAN in its entirety as the dominant, leading element of the applied-for mark. It is well established that the incorporation of an entire registered mark within an applicant's mark is a significant factor weighing in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d at 1347 ("Applicant's mark MIGHTY LEA

25. The word MERIDIAN is the first and dominant element of both Applicant's mark MERIDIAN FRESH and Opposer's mark MERIDIAN CLEAN, and it is the sole word element of Opposer's standard character registration for MERIDIAN (U.S. Reg. No. 4,218,506). Consumers typically accord greater weight to the first word or term in a mark, because that is the element most likely to be impressed upon the memory of the consuming publ

26. The addition of the descriptive or merely suggestive word "FRESH" to the MERIDIAN mark does not create a distinct commercial impression sufficient to distinguish the applied-for mark from Opposer's marks. The word "FRESH" is commonly used in the cleaning products industry to describe the scent, quality, or effect of a cleaning product, and it is therefore weak as a source-identifying element. See In re Dixie Rest

27. The similarity between the applied-for mark and Opposer's marks is further underscored by the parallel structure of Applicant's mark MERIDIAN FRESH and Opposer's registered mark MERIDIAN CLEAN (U.S. Reg. No. 5,034,771). Both marks consist of the identical dominant term MERIDIAN followed by a single descriptive or suggestive word denoting a product attribute associated with cleaning — "CLEAN" in the case of Oppose

28. In their entireties, the marks MERIDIAN FRESH and MERIDIAN / MERIDIAN CLEAN are similar in appearance (sharing the identical dominant word element "MERIDIAN"), similar in sound (the marks would be pronounced with the same leading three syllables, "meh-RID-ee-un"), and similar in connotation and commercial impression (both suggest cleaning products bearing the MERIDIAN brand). This high degree of similarity in app

29. The goods identified in Applicant's Application Serial No. 97/412,558 — "cleaning preparations" in International Class 3 — are legally identical to the goods covered by Opposer's prior registrations, each of which covers "cleaning preparations" or specific subcategories thereof (namely, all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, disinfecting sprays, and floor cleaners) in International Class 3.

30. When the goods described in an application and a cited registration are identical on their face, or when one party's identification of goods encompasses the other's, the second du Pont factor strongly favors a finding of likelihood of confusion, and it must be presumed that the goods travel through the same channels of trade and are offered to the same classes of consumers. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 136

31. Beyond the legal identity of the goods as described in the respective application and registrations, the parties' goods are identical in fact. Both Opposer and Applicant sell household cleaning products, including, without limitation, all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, and disinfecting products. The goods at issue target the same consumer needs and occupy the same retail shelf space, further heightening the po

32. The identity of the goods covered by the opposed application and Opposer's prior registrations weighs strongly and unequivocally in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. D. Similarity of Trade Channels and Classes of Consumers (Third and Fourth *Du Pont* Factors)

33. Both Opposer's and Applicant's goods travel in the same or highly overlapping channels of trade. Opposer distributes its MERIDIAN-branded cleaning products through major grocery chains, club warehouse stores, mass merchandisers, and e-commerce platforms nationwide. Applicant sells its MERIDIAN FRESH-branded cleaning products through its 148 retail store locations — which are big-box home goods stores of the same

34. Because the goods identified in the opposed application and in Opposer's registrations are identical (i.e., "cleaning preparations" in International Class 3), and because neither the opposed application nor Opposer's registrations contain any limitations on channels of trade or classes of consumers, it must be presumed that the parties' goods are sold through all normal channels of trade for such goods and to all

35. Both Opposer's and Applicant's goods are marketed to the same class of consumers — ordinary household consumers who purchase cleaning products for home use. These consumers include the general adult population, who routinely encounter cleaning products in their daily shopping activities and who do not exercise specialized expertise or heightened sophistication in selecting among such products. The overlapping and

36. The identity of trade channels and the overlap in classes of consumers weigh in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. E. Strength of Opposer's Marks (Fifth *Du Pont* Factor)

37. The strength of a mark is assessed based on both its inherent distinctiveness and its commercial strength — that is, the recognition the mark has earned in the marketplace through use, promotion, and sales. See In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

38. As an initial matter, Opposer's MERIDIAN mark is inherently distinctive. The word "MERIDIAN," which refers to an imaginary circle on the Earth's surface passing through the poles, or more colloquially to a high point or peak, has no descriptive or suggestive relationship to cleaning preparations. As applied to such goods, the mark MERIDIAN is arbitrary, placing it in the highest category of inherent distinctivene

39. In addition to its inherent strength, Opposer's MERIDIAN mark possesses significant acquired or commercial strength. As set forth above, Opposer has used the MERIDIAN mark in continuous interstate commerce since approximately 2011 — a period of more than eleven years. During this time, the MERIDIAN-branded cleaning product line has generated approximately $94.5 million in annual revenue (FY 2022), and Opposer has

40. The significant commercial strength and extensive marketplace recognition of the MERIDIAN marks amplify the scope of protection to which those marks are entitled and correspondingly increase the likelihood of confusion with any mark that incorporates the dominant element MERIDIAN for identical or closely related goods. A strong mark is entitled to a broad scope of protection, and the likelihood of confusion is co

41. The strength of Opposer's MERIDIAN marks weighs heavily in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion. F. Absence of Conditions Reducing Likelihood of Confusion (Additional Relevant *Du Pont* Factors)

42. The goods at issue — household cleaning products — are relatively low-cost consumer products typically purchased without the exercise of heightened deliberation or sophisticated analysis. Ordinary consumers exercise only typical or ordinary care in selecting among cleaning products. Under such purchasing conditions, consumers are more susceptible to source confusion. See In re FabFitFun, Inc., 127 USPQ2d 1670, 16

43. There are no restrictions on the channels of trade or classes of consumers in either Opposer's federal registrations or Applicant's pending application that would serve to limit the overlap between the parties' respective goods, trade channels, or consumer bases. In the absence of such restrictions, the Board must presume that the goods travel through all normal channels of trade for cleaning preparations and are

44. No conditions exist in the present case that would diminish or negate the likelihood of confusion otherwise established by the similarity of the marks, the identity of the goods, the overlap in trade channels and consumer classes, and the strength of Opposer's marks. To the contrary, every relevant du Pont factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.

45. By virtue of the foregoing, registration of the mark MERIDIAN FRESH, Application Serial No. 97/412,558, is barred under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), because such registration would be likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception with Opposer's previously used and registered marks, specifically: (a) U.S. Registration No. 4,218,506 for the mark MERIDIAN (standard character) in Interna

46. The applied-for mark MERIDIAN FRESH incorporates the dominant element of each of Opposer's prior marks, covers legally identical goods, travels in the same trade channels, targets the same consumer classes, and is applied to goods in a category where Opposer's marks enjoy significant commercial strength and consumer recognition. Under the totality of the du Pont factors, there is a strong likelihood of confusion

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Opposer Meridian Consumer Brands LLC respectfully requests that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:

1. Sustain this Notice of Opposition in its entirety;

2. Refuse registration of Applicant's mark MERIDIAN FRESH, Application Serial No. 97/412,558, on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and

3. Grant Opposer such other and further relief as the Board may deem just and proper.

VII. SIGNATURE Respectfully submitted, October 14, 2022 CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Counsel for Opposer, Meridian Consumer Brands LLC 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, New York 10020 By: ________ Alan Ngo Partner, intellectual Property Practice Group Telephone: (212) 848-6200 Email: alan.ngo@calderwoodharkness.com Attorney Registration No. (NY): 4587219 Additional Counsel: Christy Bauer Lead Associate,

VIII. VERIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 2.104(b) VERIFICATION I, Thomas R. Hennessy, declare as follows:

1. I am the General Counsel of Meridian Consumer Brands LLC, the Opposer in the above-captioned proceeding. I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of Opposer.

2. I have read the foregoing Notice of Opposition and am familiar with its contents. I have personal knowledge of the facts relating to Opposer's business, trademarks, and commercial activities set forth herein, and have supervised the preparation of this Notice of Opposition.

3. The facts set forth in the foregoing Notice of Opposition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry.