mark for comparative purposes. ConAgra was aware of the HEALTHY RECIPES registration. It had concluded that despite the fact that the package on the HEALTHY RECIPES product used a good bit of green, like ConAgra, and the word “Healthy” was used in the mark, the HEALTHY RECIPES mark was not confusingly similar. This was true according to a ConAgra executive because ConAgra did not have the right to exclusive use of the word “Healthy” and the word “Recipes” was not synonymous with the word “Choice” (filing 85, Hughes deposition, TR 89:2-25; 90:1-24). I agree with ConAgra that “dissection” of a mark based upon minute similarities or dissimilarities is inappropriate as suggested in the case cited by ConAgra, Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Missouri v. Borgsmiller, 477 F.2d 586, 587 (C.C.P.A.1973) (<HOLDING>). However, I do not believe Hormel suggests the
holding that in light of the evidence it strains credulity to believe that the two corporations have no corporate connection as defendants assert and thus service on one did not effect service on the other holding that trial court apparently merged two robbery offenses before sentencing as it imposed only one 20year sentence holding that it was inappropriate to dissect two figures of a grandpa on the basis that one was slightly stooped and the other apparently spry holding that government avoided committing prejudicial error despite having included two statutory offenses in one count of indictment because government did not offer evidence as to the violation of one of the statutes and the trial court did not convict on that basis holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate