DOCSLIB.ORG

Fruits; Fresh Vegetables and Fresh Limes” (Opp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fruits; Fresh Vegetables and Fresh Limes” (Opp Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA881622 Filing date: 03/07/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91238258 Party Plaintiff Wonderful Citrus LLC Correspondence DARYA P LAUFER ESQ Address ROLL LAW GROUP PC 11444 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 UNITED STATES Email: [email protected], [email protected] Submission Other Motions/Papers Filer's Name Michael M. Vasseghi Filer's email [email protected], [email protected] Signature / Michael M. Vasseghi / Date 03/07/2018 Attachments Opposition with Exhibits-reduced size.pdf(1950576 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Wonderful Citrus LLC, Opposition No. 91238258 Opposer, Application Serial No. 87/472272 v. APB, Inc. dba Vision Produce Company, Applicant. OPPOSER WONDERFUL CITRUS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS I. INTRODUCTION Applicant moves for judgment on the pleadings (“Motion”), arguing that “there is no genuine issue as to Opposer’s lack of prior rights in a trademark that could be confusingly similar to Applicant’s Mark.” (Motion pg. 3.)1 Applicant’s Motion is not well taken. It acknowledges that Opposer has alleged exactly what it takes issue with – that Opposer has prior rights in a trademark that could be confusingly similar to Applicant’s Mark. Despite this, Applicant seeks to take issue with those allegations, implicitly contending that Opposer will be unable to prove what it has alleged. (Motion pg. 2.) This is not a proper basis for judgment on the pleadings, which must accept as true all allegations asserted in the Opposition. Applicant’s Motion is little more than a series of strawman arguments to which Applicant fails to apply any legal analysis. Instead, Applicant contents itself to a series of unwarranted conclusions. Applicant’s Motion must be denied because Applicant applies incorrect standards, fails to deem 1 Applicant has not numbered the pages of its Motion. {2808553.3} 1 Opposer’s allegations as true and afford Opposer all reasonable inferences, thereby failing to carry its burden. The Board must deny the Motion. II. ARGUMENT A. Applicant’s Motion Must Be Denied Because It Fails To Deem Opposer’s Allegations And Reasonable Inferences As True. Procedurally, Applicant’s Motion must be denied because the determinations it seeks cannot be made at the pleading stage. The sole legal authority Applicant cites that considered judgment on the pleading is Kraft Group LLC v. Harpole, 90 USPQ2d 1837, 1840 (2009). Under Kraft, Opposer, as non-moving party, is entitled to have “all [its] well pleaded factual allegations … accepted as true …[and] All reasonable inferences from the pleadings are drawn in [its] favor.” Id. Applicant’s Motion ignores this legal principle since its motion does not point to any particular lack of allegations in the Notice of Opposition. To illustrate Applicant’s use of an erroneous standard, Applicant quotes Life Zone, Inc. v. Middleman Group Inc., 87 USPQ.2d 1953, 1959 (TTAB 2008): “Without proof of priority, an opposer cannot prevail” (emphasis added). Life Zone, Inc. deals with an opposer’s ultimate burden at trial, not a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Id. at 1953. Whether an opposer may ultimately prove an allegation is irrelevant at the pleading stage, so long as it is reasonably alleged. Applicant impermissibly contradicts Opposer’s allegations on three central points. • Applicant claims “Opposer does not have priority.” (Motion pg. 3.) This is flatly contradicted by Opposer’s express allegation that it marketed produce under its marks “prior to the March 31, 2017.” (Opp. ¶ 4.) • Applicant claims that there can be no likelihood of confusion because Opposer’s marks are too functional to be registrable (Motion pg. 4), in contradiction to Opposer’s allegations that it is “the owner of … Common Law rights for various I KUNIK & Lime Design trademarks for use on or in connection with fresh fruits; fresh vegetables and fresh limes” (Opp. ¶ 2), that these marks are “distinctive” (Id. ¶4), Opposer has “spent significant sums of money advertising and promoting the products offered” under its marks (Id. ¶ 6), by virtue of these actions and {2808553.3} 2 promotion “Opposer owns extremely valuable goodwill which is symbolized by and associated with its I KUNIK & Lime Design Marks” (Id. ¶ 7). • Applicant claims that there can be no likelihood of confusion because Applicant’s mark is “fanciful” and therefore registrable (Motion pg. 5), despite the fact that Opposer has alleged that the marks “so closely resemble” each other that Applicant’s use of its mark is likely “to cause confusion, mistake or deception…”2 (Opp. ¶¶ 9 & 12). Indeed, these are the central issues in dispute, so judgment on the pleadings is improper. Kraft, supra, 90 USPQ2d at 1840. B. Opposer’s Allegations Give Rise to a Reasonable Inference that it Has Developed Acquired Distinctiveness in its Marks. Substantively, the crux of Applicant’s Motion lies in the incorrect argument that because the lime portion of Opposer’s marks are generic or functional, they have no trademark protection and cannot prevent Applicant’s mark from registering. This argument is flawed for five reasons. 1. Opposer Has Alleged Acquired Distinctiveness of a Protectable Mark and Should be Allowed to Proceed with its Opposition Applicant quickly concludes that Opposer’s marks are “as a matter of law, generic or functional for use in association with limes and other citrus products.” (Motion pg. 2). Applicant is mistaken. Preliminarily, Applicant conflates two, distinct concepts: whether a mark is 1) generic or 2) functional. Applicant fails to specify which doctrine it contends justifies judgment on the pleadings. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that “A generic term is one that refers to a genus of which the particular product is a species.” Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 769 (1992), quoting Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469, U.S. 189, 194 (1985). The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that distinct from this, “eligibility 2 Applicant overstates the differences between the limes represented in Opposer’s marks compared with Applicant’s mark. Both Opposer’s and Applicants’ Marks are stylized representations of a bisected lime. Having failed to set forth the legal standard regarding what creates an impermissibly “realistic” depiction, a foundational premise of Applicant’s argument, it cannot prevail on its Motion regarding this point. {2808553.3} 3 for protection under § 43(a) depends on nonfunctionality.” Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 769 (1992); see also Lanham Act Sections 2(e), 23(c) and 43(c). The significance of this distinction is illustrated in Duramax Marine, LLC v. R.W. Fernstrum & Company, 80 USPQ2d 1780, 2006 WL 2263820, *13 (2006) (“Duramax”), which considered at trial whether an “image of [a] keel cooler [alleged to be] so realistic as to be the equivalent of a photograph, or perhaps a technically precise drawing” precluded registration of a mark for custom manufacturing services of keel coolers. In Duramax, the Board made conflicting decisions on functionality, as opposed to descriptiveness and acquired distinctiveness: “The opposition is dismissed as to opposer’s claim that the proposed mark is functional for applicant’s identified services. The opposition is sustained as to opposer’s claim that the proposed mark is descriptive and has not been shown to have acquired distinctiveness.” Id. at *22. It appears that Applicant argues that Opposer’s marks are generic, not functional. (a) The Conceptual Strength of Opposer’s Marks Cannot Be Decided At the Pleading Stage “[T]he placement of [mark] on the fanciful-suggestive-descriptive-generic continuum is a question of fact.” In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp, 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Genericness is a question of fact. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 1559, 227 USPQ 961 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1301, 91 USPQ2d 1532 (Fed. Cir. 2009). More pointedly, a finding of genericness must be supported by “clear evidence of generic use.” In re Nordic Naturals, Inc., 755 F.3d 1340, 1342, 111 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2014). According to the Federal Circuit, that a mark is generic cannot be determined at the pleading stage. McNeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reversing dismissal on a FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) motion where district court held the alleged mark to be a generic name). The parties have not had an opportunity to conduct {2808553.3} 4 discovery yet. See, Yamaha Intern. Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd., 840 F.2d 1572, 1576 (1988). Additionally, Opposer has not had an opportunity to offer any evidence of its marks having acquired secondary meaning. A descriptive mark can achieve protection if it has acquired secondary meaning. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 769 (1992). Therefore even if Opposer’s marks are deemed descriptive, they still could have protection by a showing of acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning, as discussed more fully below. None of these issues can be decided at this stage of the proceeding. Therefore a determination of the conceptual strength of Opposer’s marks – is forms the entire basis for Applicant’s Motion - is premature at this time. Accordingly its Motion must be denied. (b) Opposer Is Entitled To A Reasonable Inference That It Has Established Acquired Distinctiveness. In concluding that Opposer’s mark is not registrable, Applicant ignores that descriptive terms are not completely barred from registration.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Variations:  for Meyer Lemonade, Use Less Simple Syrup (Start with 1/2 to 2/3 Cup) and Replace the Lemons with Meyer Lem- Ons
    Lemonade (and Limeade) 1 1/2 Quarts Ingredients Quantity Methods White sugar 1 cup 1. Make the simple syrup. Combine the sugar and 1 cup of the water in a Water 5 cups small saucepan and bring to a gentle simmer over low heat to dissolve sug- Lemons or Limes 6-8 each ar. Once the sugar is completely dissolved, remove from heat to cool. 2. Squeeze the lemons. Roll each lemon over your cutting board, pressing down as you do. This will help them to release their juice. Cut in half and squeeze. Repeat until you have one cup. You may not need all the lemons but try to save at least one half if you want to garnish your glasses. 3. Combine. Add the cooled syrup to your pitcher, followed by the lemon juice and the remaining 4 cups of water. Stir. Taste and adjust: add a few tablespoons of sugar if it needs to be sweeter or the juice of 1/2 lemon if it needs more tartness. 4. Add ice. Add ice to pitcher if you think you will drink the whole pitcher right away. Otherwise add ice to each glass. Garnish. It's optional, but garnishes are fun. Try a slice of fruit, a sprig of mint or other herb, or a flower such as lavender or nasturtium. If you've infused the simple syrup with an herb (see below) its helpful to garnish the glass with the herb used. Recipe courtesy of thekitchn.com Variations: For Meyer lemonade, use less simple syrup (start with 1/2 to 2/3 cup) and replace the lemons with meyer lem- ons.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article (PDF)
    eFood Vol. 1(2); April (2020), pp. 126–139 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/efood.k.200406.001; eISSN 2666-3066 https://www.atlantis-press.com/journals/efood Review Emerging Exotic Fruits: New Functional Foods in the European Market Laura Cornara1,*, Jianbo Xiao2, Antonella Smeriglio3, Domenico Trombetta3, Bruno Burlando4,5 1Department of Earth, Environment and Life Sciences (DISTAV), University of Genova, Corso Europa 26, Genova 16132, Italy 2Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau 3 Department of Chemical, Biological, Pharmaceutical and Environmental Sciences, University of Messina, Viale F. Stagno d’Alcontres 31, Messina 98166, Italy 4Department of Pharmacy (DIFAR), University of Genova, Viale Benedetto XV 3, Genova 16132, Italy 5Biophysics Institute, National Research Council (CNR), via De Marini 6, Genova 16149, Italy ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article History The consumption of exotic fruits is rapidly increasing in European countries. Some of these products have attracted much interest due to their alleged properties of preventing malnutrition, over-nutrition, and disease, maintaining a healthy body. Received 23 February 2020 Accepted 31 March 2020 Scientific studies on these fruits are multiplying, including chemical characterizations and biological investigations onin vitro and in vivo experimental models. This review concerns four edible fruits:Hylocereus undatus (dragon fruit), Annona cherimola Keywords (cherimoya), Citrus australasica (finger lime), andAverrhoa carambola (carambola or star fruit). By screening biomedical Superfruits databases, viz. Scopus, WOS, and PubMed, a total of 131 papers have been selected. Data reveals a wide series of biological functional food effects that confirm traditional medicinal uses or suggest new therapeutic applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Citrus Limetta (Sweet Lemon, Mediterranean Sweet Lemon) Citrus Limetta Is a Small Tree with Lemon-Like Shape That Can Reach up to 8 M in Height
    Citrus limetta (Sweet lemon, Mediterranean sweet lemon) Citrus limetta is a small tree with lemon-like shape that can reach up to 8 m in height. It has irregular branches, and relatively smooth, brownish-grey bark. It possesses numerous thorns. The leaves are more rounded and oval than an orange tree. Blossoms and new leaves are bright purple Landscape Information French Name: Limettier ﻟﻴﻤﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﻣﺾ :Arabic Name Pronounciation: SIT-rus lime-ET-ta Plant Type: Tree Origin: Asia Heat Zones: 9, 10, 11 Hardiness Zones: 10, 11, 12 Uses: Mass Planting, Container, Edible Size/Shape Tree Shape: Canopy Symmetry: Irregular Height at Maturity: 1.5 to 3 m Plant Image Spread at Maturity: 3 to 5 meters, 5 to 8 meters Citrus limetta (Sweet lemon, Mediterranean sweet lemon) Botanical Description Foliage Leaf Arrangement: Alternate Leaf Venation: Pinnate Leaf Persistance: Evergreen Leaf Type: Simple Leaf Blade: 5 - 10 cm Leaf Margins: Crenate Leaf Textures: Glossy Leaf Scent: Pleasant Color(growing season): Green Color(changing season): Green Flower Fruit Image Flower Showiness: True Flower Size Range: 1.5 - 3 Flower Scent: Pleasant Flower Color: White Seasons: Spring Trunk Trunk Esthetic Values: Smooth, Spines Fruit Fruit Type: Hesperidium Fruit Showiness: True Fruit Colors: Yellow Seasons: Spring Citrus limetta (Sweet lemon, Mediterranean sweet lemon) Horticulture Management Tolerance Frost Tolerant: No Heat Tolerant: No Drought Tolerant: Yes Salt Tolerance: Moderate Requirements Soil Requirements: Loam, Sand Soil Ph Requirements: Acidic Water Requirements: Moderate Light Requirements: Management Edible Parts: Other Image Plant Propagations: Grafting.
    [Show full text]
  • Citrus from Seed?
    Which citrus fruits will come true to type Orogrande, Tomatera, Fina, Nour, Hernandina, Clementard.) from seed? Ellendale Tom McClendon writes in Hardy Citrus Encore for the South East: Fortune Fremont (50% monoembryonic) “Most common citrus such as oranges, Temple grapefruit, lemons and most mandarins Ugli Umatilla are polyembryonic and will come true to Wilking type. Because most citrus have this trait, Highly polyembryonic citrus types : will mostly hybridization can be very difficult to produce nucellar polyembryonic seeds that will grow true to type. achieve…. This unique characteristic Citrus × aurantiifolia Mexican lime (Key lime, West allows amateurs to grow citrus from seed, Indian lime) something you can’t do with, say, Citrus × insitorum (×Citroncirus webberii) Citranges, such as Rusk, Troyer etc. apples.” [12*] Citrus × jambhiri ‘Rough lemon’, ‘Rangpur’ lime, ‘Otaheite’ lime Monoembryonic (don’t come true) Citrus × limettioides Palestine lime (Indian sweet lime) Citrus × microcarpa ‘Calamondin’ Meyer Lemon Citrus × paradisi Grapefruit (Marsh, Star Ruby, Nagami Kumquat Redblush, Chironja, Smooth Flat Seville) Marumi Kumquat Citrus × sinensis Sweet oranges (Blonde, navel and Pummelos blood oranges) Temple Tangor Citrus amblycarpa 'Nasnaran' mandarin Clementine Mandarin Citrus depressa ‘Shekwasha’ mandarin Citrus karna ‘Karna’, ‘Khatta’ Poncirus Trifoliata Citrus kinokuni ‘Kishu mandarin’ Citrus lycopersicaeformis ‘Kokni’ or ‘Monkey mandarin’ Polyembryonic (come true) Citrus macrophylla ‘Alemow’ Most Oranges Citrus reshni ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin Changshou Kumquat Citrus sunki (Citrus reticulata var. austera) Sour mandarin Meiwa Kumquat (mostly polyembryonic) Citrus trifoliata (Poncirus trifoliata) Trifoliate orange Most Satsumas and Tangerines The following mandarin varieties are polyembryonic: Most Lemons Dancy Most Limes Emperor Grapefruits Empress Tangelos Fairchild Kinnow Highly monoembryonic citrus types: Mediterranean (Avana, Tardivo di Ciaculli) Will produce zygotic monoembryonic seeds that will not Naartje come true to type.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Produce Availability List
    $PLPRESS=FCPRT01; 09/10/15 Four Seasons Produce Co. PAGE Phone #: 800-422-8384 Fax #: (717) 721-2597 PRICE LIST P92002 FOUROrganic SEASONS PRODUCE/ORGANICSProduce Availability Attention: List 09/10/15 to 09/10/15 Effective week of 09/13/2015 Item#Item No.Item DescriptionItem Description Price Comment Comment ===== ==============================** OG-NEW ITEMS ** ======= ============================== 42876 ** OG-NEWAPPLE ITEMS GALA NZL** ORG 80/90 CT Awe Sum 4287644772 APPLE GALAAPPLE NZL SLICES ORG SWEET 80/90 OG 6/12 CT OZ 39.00 Awe Sum 4477242887 APPLE SLICESAPPLE CORTLAND SWEET OG ORE 6/12 ORG OZ 28 LB 18.50 Heirloom Orchards 4288742874 APPLE CORTLANDAPPLE COX OREPIPPIN ORG ORG 28 28 LB 73.00 Heirloom Heirloom Orchards Orchards 4287442956 APPLE COXAPPLE PIPPIN McINTOSH ORG CAN ORG 28 80/88LB 73.00 Nature’s Heirloom First Orchards 4295643036 APPLE McINTOSHAPPLE McINTOSH CAN ORG CAN ORG 80/88 100 CT 63.00 Nature’s Nature’s First First 4303640378 APPLE McINTOSHBEANS GARBANZO CAN ORG FRESH 100 ORG CT 5 LB 60.00 Coke Nature’s Farms First 4037840438 BEANS GARBANZOBEETS BABY FRESH GOLD BUORG ORG 5 24LB CT 32.00 Coke Coke Farms Farms 4043840124 BEETS BABYCHARD GOLD PEPPERMINT BU ORG ORG 24 24CT CT 36.50 Pfennings Coke Farms 4012443893 CHARD PEPPERMINTGRAPES RED GLOBEORG SEEDED 24 CT 19 LB 24.00 Org Pfennings Harvest 4389340494 GRAPES HORSERADISHRED GLOBE SEEDED ORG 1910 LBLB 37.00 Org Harvest 4049440951 HORSERADISHJICAMA ORG 20 LB 10 LB 50.50 4095143628 JICAMA KIWIORG BERRY LOCAL ORG 20 12-6 LB OZ 58.50 4362843650 KIWI BERRYMONSTERA LOCAL
    [Show full text]
  • Citrus Industry Biosecurity Plan 2015
    Industry Biosecurity Plan for the Citrus Industry Version 3.0 July 2015 PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA | Citrus Industry Biosecurity Plan 2015 Location: Level 1 1 Phipps Close DEAKIN ACT 2600 Phone: +61 2 6215 7700 Fax: +61 2 6260 4321 E-mail: [email protected] Visit our web site: www.planthealthaustralia.com.au An electronic copy of this plan is available through the email address listed above. © Plant Health Australia Limited 2004 Copyright in this publication is owned by Plant Health Australia Limited, except when content has been provided by other contributors, in which case copyright may be owned by another person. With the exception of any material protected by a trade mark, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivs 3.0 Australia licence. Any use of this publication, other than as authorised under this licence or copyright law, is prohibited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ - This details the relevant licence conditions, including the full legal code. This licence allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to Plant Health Australia (as below). In referencing this document, the preferred citation is: Plant Health Australia Ltd (2004) Industry Biosecurity Plan for the Citrus Industry (Version 3.0 – July 2015). Plant Health Australia, Canberra, ACT. Disclaimer: The material contained in this publication is produced for general information only. It is not intended as professional advice on any particular matter. No person should act or fail to act on the basis of any material contained in this publication without first obtaining specific and independent professional advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Joimalofagmoiltdraiesea
    JOIMALOFAGMOILTDRAIESEARCH VOL. XIX WASHINGTON, D. C, JULY 15, 1920 No. 8 RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CITRUS-CANKER OF DIFFERENT SPECIES AND HYBRIDS OF THE GENUS CITRUS, INCLUDING THE WILD RELATIVES » By GEORGE I*. PELTIER, Plant Pathologist, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, and Agent, Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture, and WILLIAM J. FREDERICH, Assistant Pathologist, Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture 2 INTRODUCTION In a preliminary report (6)3 the senior author briefly described the results obtained under greenhouse conditions for a period of six months on the susceptibility and resistance to citrus-canker of a number of plants including some of the wild relatives, Citrus fruits, and hybrids of the genus Citrus. Since that time the plants reported on have been under close observation; a third experiment has been started, and many inoculations have been made in the isolation field in southern Alabama during the summers of 1917, 1918, and 1919. Many more plants have been successfully inoculated; others have proved to be extremely sus- ceptible; while some of those tested still show considerable resistance. The results obtained up to November 1, 1919, are described in tjhis report. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS In the greenhouse, the methods used and the conditions governing the inoculations described in the preliminary report were closely fol- lowed. The same strain of the organism was used and was applied in the 1 Published with the approval of the Director of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. The paper is based upon cooperative investigations between the Office of Crop Physiology and Breeding Investi- gations, Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Plant Pathology, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Rep12/Pr Joint Fao/Who Food Standards Programme
    E REP12/PR JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION 35th Session Geneva, Switzerland, 2 – 7 July 2012 REPORT OF THE 44th SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES Shanghai, China, 23 - 28 April 2012 Note: This report includes Codex Circular Letter CL 2012/10-PR. E CX 4/40.2 CL 2012/10-PR May 2012 To: - Codex Contact Points - Interested International Organizations From: Secretariat, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, E-mail: [email protected], Fax: +39 06 57054593) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF THE REPORT OF THE 44TH SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES (REP11/PR) The report of the 44th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues will be considered by the 35th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Rome, Italy, 2 – 7 July 2012). PART A: MATTERS FOR ADOPTION BY THE 35TH SESSION OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION: 1. Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides at Step 8 (paras. 28 - 85 and Appendix II); 2. Draft Revision to the Codex Classification of Food and Animal Feed (fruit commodity groups) at Step 8 (para. 107 and Appendix VIII); 3. Draft Principles and Guidance for the Selection of Representative Commodities for the Extrapolation of Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides to Commodity Groups (including Table 1: Examples of the selection of representative commodities - fruit commodity groups) at Step 8 (para. 127 and Appendix XI); and 4. Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides at Step 5/8 (with omission of Steps 6/7) (paras.
    [Show full text]
  • Over 1,000 Varieties of Edible Plants!
    OVER 1,00 0 VA RIE TI ES O F E D IB L E P L A N T S ! VISIT OUR NURSERY! 6469 SE 134th Ave, Portland, OR 97236 ORDER TOLL FREE (503) 208-7520 1-877-353-4028 | fax: 1-800-418-9983 One Green World is a family owned nursery and garden center located in Portland, Oregon. We provide a huge EMAIL [email protected] selection of fruiting trees, shrubs, berries, vines, unique citrus, nut trees, vegetables and much more to people GET THE LATEST NEWS all over the United States. In addition to the plants we Sign up for our e-mail newsletter online! sell, the experts at OGW are available for questions and www.onegreenworld.com/newsletter advice on plants, plant care and gardening techniques. We will share gardening tips and let you know about plant sales, special events, unique tastings and classes We specialize in all things edible and are continuously throughout the year. adventuring to discover new and unique plant varieties. Our vision is to create a One Green World where PRICING everyone has access to homegrown delicious and Prices are subject to change at anytime. Our most nutritious fruits and veggies. accurate pricing for all plants can be found online at www.OneGreenWorld.com HAVE QUESTIONS? We're here to help! PLANT INDEX ACACIAS ............................104 GIANT GROUNDCHERRY .....101 NECTARINES ......................72 TREE COLLARD ...................96 AGAVE ..............................108 GINGER ..............................94 OAK TREES .........................90 ULLUCO .............................2 ALMOND ...........................86
    [Show full text]
  • Asian Citrus Psyllid Control Program in the Continental United States
    United States Department of Agriculture Asian Citrus Psyllid Marketing and Regulatory Control Program in the Programs Animal and Continental Plant Health Inspection Service United States and Puerto Rico Environmental Assessment August 2010 Asian Citrus Psyllid Control Program in the Continental United States and Puerto Rico Environmental Assessment August 2010 Agency Contact: Osama El-Lissy Director, Emergency Management Emergency and Domestic Programs Animal Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd. Unit 134 Riverdale, MD 20737 __________________________________________________________ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. __________________________________________________________ Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. __________________________________________________________ This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.
    [Show full text]
  • New and Noteworthy Citrus Varieties Presentation
    New and Noteworthy Citrus Varieties Citrus species & Citrus Relatives Hundreds of varieties available. CITRON Citrus medica • The citron is believed to be one of the original kinds of citrus. • Trees are small and shrubby with an open growth habit. The new growth and flowers are flushed with purple and the trees are sensitive to frost. • Ethrog or Etrog citron is a variety of citron commonly used in the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles. The flesh is pale yellow and acidic, but not very juicy. The fruits hold well on the tree. The aromatic fruit is considerably larger than a lemon. • The yellow rind is glossy, thick and bumpy. Citron rind is traditionally candied for use in holiday fruitcake. Ethrog or Etrog citron CITRON Citrus medica • Buddha’s Hand or Fingered citron is a unique citrus grown mainly as a curiosity. The six to twelve inch fruits are apically split into a varying number of segments that are reminiscent of a human hand. • The rind is yellow and highly fragrant at maturity. The interior of the fruit is solid rind with no flesh or seeds. • Fingered citron fruits usually mature in late fall to early winter and hold moderately well on the tree, but not as well as other citron varieties. Buddha’s Hand or Fingered citron NAVEL ORANGES Citrus sinensis • ‘Washington navel orange’ is also known • ‘Lane Late Navel’ was the first of a as the Bahia. It was imported into the number of late maturing Australian United States in 1870. navel orange bud sport selections of Washington navel imported into • These exceptionally delicious, seedless, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Cocktails Sippers
    SPRiTZ simple CLASSIC 8 GLS 7 · PTR 26 Aperol, La Marca Prosecco & Club Soda 180 cal RED | WHITE | ROSE 270 cal Fresh Fruits | Premium Wines SippersJACK & COKE® 6 50 BUBBLES + Mellow’s SCRATCH MADE mixers and stellar spirits JAMESON & GINGER 6 . 6 oz btl make for a special kind of cocktail. No pre-made blends, no artificial 50 WHITE WINE Cocktails RED BULL & TITO’S 9 . avg cal 120 additives, no preservatives. Just that are sure to La Marca Prosecco, IT 8 30 fresh ingredients 50 send your taste buds on a trip they won’t soon forget. TANQUERAY & TONIC 6 . Jam Jar Moscato, SA 7 26 SUNSET IN PARADISE 9 Dark Horse Pinot Grigio, CA (375ml) 10 N/A Bacardi Superior Rum, Coconut, Pineapple, Pomegranate & Fresh Sour 190 cal Mezzacorona Pinot Grigio, IT 7 26 GOLDEN GOOSE 10 Kim Crawford Sauvignon Blanc, NZ 12 46 Grey Goose Vodka, Fresh Lemon, Pineapple, Turmeric ViNO Rosé, WA 8 30 & Fever-Tree Ginger Beer 210 cal avg cal 90 Canyon Road Chardonnay, CA 5 18 The RB 9 VODKA TEQUILA GIN Kendall Jackson Chardonnay, CA 8 30 Margarita Absolut Casamigos Anejo Bombay Sapphire Casamigos Blanco Tequila, Bauchant Orange Absolut Citron Casamigos Blanco Hendrick's Liqueur & House-Made Agave Sour 200 cal Deep Eddy Casamigos Reposado New Amsterdam RED WINE avg cal 120 6 oz btl MADE WILD +1 GONE FERAL +2 Grey Goose Don Julio Anejo Tanqueray Ketel One Don Julio Blanco Dark Horse Pinot Noir, CA (375ml) 10 N/A with Casamigos REPOSADO with Casamigos ANEJO RUM Smirnoff #21 (Red Label) El Jimador Silver Tequila 200 cal Tequila 200 cal Bacardi Superior Athena Pinot Noir, CA 7 26 Tito's Handmade Vodka Milagro Silver Captain Morgan Spiced 14 Hands Merlot, WA 7 26 Western Sons Flavors Patrón Silver Cruzan light Chronic Cellars Red Blend Paso Robles, CA 11 42 DOUBLE RYE SMASH 10 High West Double Rye Whiskey, Fresh Lemon, Honey & Strawberry Puree 220 cal CORDIALS AMERICAN Malibu Coconut Gascon Malbec Mendoza, AR 7 26 Aperol Aperitivo BOURBON + Myer's Original Dark Canyon Road Cabernet Sauvignon, CA 5 18 HENDRICK’S REFRESHER 10 Hendrick’s Gin, St.
    [Show full text]