What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
F. HOFFMAN & SONS, Inc., v. H. B. HUNTER CO., Inc.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 12, 1928.
Decided March 5, 1928.
No. 2016.
Trade-marks, and trade-names and unfair competition <@=»45i/2 — Registration of “eHOBO” as trade-mark for soft drinks will be canceled as confusingly similar to “Choco-Sip.”
One producing nonalcoholic, maltless, carbonated beverages, sold as soft drinks under trade-mark “Choco-Sip,” held entitled to have cancellation of registration of trade-mark “GHOGO” on substantially identical goods, on ground that marks were confusingly similar.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Suit by F. Hoffman & Sons, Inc., against the H. B. Hunter Company, Inc., to secure the cancellation of the registration of a trade-mark. From the decision of the Commissioner, reversing that of the Examiner of Interferences, and refusing cancellation, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
D. U. Rich and C. R. Allen, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
W. L. Symons, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This is a trade-mark cancellation proceeding, brought by appellant company, to seeure the cancellation of the registration of the word “6H0G0” as a trade-mark for nonalcoholic, maltless, carbonated beverages, sold as soft drinks. The petitioner claims that it is damaged by use of the mark through confusion with its registered trade-mark “Choco-Sip.”
Priority is conceded petitioner in the use of its mark. It is not denied that the goods of the respective parties are substantially identical. The only question for determination is whether or not the trade-marks are confusingly similar, within the meaning of the statute.
The Examiner of Interferences found that the marks were so similar as to be likely to lead to confusion, and directed the cancellation of appellee company’s registration. This decision was reversed by the Commissioner of Patents, and from his decision this appeal was taken.
We find little difficulty in sustaining the decision of the Examiner. The suffix “Sip” indicates a beverage, and the prefix “Choco” indicates the quality of beverage. The evidence discloses that “Choeo-Sip” is frequently ordered by the name “Choco.” We are not impressed with the contention that the hyphen marks in “CHOCO” distinguish the word either in pronunciation or appearance to the extent of removing the probability of confusion. The manner in which the word is written leave the hyphens obscure and unimportant factors in the make-up of the mark. As said by the Examiner: “Especially is this true when it is considered that the letter spacing in respondent’s trade-mark is not substantially different from that of a word in which no hyphens appear.”
In view of the evidence as to probable confusion, and also from the close similarity of the marks, we are convinced that the conclusion reached bj the Commissioner is erroneous.
The decision of the Commissioner is reversed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 9