UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  76/473858                                                                   MARK:  BLIZZ

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the marks in Registration Nos. 0895139 and 1846880   as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark “BLIZZ.”    The registered mark No. 05895139  is for the wording  “BLIZZARD”; registered mark No. 1846880 is for the wording” BLIZZARD BAR.”  Both of the registered marks are owned by the same entity.  The registered mark and the applicant’s are highly similar in that they contain the term “BLIZZARD/BLIZZ.”  The term “BLIZZ” is commonly construed as an abbreviated form of the wording ‘BLIZZARD.”    Although the registered mark No. 1846880  also contains the descriptive term “BAR”, which as been disclaimed, this does not diminish the common commercial impression created by the applicant mark and this respective registered mark.  The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source.  In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).

 

The registrant’s mark No. 0895139 is used in connection with “milk shakes and semi-frozen ice milk and ice cream confections with carbonated beverages.”  Registered mark No. 1846880 is used in connection with “frozen ice milk soft serve bar on a stick with flavoring, including candies, cookies, toppings and fruit, covered with chocolate cone coating, for consumption on or off the premises.” The applicant intends to use the mark in connection with a “non-alcoholic beverages.”  The applicant’s goods are indefinite and are so broadly defined, arguably, they may encompass the goods of the registered marks.  Moreover,  the applicant’s and goods and some of  the goods of the  registered marks are identical goods because the goods concern beverages products.  Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the potential consumers exposed to the goods will be confused as to the source of the goods. 

 

Overall the similarities between the marks and the goods/services are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.

 

 

 

 

INFORMALITIES

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. In the identification, the applicant should use the common commercial designation for the services, be as complete and specific as possible and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  The applicant may not include broad wording such as “services in connection with...” or “such as” or “including” or “and like services” or “systems” or “products” or “concepts” or “not limited to....”  TMEP §§1402.03(a) and 1402.11.

The applicant is referred to the Office’s website at www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmaual/ for additional information regarding the classification and identification of the applicant's goods.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

CLASS 32

“Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, [please list the goods by their common commercial name and  ensure that they are classified accordingly].”

 

Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

ADDITIONAL CLASSES - REQUIREMENTS

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.

 

(1)  The applicant must list the goods/services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP §1403.01.

 

(2)  The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods/services not covered by the fee already paid.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(a); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01.  Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class.  This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.  

 

additions to the identification are not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

 

Georgia Ann Carty

/Georgia Ann Carty/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 111

(703) 308-9111, Ext. 150

ecom 111 @USPTO.gov

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/trademarks/tmelecresp.htm and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.

 

To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/

 

For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR SPECIFIC INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.