Offc Action Outgoing

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  76/476927

 

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

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 919,531 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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 (C.C.P.A. 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).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

The goods/services 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/services 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).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

In the case at hand, applicant seeks registration of “COSMECEUTIC SOLUTIONS” in typed form for soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, cleaning preparations, cleansing milk, cosmetic kits, cosmetic creams, lotions for cosmetic purposes, gels for cosmetic purposes, oils for cosmetic purposes, sprays for topical application for cosmetic purposes, skin care preparations, cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes, plant extract compositions for cosmetic purposes, moisturizers, hair care products and dentifrices.  The cited registered mark is “COSMECEUTICALS” in typed form for skin moisturizers, hair grooming preparations and lubricants. 

 

The marks themselves are highly similar in commercial impression with the common use of the language “COSMECEUTIC” and “COSMECEUTICALS”.  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).  In addition, the mere addition of a term to a registered mark is not sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Coca‑Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (“BENGAL” and “BENGAL LANCER”); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (“THE LILLY” and “LILLI ANN”); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (“MACHO” and “MACHO COMBOS”); In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (“CAREER IMAGE” and “CREST CAREER IMAGES”); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (“CONFIRM” and “CONFIRMCELLS”); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (“ACCUTUNE” and “RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE”); In re Cosvetic Laboratories, Inc., 202 USPQ 842 (TTAB 1979) (“HEAD START” and “HEAD START COSVETIC”).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  The addition of the term “SOLUTIONS” does little to obviate a likelihood of confusion where the applicant is using essentially the whole of the registrant’s mark. 

 

In addition, the goods of both parties are highly similar and could in fact be identical in part.  If the goods of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services.  ECI Division of E Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980).  TMEP §1207.01(b). 

 

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.

 

Identification of Goods

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The language “for cosmetic purposes” is not generally specific enough.  The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:  “soaps, perfumery, essential oils for personal use, non-medicated skin cleansing preparations, skin cleansing milks, cosmetic kits primarily composed of _______ (specify items, e.g., cosmetics, skin care preparations), cosmetic skin creams, skin and body lotions for cosmetic purposes, eye, shower and bath gels for cosmetic purposes, bath and body oils for cosmetic purposes, body sprays for topical application for cosmetic purposes, non-medicated skin care preparations, skin and body moisturizers, hair care preparations, dentifrices” .  TMEP §1402.01.

 

The wording “cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes” and “plant extract compositions for cosmetic purposes” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name for the product, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses. TMEP §1402.01.

 

“Botanical extracts for use in making cosmetics” is acceptable language, however, such goods are classified in International Class 1.

 

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.

 

Multiple Class Application

 

The application identifies goods that may be classified in several international classes.  Therefore, the applicant must either:  (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee already paid, or (2) pay the required fee for each additional class(es).  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1401.04, 1401.04(b) 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.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1). 

 

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.  

 

Disclaimer

 

The applicant must insert a disclaimer of “COSMECEUTIC” in the application.  Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §1213.  A “cosmeceutic” is a cross between a pharmaceutic and a cosmetic.  Please see the attached.  As applicant’s goods are cosmeceutics, such term is descriptive and must be disclaimed apart from the mark as shown.

 

The computerized printing format for the Trademark Official Gazette requires a standard form for a disclaimer.   TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  A properly worded disclaimer should read as follows:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “COSMECEUTIC” apart from the mark as shown.

 

See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

A disclaimer does not remove the disclaimed matter from the mark.  It is simply a statement that the applicant does not claim exclusive rights in the disclaimed wording or design apart from the mark as shown in the drawing.

 

Filing Basis

 

The applicant has filed asserting a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and claiming priority under Section 44(d), 15 U.S.C. §1126(d), based on a foreign application.  Under these circumstances, the applicant may rely solely on its intent to use the mark in commerce as the basis for registration and not the expected foreign registration, and still claim the benefit of the priority filing date.  If the applicant chooses to do so, this Office will approve the case for publication without waiting for the applicant to submit the foreign registration.  Of course, the application must be in condition for publication in all other respects.  Moreover, while the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not be registered until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.

 

If the applicant wishes to proceed relying on the applicant’s intent to use the mark in commerce as the sole basis for registration, with the claim of priority, the applicant should so advise the examining attorney.  TMEP §§806.02(f) and 806.04(b).

 

If the applicant does not so indicate, this Office will presume that the applicant wishes to rely on the foreign registration as an additional basis for registration and will expect the applicant to submit a true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of the foreign registration and, if appropriate, an English translation.  It is customary for the translator to sign the translation.  TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

Miscellaneous

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

/Patricia A. Horrall/

Patricia A. Horrall

Trademark  Attorney

Law Office 106

Telephone: (703) 308-9106 ext. 233

Law Office Fax: (703) 746-8106

 

 

 

 

Fee increase effective January 1, 2003

Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing an application for trademark registration will be increased to $335.00 per International Class.  The USPTO will not accord a filing date to applications that are filed on or after that date that are not accompanied by a minimum of $335.00. 

 

Additionally, the fee for amending an existing application to add an additional class or classes of goods/services will be $335.00 per class for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.

 

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