Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION:

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2689604.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant’s mark is HEALTHSPAN for:

 

IC 5: Nutraceuticals

 

IC 41: Educational materials, information, and seminars regarding nutraceuticals, age management, and regenerative medicine.

 

The cited mark is:

 

HEALTHSPAN 2000 for “Nutritional and metabolic food supplements.”  (Registration No.  2689604).

 

The respective marks are highly similar.  Both contain the word “HEALTHSPAN”. 

 

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 

The goods and services of the respective parties are closely related. 

 

Applicant’s goods include “nutraceuticals.”  “Nutraceuticals” is “a foodstuff (as a fortified food or dietary supplement) that provides health benefits in addition to its basic nutritional value.”  See attached online dictionary definition.  Registrant also sells food supplements.  Applicant’s services are about food supplements. 

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

For the reasons stated above, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. 

 

POTENTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION:

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 76683931 is enclosed.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.

 

If applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action.  The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.  Nevertheless, applicant must respond to the informalities and refusals. 

 

ADDITIONAL REFUSAL:

 

Please note the following additional refusal. 

 

MERELY DESCRIPTIVE REFUSAL:

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  Moreover, a mark that identifies a group of users to whom an applicant directs its goods and/or services is also merely descriptive.  TMEP §1209.03(i); see In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1454 (TTAB 2004).

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods and/or services, not in the abstract.  In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not “doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system).  “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if the term describes only one significant function, attribute or property.  In re Oppedahl, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371; TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

A term is merely descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of the identified goods and/or services.  See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

 

Applicant’s mark is HEALTHSPAN for:

 

IC 5: Nutraceuticals

 

IC 41: Educational materials, information, and seminars regarding nutraceuticals, age management, and regenerative medicine.

 

HEALTHSPAN is “the period of a person’s life during which they are generally healthy and free from serious or chronic illness.”  See attached Internet evidence.  Applicant’s goods and services are about a person’s healthspan.   

 

For the reasons stated above, the proposed mark is at minimum highly descriptive of the goods and services identified in the application. As such, the merely descriptive mark is refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

RESPONSE:

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

INFORMALITIES:

 

The applicant must respond to the following issues.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER (ADVISORY) – NOT ELIGIBLE:

 

THE 2(e)(1) REFUSAL WILL BE WITHDRAWN IF APPLICANT ELECTS TO REGISTER ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER.  THIS APPLICATION IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER UNTIL AN ACCEPTABLE AMENDMENT TO ALLEGE USE HAS BEEN FILED. 

 

A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been filed.  37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d), 2.75(b); TMEP §§815.02, 1102.03.  When a Section 1(b) application is successfully amended to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application will be the date on which applicant met the minimum filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76(e) for the amendment to allege use.  37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

To amend the application filing basis from an intent to use application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) to a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a), applicant must file, prior to approval of the mark for publication, an amendment to allege use that satisfies the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(8); TMEP §§806.01(b), 1103. 

 

The following must be submitted in an amendment to allege use in order to amend an application to use in commerce under Section 1(a):

 

(1)     The following statement:  “Applicant is believed to be the owner of the mark and that the mark is in use in commerce;” 

 

(2)     The date of first use of the mark anywhere on or in connection with the goods and/or services;

 

(3)     The date of first use of the mark in commerce as a trademark or service mark;

 

(4)     A specimen showing actual use of the mark in commerce for each class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted.  If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen;

 

(5)     A filing fee of $100 per class for each international class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov); and

 

(6)     Verification of the above (1) through (3) requirements in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33. 

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(2), 2.56, 2.76(b); TMEP §§1104.08, 1104.09(e). 

 

Amendments to allege use can be filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages:

                               

• The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;
• The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d);
• The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and
• The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; TMEP §815.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS & SERVICES:

 

Class 5 -

 

In Class 5, applicant’s identification is: “nutraceuticals.” 

 

The above wording is unacceptable as written because it is indefinite.  Applicant must specify what the nutraceuticals are used for.  Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:  “nutraceuticals for use as a dietary supplement” in Class 5.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Taking the above together, applicant may adopt the following:

 

Class 5: Nutraceuticals for use as a dietary supplement

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Class 41 -

 

In Class 41, applicant’s identification is: “Educational materials, information, and seminars regarding nutraceuticals, age management, and regenerative medicine.” 

 

The following wording is unacceptable:

 

“Educational materials” is unacceptable as written in Class 41 because it is a good.  Moreover, applicant must specify the type of educational material.  Applicant may adopt the following identification of services, if accurate:  “printed educational materials in the field of nutraceuticals, age management and regenerative medicine” in Class 16.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

“Information . . . regarding nutraceuticals, age management and regenerative medicine” is unacceptable as written in Class 41 because it is indefinite and misclassified.  The subject matter of the information determines classification.  If accurate, applicant may amend to: “providing information about nutraceuticals for use as a dietary supplement, management of age for health purposes only and regenerative medicine. 

 

Taking the above together, applicant may adopt the following:

 

Class 16: Printed educational materials in the field of nutraceuticals, age management and regenerative medicine

 

Class 41:  Educational services, namely, providing seminars in the field of nutraceuticals, age management and regenerative medicine

 

Class 44:  Providing information about nutraceuticals for use as a dietary supplement, management of age for health purposes only and regenerative medicine

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Identifications of goods and/or services can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods and/or services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services set forth in the present identification.

 

MULTI-CLASS REQUIREMENTS:

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)     Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class; and

 

(2)     Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov).

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

FEES FOR ADDITIONAL CLASSES:

 

The filing fee for adding classes to an application is as follows:

 

         (1)     $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with a response filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html; or

 

         (2)     $375 per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response. 

 

37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(i)-(a)(1)(ii); TMEP §810.

 

REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §814.  The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, and/or advertisements.  If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for services of the same type, explaining how its own services will differ.  If the services feature new technology and no information regarding competing services is available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the services. 

 

The submitted factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements regarding the services will not satisfy this requirement for information.

 

Failure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration.  See In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003).  Merely stating that information about the services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for additional information and is insufficient to make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, 70 USPQ2d at 1457-58. 

 

Applicant must answer the following questions:

 

1. What is HEALTHSPAN?

 

2. Does the word HEALTHSPAN have any significant meaning in relation to applicant’s goods and services?

 

3. Does the word HEALTHSPAN have any significant meaning in the medical field? 

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

 

 

/Simon Teng/

Simon Teng

Trademark Examining Attorney

United States Patent Trademark Office

Law Office 105

571-272-4930 Telephone

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: Applicant should file a response to this Office action online using the form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail.  For technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney.  Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.

 

If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response.  Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.

 

STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.  When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.