UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.

 

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(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

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. 3285240.  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 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 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.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 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 similarity of trade channels of the goods.  See In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

The registered mark is BM MECHAALANY and design. The proposed mark is MBM and design.  The marks of the parties are similar in commercial impression as result of the letters “BM,” which are part of the marks.

 

When comparing marks that consist of a series of two or more letters, confusion may be likely even if the letters are not identical or in the same order.  It is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than to remember words or figures; that is, confusion is more likely between arbitrarily arranged letters than between other types of marks.  See, e.g., Weiss Assoc. v. HRL Assoc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding confusion between TMS and TMM); Dere v. Inst. for Scientific Info., Inc., 420 F.2d 1068, 164 USPQ 347 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (finding confusion between ISI and I.A.I.); cf. In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas, 60 USPQ2d 1214 (TTAB 2001) (finding confusion between registrant’s KING FM and KING-TV and applicant’s KYNG).

 

This principle was set forth in Crystal Corp. v. Manhattan Chem. Mfg. Co., 75 F.2d 506, 506, 25 USPQ 5, 6 (C.C.P.A. 1935), wherein the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals applied the following reasoning in holding Z.B.T. likely to be confused with T.Z.L.B. for talcum powder:  “We think it is well known that it is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than it is to remember figures, syllables, words or phrases.  The difficulty of remembering such lettered marks makes confusion between such marks, when similar, more likely.”

 

Even lettered marks having only two letters in common, used on identical or closely related goods, have been held likely to cause confusion.  See, e.g., Feed Serv. Corp. v. FS Servs., Inc., 432 F.2d 478, 167 USPQ 407 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (finding confusion between FSC and FS); Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. J.H. Bonck Co., 390 F.2d 754, 156 USPQ 401 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (finding confusion between TTM and T.M.T.); Edison Bros. Stores, Inc. v. Brutting E.B. Sport-Int’l GmbH, 230 USPQ 530 (TTAB 1986) (finding confusion between EB and EBS); see also TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Although the proposed mark includes a design, when a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods; therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii); see CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983); In re Kysela Pere et Fils, Ltd., 98 USPQ2d 1261, 1267-68 (TTAB 2011).

 

The goods 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, it is sufficient to show that because of the conditions surrounding their marketing, or because they are otherwise related in some manner, the goods would be encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods under confusingly similar marks would lead to the mistaken belief that they come from, or are in some way associated with, the same source.  In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

In this case, the parties identify the following goods as identical products: “jams.”  Thus, these are identical, and it is presumed that they move in all normal channels of trade and are available to all potential customers.  See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the goods are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.  

 

Registrant also identifies the following food products: “Compotes; Edible fats; Edible oil; Eggs; Fish; Game; Jellies; Meat; Meat extract; Milk; Milk products excluding ice cream, ice milk and frozen yogurt; Poultry; Vegetables, namely, preserved, dried, and processed vegetables; preserved, dried, and processed fruits.”

 

Applicant also identifies: “Food products, namely, pickled Items: cucumber, turnips, hot peppers, wild cucumbers, eggplant pickles (Mackdouce), Olive oil, Olives (black and green), Jams (Apricot, Strawberries, Figs), Rose Water and Orange Blossom Water, Pomegranate Molasses.”

 

Goods such as jellies are related to jams and travel in the same channels of trade. The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely,  cucumber, turnips, hot peppers, wild cucumbers, eggplant pickles, olive oil, olives, Jams, rose water and orange blossom water, pomegranate molasses, Compotes; Edible fats; Edible oil; Eggs; Fish; Game; Jellies; Meat; Meat extract; Milk; Milk products excluding ice cream, ice milk and frozen yogurt; Poultry; Vegetables, namely, preserved, dried, and processed vegetables; preserved, dried, and processed fruits, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd.,92 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).

 

Prior Pending Application

In addition, the filing date of pending Application Serial No. 85364101 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Informalities

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

Multi-Class Application

The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 4 classes; however, the fees submitted are sufficient for only 1 class(es).  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fee(s) already paid, or (2) submit the fees for the additional class(es). 

 

Identification of Goods

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the wording “pickled items” lacks specificity.  In addition, the identification includes goods that are classified in more than one International Class.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods.  If there is no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. 

 

In addition, the identification of goods contains parentheses.  Generally, parentheses and brackets should not be used in identifications.  Parenthetical information is permitted in identifications only if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity of the identification, e.g., “obi (Japanese sash).”  TMEP §1402.12. 

 

Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification of goods and incorporate the parenthetical information into the description. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

• Food products, namely, pickled vegetables in the nature of cucumbers, turnips, wild cucumbers, and eggplant pickles; Olive oil; processed black and green olives; apricot, strawberry and fig jams; processed hot peppers. (Class 29).
• Pomegranate Molasses. (Class 30).
• Raw hot peppers; fresh black and green olives. (Class 31).
• Rose Water and Orange Blossom Water. (Class 32).

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

An applicant may amend an identification of goods only to clarify or limit the goods; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07 et seq. 

 

Requirements of a Combined Application Under Section 1(b)

For an application with more than one international class, called a “multiple-class application,” an applicant must meet all the requirements below for those international classes based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)        LIST GOODS AND/OR SERVICES BY INTERNATIONAL CLASS:  Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class.

 

(2)        PROVIDE FEES FOR ALL INTERNATIONAL CLASSES:  Applicant must submit an application filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee(s) already paid (confirm current fee information at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

The filing fees for adding classes to an application are as follows:

 

(1)  $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with an electronic response filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html, via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); 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, 1403.02(c).

 

Color Claim and Color Location Description Needed

Applicant has submitted a color drawing, but has not specified the colors claimed as a feature of the mark or provided a mark description that identifies the literal and design elements and specifies where all the colors appear in those elements.  Applications for marks depicted in color must include a complete list of all the colors claimed as a feature of the mark and a mark description of the literal and design elements that specifies where all the colors appear in those elements.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); see TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  

 

If black, white and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must state that the colors black, white and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark.  TMEP §807.07(d).  Generic color names must be used in the color claim and mark description, e.g., magenta, yellow, turquoise.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(a)(ii).

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a color claim and a mark description specifying where all the colors appear in the mark.  The following color claim and mark description are suggested, if accurate:

 

Color claim:  “The colors blue, yellow and green <specify> are claimed as a feature of the mark.”; and

 

Mark description:  “The mark consists of the following:  a landscape composed of a field composed of blue and white horizontal lines and featuring three green rows vertically crossing over as well as the letters MBM in yellow above against a light blue sky and all of the elements of the mark surrounded by a circle border <specify literal or design element on which the color appears, and continue to similarly list each element and the associated colors for each element in the mark, e.g., a red and blue bird on a green mountain>.” 

 

Entity and State of Incorporation

Applicant must specify its form of business or type of legal entity and its national citizenship or U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i)-(ii); TMEP §§803.03, 803.04.  For example, an applicant can apply as an individual, a partnership, a corporation, a joint venture, or the foreign equivalent thereof.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3); TMEP §§803.03 et seq. 

 

If applicant’s entity type is an individual, applicant must indicate his or her national citizenship for the record.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §803.04. 

 

If applicant’s entity type is a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture, or the foreign equivalent, applicant must set forth the U.S. state or foreign country under whose laws applicant is organized or incorporated.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§803.03(b)-(c), 803.04.  In addition, if applicant is a U.S. partnership or joint venture, applicant must list the names, legal entities and national citizenship or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation of all the general partners or joint venturers.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii)-(iv); TMEP §§803.03(b), 803.04.  For an association, applicant must also specify whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated.  TMEP §803.03(c).

 

Claim of Ownership of Prior Pending Application Will Not be Printed

Applicant has claimed ownership of Application Serial No. 85208219.  Only claims of ownership of relevant, active registrations are printed on the registration certificate.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  Therefore, applicant’s claim of ownership of the pending application will not be printed.  However, if the claimed pending application matures into a registration, and applicant wants to claim ownership of the registration, applicant must provide a claim of ownership with the registration number.

 

Conclusion

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

 

/Linda M. Estrada/

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 104

(571) 272-9298

(571) 273-9104 Fax

Linda.Estrada@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.