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 assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:

 

Trademark Act 2(d) Refusal to Register

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2940837.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  The cited mark is HEALTHY PLANET, HEALTHY HEART for “CEREAL-DERIVED FOOD PRODUCT TO BE USED AS A BREAKFAST CEREAL, SNACK FOOD, OR INGREDIENT FOR MAKING FOOD.”  See the enclosed registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration where an applied-for mark so resembles a registered mark that it is likely, when applied to the goods and/or services, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services.  TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and the relatedness of the goods and/or services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services.  In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974).

 

Similarity of Marks

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See e.g., Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(ii) and (b)(iii).

 

Applicant’s mark, HEATHY PLANET and U.S. Registration No. 2940837, HEALTHY PLANET, HEALTHY HEART are very similar in appearance and commercial impression.  The marks both share the wording HEALTHY  PLANET which gives the marks a similar appearance.  Applicant has merely deleted the wording HEALTHLY HEART from the registered mark in order to gain registration.  The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark is not sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See In re Optical Int’l, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977) (where applicant filed to register the mark OPTIQUE for optical wear, deletion of the term BOUTIQUE is insufficient to distinguish the mark, per se, from the registered mark OPTIQUE BOUTIQUE when used in connection with competing optical wear).  In the present case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.  Both marks emit a highly similar commercial impression and would be likely to confuse the consumer as to the source of the respective goods and/or services.

 

Similarity of Goods/ Services

 

The goods/services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, 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.  On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

 

In the case at bar, Applicant seeks to register the mark HEALTHY PLANET for “Fresh and frozen, meat, fish, poultry, game and seafood.”  Registrant owns the mark HEALTHY PLANET, HEALTHY HEART for “CEREAL-DERIVED FOOD PRODUCT TO BE USED AS A BREAKFAST CEREAL, SNACK FOOD, OR INGREDIENT FOR MAKING FOOD.”  Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely cereal based food and meat, fish, poultry, game and seafood, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  See In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-1218 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988).  Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

 

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.

 

 

Response to Office Action

 

Please note, there is no required format or form for responding to this Office action.  The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  However, if applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the following information:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney; (2) the serial number of this application; (3) the mailing date of this Office action; and, (4) applicant's telephone number.

 

When responding to this Office action, applicant must make sure to respond to each refusal and requirement raised.  If there is a refusal to register the proposed mark, then applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., submit arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and why the mark should register.  If there are other requirements, then applicant should simply set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.  Applicant must also sign and date its response.

 

 

Conclusion

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

/Michael G. Lewis/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272-5495

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response to this Office action should be filed using the form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm. If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification. Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as 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.