Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION:  If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.

 

Serial Number  78/702507

 

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

 

Search Results

Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78/631837 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.

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2203621.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Taking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Second, the goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

The marks create the same commercial impression because both build off the same unique word – MAGIC.  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).

 

The additional wording in each mark – SPROUTZ and FLOWER SEEDS – does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion because the wording is descriptive.  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  Although a disclaimed portion of a mark certainly cannot be ignored, and the marks must be compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re National Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987).  See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ 2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re El Torito Rests. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986).

 

The goods are related because they are identical.  Both marks are or will be used on seeds.

 

Because the marks are similar, and because the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods.  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).  TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).  Therefore, registration is refused.

 

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.  If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

 

Identification of Goods

THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

The current wording used to describe the goods needs clarification because the beans must be identified as seeds, processed or raw.  Processed beans are in International Class 29, not 31.  Applicant must also clarify that the main product is the seeds, not the eggs, and must specify what these “eggs” are specifically.  Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: 

 

Beans as seeds in decorative pots that are inscribed with messages and which grow into plants that display the messages; beans as seeds contained in eggs of (applicant must identify the specific nature of these “eggs”) inscribed with messages such that when the bean hatches out of the egg the message is revealed; flower seeds in vacuum sealed cans, such that when the can is opened and water is added, the flower starts to bloom

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

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

 

Combined Applications

Applicant must clarify the number of classes for which registration is sought.  The submitted filing fees are insufficient to cover all the classes in the application.  Specifically, the application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least two international classes, however applicant paid the fee for only one class(es).

 

Applicant must either: (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fee already paid, or (2) pay the required fee for each additional class.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.0l, 1401.04, 1401.04(b) and 1403.01.

 

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) and a foreign registration under Trademark Act Section 44(e):

 

(1)   Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP § 1403.01; 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).  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810 and 1403.01.

 

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; and

 

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

 

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

 

Disclaimers

Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “sprouts” apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes the goods – as the enclosed definitions, plant sprouts will come from these goods.  Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a).

 

Please note that while the wording “sproutz” is intentionally misspelled in the mark, this wording must appear in its correct spelling – i.e., “sprouts” – in the disclaimer.  See In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Newport Fastener Co. Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1064, 1067 n. 4 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1213.08(c).

 

The computerized printing format for the Office’s Trademark Official Gazette requires a standardized format for a disclaimer.  TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  The following is the standard format used by the Office:

 

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

 

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

 

Certificate Required

If applicant is asserting §44(e) as a basis for registration (based on the foreign registration that will issue from the application that the applicant relied on for priority), then applicant must submit a true copy, photocopy, certification or certified copy of a foreign registration from the applicant’s country of origin.  Applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  See TMEP §§1002.01, 1003.03 and 1004.

 

If the foreign certificate of registration is not written in English, then applicant must provide an English translation signed by the translator.  See TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

Option to Delete Basis

If applicant wishes to proceed relying on the applicant’s intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b) as the sole basis for registration, with the claim of priority under Section 44(d), then applicant should so advise the trademark examining attorney.  TMEP §§806.02(f) and 806.04(b).  If applicant chooses to do so, this Office will approve the mark for publication without waiting for applicant to submit a copy of the foreign registration, once all other outstanding issues are resolved.  However, while the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not register until after an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.

 

If applicant does not indicate otherwise, this Office will presume that applicant wishes to rely on the foreign registration as an additional basis for registration.  Thus, the application will not be approved for publication until a copy of the foreign registration and, if appropriate, an English translation signed by the translator, have been filed.  TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

/Eugenia K. Martin/

Eugenia K. Martin

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571) 272-9458

(571) 273-9114 (fax)

 

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action form available on our website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS.  NOTE:  Do not respond by e-mail.  THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN E-MAILED RESPONSE.
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above, and include the serial number, law office number, and examining attorney’s name.  NOTE:  The filing date of the response will be the date of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date.  To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing.  37 C.F.R. §2.197.

 

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

 

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

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