United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79275727
Mark: FABLE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Fable Holdings Pty Ltd
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
International Registration No. 1507305
Notice of Provisional Full Refusal
Deadline for responding. The USPTO must receive applicant’s response within six months of the “date on which the notification was sent to WIPO (mailing date)” located on the WIPO cover letter, or the U.S. application will be abandoned. To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database, select “US Serial, Registration, or Reference No.,” enter the U.S. application serial number in the blank text box, and click on “Documents.” The mailing date used to calculate the response deadline is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”
Respond to this Office action using the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Discussion of provisional full refusal. This is a provisional full refusal of the request for extension of protection to the United States of the international registration, known in the United States as a U.S. application based on Trademark Act Section 66(a). See 15 U.S.C. §§1141f(a), 1141h(c).
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered. M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).
Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
The applicant has applied to register “FABLE” for the following in International Class 29:
Mushroom concentrates; vegetable burgers (vegetable patties); soya patties; meat substitutes prepared from vegetables (textured vegetable protein); food products made from cooked vegetables; vegetable based meat substitutes; soya based dairy substitutes; artificial cream (dairy product substitutes); imitation milk; milk substitutes; mushrooms, prepared; dried mushrooms; mushrooms, preserved; preserved mushrooms; processed mushrooms; sour cream; tofu; prepared meals consisting principally of tofu
The cited marks are “FABLE” for “vegetable base imitation cream for whipping” in International Class 29 and “FABLE FROM FARM TO TABLE” for, in relevant part, the following in International Class 31:
Unprocessed fruits, vegetables, root vegetables, raw garlic, leafy greens, herbs, sprouts, microgreens, wheatgrass, and mushrooms
COMPARISON OF THE MARKS
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In addition, although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Here, applicant’s marks is “FABLE” and registrants’ marks are “FABLE” and “FABLE FROM FARM TO TABLE”
With regard to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1019518, applicant’s and registrant’s marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Furthermore, with regard to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5478661, applicant’s entire mark is identical to the first word in registrant’s mark. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
Additionally, because the shared wording appears at the beginning of registrant’s mark and the additional wording “FARM TO TABLE” is disclaimed, the shared wording is the dominant portion of the mark and the additional wording does not abrogate a likelihood of confusion.
In view of the above, the marks are confusingly similar.
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Here, applicant’s goods are as follows, in International Class 29:
Mushroom concentrates; vegetable burgers (vegetable patties); soya patties; meat substitutes prepared from vegetables (textured vegetable protein); food products made from cooked vegetables; vegetable based meat substitutes; soya based dairy substitutes; artificial cream (dairy product substitutes); imitation milk; milk substitutes; mushrooms, prepared; dried mushrooms; mushrooms, preserved; preserved mushrooms; processed mushrooms; sour cream; tofu; prepared meals consisting principally of tofu
Registrant’s relevant goods are as follows, in International Classes 29 and 31, respectively:
U.S. Registration No. 1019518
vegetable base imitation cream for whipping
U.S. Registration No. 5478661
Unprocessed fruits, vegetables, root vegetables, raw garlic, leafy greens, herbs, sprouts, microgreens, wheatgrass, and mushrooms.
With respect to U.S. Registration the application uses broad wording to describe artificial cream (dairy product substitutes), which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow vegetable base imitation cream for whipping. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
For these reasons, there is a likelihood of confusion and the applied-for mark is refused.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AMENDMENT REQUIRED
Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical information into the description of the goods.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
International Class 29
Mushroom concentrates in the nature of processed mushrooms; vegetable burgers being (vegetable
patties); soya patties; meat substitutes prepared from vegetables, namely (textured vegetable protein); food products made from cooked vegetables; vegetable
based meat substitutes; soya based dairy substitutes in the nature of soya milk; artificial cream in the nature of (dairy product substitutes);
imitation milk in the nature of milk substitutes; milk substitutes; mushrooms, prepared; dried mushrooms; mushrooms, preserved; preserved mushrooms; processed mushrooms; sour
cream; tofu; prepared meals consisting principally of tofu
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
ENTITY TYPE AND CITIZENSHIP REQUIRED
Acceptable entity types include an individual, a partnership, a corporation, a joint venture, or the foreign equivalent. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i)-(ii); TMEP §§803.03 et seq.
If applicant’s entity type is an individual, applicant must indicate his or her national citizenship for the record. See 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 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. For an association, applicant must also specify whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated, unless the foreign country and the designation or description “association/associazione” appear in Appendix D of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP). TMEP §803.03(c).
If applicant is organized under the laws of a foreign province or geographical region, applicant should specify both the foreign province or geographical region and the foreign country in which the province or region is located. See TMEP §803.04. To provide this information online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, applicant must (1) locate the “Entity Type” heading and select “Other;” (2) locate the “Specify Entity Type” heading and select “Other” under the Foreign Entity option, and enter in the free-text field below both applicant’s entity type and the foreign province or geographical region of its organization (e.g., partnership of Victoria); and (3) locate the “State or Country Where Legally Organized” heading and select the appropriate foreign country (e.g., Australia) under the Non-U.S. Entity option. See id.
U.S. COUNSEL REQUIRED
Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney at the USPTO to respond to or appeal the provisional refusal. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory. 37 C.F.R. §§2.11(a), 11.14; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019). An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business; i.e., headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. Because applicant is foreign-domiciled, applicant must appoint such a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
Only a U.S.-licensed attorney can take action on an application on behalf of a foreign-domiciled applicant. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). Accordingly, the USPTO will not communicate further with applicant about the application beyond this Office action or permit applicant to make future submissions in this application. And applicant is not authorized to make amendments to the application.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Change Address or Representation form. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action, if any. Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).
COMMUNICATION
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Matthew Ruskin/
Matthew Ruskin
Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
571-272-3466
matthew.ruskin@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE