U.S. Application Serial No. 79360752
Mark: MEDEX
| Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jure Marn Ljubljanska ulica 9 SI-2000 Maribor SLOVENIA |
Applicant: MEDEX, zivilska industrija, d.o.o.
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address:
International Registration No. 1689596
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 (see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-application-process/abandoned-applications for information on abandonment). To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, 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).
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
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.
SECTION 2(D) REFUSAL - LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION - CLASS 5
Registration of the applied-for mark MEDEX is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark LIP MEDIX in U.S. Registration No. 1391319. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
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). Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.” In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
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.
“‘[A] showing of actual confusion is not necessary to establish a likelihood of confusion.’” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(ii). “[T]he relevant test is likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion.” In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1309, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original). “Uncorroborated statements of no known instances of actual confusion . . . are of little evidentiary value,” especially in ex parte examination. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1317, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Similarity 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 the present case, registrant's mark is LIP MEDEX for "medicated lip preparations." Applicant seeks registration for MEDEX in relation to "balms for medicated use."
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. See 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)); Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *41 (TTAB 2022); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Here, the registration includes a disclaimer of the descriptive term LIP, rendering the term MEDEX the dominant portion of the registration. Therefore, the dominant portion of registrant's mark is identical in sound, meaning and commercial impression to applicant's mark.
Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
Similarity of the Goods
The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
In the present case, registration covers:
medicated lip preparations
Applicant seeks registration for:
balms for medicated use
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)).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe all types of medicated balms which would include medicated lip preparations. Accordingly, the applicant's goods presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrowly defined goods. See, e.g., Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *44 (TTAB 2022); 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)); Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *49. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
The presumption under Trademark Act Section 7(b) is that the registrant is the owner of the mark and that their use of the mark extends to all goods identified in the registration. 15 U.S.C. §1057(b). In the absence of limitations as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers in the goods in the registration, the presumption is that the goods move in all trade channels normal for such goods and are available to all potential classes of ordinary consumers of such goods. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); TMEP §1207.01(a)(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, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
MULTI-CLASS APPLICATION
The stated refusal refers to International Class 5 only and does not bar registration in the other classes.
Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal. In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:
(1) Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a Request to Divide Application form (form #3) to divide out the goods and/or services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the classes to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or
(3) Amending the basis, if appropriate. TMEP §806.03(h). (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a). TMEP §1904.01(a).)
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES.
Some of the wording in the identification of goods and/or services in International Classes 3, 5, 29 and 30 is indefinite and too broad. This wording must be clarified because it is not clear what the goods and/or services are and could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03, 1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), an applicant may not change the classification of goods and/or services from that assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization in the corresponding international registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Therefore, although the goods and/or services may be classified in several international classes, any modification to this wording must identify goods and/or services in International Classes 3, 5, 29 and 30 only, the classes specified in the application for these goods and/or services. See TMEP §1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
Additionally, classes may not be added or goods and/or services transferred from one class to another in a multiple-class Section 66(a)
application. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).
The
identification of goods and/or services contains parentheses. Generally, an applicant should not use parentheses and brackets, including curly brackets, in identifications in order to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate (1) goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations, (2) goods and/or services not claimed in an affidavit of incontestability, or (3) guidance to users of the USPTO’s U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual to draft an acceptable identification. See TMEP §§1402.04, 1402.12. The only exception for including parenthetical information in identifications is 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 or scope of the identification, e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).” See TMEP §1402.12.
Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods and/or services.
Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Classes 3, 5, 29 and 30, if accurate. Please note, the suggested amended wording and/or information for creating an acceptable identification appears in bold font.
(International Class 3) Non-medicated soaps; perfumery; etheric oils; cosmetic products; hair lotions; teeth cleaning preparations; cosmetic creams; cosmetic preparations for skin care; lotions for cosmetic purposes; pomades for cosmetic purposes; tissues impregnated with cosmetic lotions; cosmetic suntan preparations; petroleum jelly for cosmetic purposes; cleansing milk for toilet purposes; beauty masks; deodorants for personal use; make-up; cosmetic preparations for baths; non-medicated bath salts; shampoos; depilatory creams; depilatory wax; washing preparations and laundry bleach; preparations for cleaning and polishing; de-greasing for household purposes; leather care products, namely, leather cleaning preparations and leather polishes; floor and furniture polishes; parquet floor wax
(International Class 5) Vitamin preparations; dietary and food supplements; nutritional supplements; dietary supplements for human consumption for medical and therapeutic purposes; appetite suppressant preparations for medical purposes; tonics included in this class, namely, liquid herbal supplements and honey-based liquid nutritional supplements; balms for medical purposes; propolis for medicinal purposes; royal jelly for medical purposes; medicated candy; dietetic foods adapted for medical purposes; purified honey-based nutritional supplements for medical and pharmaceutical purposes; medicated ointments with honey additives for treating dermatological conditions
(International Class 29) Processed bee pollen for food purposes; non-alcoholic fruit extracts for use as ingredients of nutritional supplements; fungal extracts for use as ingredients of nutritional supplements; canned, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies; jams; compotes
(International Class 30) Honey; honey with dried fruit; honey with nuts; flour-based smack foods:
processed cereals; bread; pastries; tea cakes; gingerbread; confectionery made of sugar; candy; bee glue in the nature
of propolis for human consumption; royal jelly for food purposes; honey-based spreads
The applicant should note that the above suggested identification of services is acceptable as written. Any alteration may render it unacceptable. Accordingly, if the applicant wishes to amend the services differently, or if the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney. Please further note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted.
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.
EMAIL ADDRESS REQUIRED
Applicant must provide applicant’s email address, which is a requirement for a complete application. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(2); TMEP §803.05(b). This email address cannot be identical to the primary correspondence email address of a U.S.-licensed attorney retained to represent applicant in this application. See TMEP §803.05(b).
APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO BE REPRESENTED BY A U.S.-LICENSED ATTORNEY TO RESPOND TO OR APPEAL THE PROVISIONAL REFUSAL
Because applicant’s domicile is located outside of the United States and applicant does not appear to be represented by a qualified U.S. attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a); TMEP §601.01(a). An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories must be represented 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); TMEP §§601, 601.01(a). In this case, applicant’s domicile is identified in the application as outside of the United States or its territories. For more information, see the U.S. Counsel webpage at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/laws-regulations/trademark-rule-requires-foreign-applicants-and-registrants-have-us and Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney webpage at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-getting-started/why-hire-private-trademark-attorney.
To appoint a U.S.-licensed attorney in this application, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Change Address or Representation form at http://teas.gov.uspto.report/ccr/car. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form at http://teas.gov.uspto.report/office/roa/ indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action. 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); TMEP §604.01.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.