UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85533055
MARK: 9MM
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: 9MM ENERGY DRINK, INC.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 7/7/2015
The functionality-packaging refusal is MAINTAINED and CONTINUED. As indicated in the prior Office Action dated November 29, 2012, the examining attorney finds the applicant’s contentions against the refusal to be unpersuasive.
In the prior Office Action dated November 29, 2012, the examining attorney enclosed information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 85616520 and 77467249. The referenced application has matured into a registration. Therefore, registration is refused as follows.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
1) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal.
SECTION 2(d) 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 Nos. 4685058 and 4235449. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
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, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). In the seminal decision In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the court 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 of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1355, 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 de Nemours & Co., 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 and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
The applicant has applied for registration of the proposed mark, which it describes as follows:
The mark consists of a configuration of product packaging in the nature of a three dimensional container for the goods which is shaped like a 9MM bullet. The wording "9MM" in a stylized font is displayed on the container. The wording is preceded by one star and reads from the bottom to the top of the container. The top portion of the container is differentiated from the rest and slopes inward to form a dome-like shape. There are five small stripes at the base of the container, after which the bottom of the container tapers in slightly. The dotted lines outlining the container indicate placement of the mark and are not part of the mark.
The registrant’s mark in Registration No. 4685058 is described as follows:
The mark consists of a three-dimensional configuration of product packaging shaped like a 9mm bullet consisting of a cylindrical can with a domed cap. On the can appears a star above the stylized wording "9MM" above the stylized wording "ENERGY DRINK" above the stylized wording "9MM" above a star above bands containing the stylized wording "ENERGY DRINK". The gray and dark gray on the sides of the cylinder and dome are for shading purposes and are not part of the mark.
The wording, ENERGY DRINK is disclaimed.
The registrant’s mark in Registration No. 4235449 is described as follows:
The mark consists of a three-dimensional configuration of a domed cap of the same base diameter as its container. The vertical lines on the front of the cap are used for shading purposes in the drawing to show the three-dimensional nature of the cap. The container shown in broken lines is not a feature of the mark, and it serves only to show the position of the mark on the goods.
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the present case, the respective marks are highly similar in appearance, sound, commercial impression and connotation. In the instant case, the marks of the parties all feature a bullet shaped container. Additionally, the applicant’s mark and the mark in Registration No. 4685058 also feature the identical wording “9MM” as well as a star and highly similar stripes at the lower portion of the container.
With respect to the similarities of the goods of the parties, the goods of the applicant are identified as “energy drinks.” The goods of Registration No. 4685058 are identified as “energy drinks.” The goods of Registration No. 4235449 are identified as “bottle drinking water.”
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).
With respect to the applicant’s goods and the goods in Registration No. 4685058, the goods of the parties are identical inasmuch as the goods of the parties feature the identical goods: energy drinks. With respect to the applicant’s goods and the goods and the goods in Registration No. 4235449, the trademark examining attorney refers to the excerpted materials from the Google® search engine in which “bottled drinking water” and “energy drinks” are commonly sold by a single entity. See attachments. Material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence. See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-03 (TTAB 2009) (accepting Internet evidence to show relatedness of goods in a likelihood of confusion determination); In re Rodale Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1696, 1700 (TTAB 2006) (accepting Internet evidence to show genericness); In re White, 80 USPQ2d 1654, 1662 (TTAB 2006) (accepting Internet evidence to show false suggestion of a connection); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik”, 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1308-09 (TTAB 2006) (accepting Internet evidence to show geographic significance); In re Consol. Specialty Rests. Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1921, 1927-29 (TTAB 2004) (accepting Internet evidence to show geographic location is well-known for particular goods); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1793, 1795 (TTAB 2004) (accepting Internet evidence to show surname significance); In re Fitch IBCA Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (TTAB 2002) (accepting Internet evidence to show descriptiveness); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).
Consequently, the goods of the present parties clearly move in the same normal channels of trade, are available to all potential customers and may be utilized for the same or similar (i.e., related) purposes by the same classes of purchasers.
Accordingly, based on the highly similar nature of the marks and the similarity of the goods of the parties, there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02. Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. There is a $100 fee for such petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).
PLEASE NOTE: Because it delays processing, submission of duplicate papers is discouraged. Unless specifically requested to do so by the Office, parties should not mail follow up copies of documents transmitted by fax. Cf. ITC Entertainment Group Ltd. V. Nintendo of America Inc. 45 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1998).
/Howard Smiga/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 102
571-272-9220
Howard.Smiga@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 the Trademark Electronic Application System (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 the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or 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/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.