| PTO Form 1960 (Rev 9/2007) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 85680633 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 117 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MARK SECTION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MARK | http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/ImageAgent/ImageAgentProxy?getImage=85680633 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LITERAL ELEMENT | BANANA BITES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ARGUMENT(S) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Attorney Docket No.: 41903.00.0006 In the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Trademark Office Action Response Commissioner for Trademarks Dear Examiner Blandu: This is a response to the Office Action dated April 28, 2013. Please amend the application in considering the following remarks. Remarks The Examiner has rejected the present application under Section 2(e)(1) as being descriptive. The Rejection As the Examiner notes, Applicant’s mark is BANANA BITES for “frozen confections, namely, chocolate dipped bananas” in International Class 030. The term BANANA has been disclaimed, as the Examiner aptly noted that the term is descriptive when applied to Applicant’s goods. However, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner that BITES is also descriptive when applied to Applicant’s goods, specifically, to frozen chocolate dipped bananas. The Examiner states that “BITES is the plural of the term BITE and it is defined as to grip, cut off or tear with or as if with the teeth or jaws.” The Examiner reasons that the term BITES is descriptive of Applicant’s goods because Applicant’s goods feature “bananas that are eaten by tearing into them with the teeth or jaws.” While Applicant understands the Examiner’s position, Applicant respectfully submits that this reasoning is incorrect when applied to Applicant’s mark with Applicant’s goods. As an initial matter, Applicant submits that Applicant’s goods, specifically chocolate dipped bananas, are not whole bananas that are gripped, cut off, or torn as with the teeth or jaws. Instead, Applicant’s goods are small portions of banana that have been dipped in chocolate. Images showing Applicant’s mark being used with Applicant’s goods are included below:
As shown, Applicant’s goods are small portions of frozen banana that have been dipped in chocolate. Each individual portion may be consumed separately, without having to tear the portion off from an entire banana. Indeed, applying the Examiner’s reasoning to goods such as Applicant’s would render the terms BITE and BITES descriptive for all of International Class 030 (Staple Foods), as all solid foods are necessarily eaten by tearing into the food with the teeth or jaws. A quick glance at previously registered marks for food products shows this result to be ridiculous. The following is a list of marks in in International Class 030 which include the term BITES or the singular term BITE:
Each of these marks is for a food product, which is necessarily eaten using the teeth or jaws. Applying the Examiner’s reasoning, the first six listed marks would be entirely descriptive and unregisterable, as BITES is the only word not disclaimed in the mark. However, as is clear from the fact that these marks exist on the Principal Register without having the terms BITES or BTIE disclaimed, these terms are not considered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be descriptive of food products simply because the food product is consumed by tearing into it with the teeth or jaws. For this reason, reconsideration and allowance is respectfully requested.
BANANA BITES for Applicant’s Goods is Suggestive under all Three Tests “The descriptive-suggestive borderline is hardly a clear one.” McCarthy on Trademarks, § 11:66. There are various tests to help determine where the mark falls on this spectrum: (1) the competitors’ need test, (2) the degree of imagination test, and (3) the actual use test. Each test is reviewed in turn. a. The “Competitors’ Need” Test The competitors’ need test is based on the principle that no single applicant should be granted a government-sanctioned monopoly over a term that would prevent its competitors from selling the same goods. In the Office Action, the Examiner states that BANANA BITES (with BANANA disclaimed) describe Applicant’s goods because “[t]he applicant features bananas that are eaten by tearing into them with the teeth or jaws.” The Federal Circuit has explained that a term is merely descriptive if it “conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of the identified goods.” In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). The law is based in the concept that if a single applicant was granted the exclusive right to use the mark “Steelbuilding.com,” competitors who need to use the words “steel building” would be prevented from competing as this is the only term that can possibly describe a steel building. Similarly, as an example, the mark APPLE could not be granted for an apple-flavored juice without unduly hindering commerce. This would be true even if the juice did not contain apple as an ingredient and the term APPLE merely related to the taste of the juice. As McCarthy explains, “[t]he more imagination that is required to associate a mark with the product, the less likely the words used will be needed by competitors to describe their products.” Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976). This test for descriptiveness can be summed up in a simple question: is the suggestion made by the mark so remote and subtle that it is really not likely to be needed by competitive sellers to describe their goods? If the answer is yes, then this tends to indicate that the mark is suggestive, not descriptive. McCarthy, § 11:68. Accordingly, the question to be asked in the present case is whether another producer besides Applicant could sell “frozen confections, namely, chocolate dipped bananas” if the mark BANANA BITES (with BANANA disclaimed) is protected? Clearly, the answer is yes. While the term BANANA is certainly necessary to refer to frozen chocolate dipped bananas, there are countless alternatives to BITES that could be used by competitors to describe such products (e.g., tastes, nibbles, chews, tasters, portions, chunks, slices, pieces, cubes, morsels, mouthfuls, nugget, etc.). Further, the individual portions of a mark are not considered in isolation in determining whether the mark is descriptive or suggestive. For example, the term SEASON-ALL for aluminum storm windows was found to be suggestive and nondescriptive due to the impression created by the mark as a whole. Aluminum Fabricating Co. v. Season-All Window Corp., 259 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1958). The term BANANA BITES is not needed by Applicant’s competitors to sell chocolate dipped bananas. Failure to use these two words does not hinder competition. The mark BANANA BITES is suggestive that the frozen chocolate dipped bananas may be easily consumed or that the bananas come in small portions. The trademark is “catchy” and “suggestive” but not descriptive. Therefore, the rejection is improper and must be withdrawn.
b. The “Mental Leap” Test If a mental leap is required to perceive that the subject mark somehow relates to the corresponding goods, then the mark is suggestive, not descriptive. McCarthy on Trademarks, § 11:67. Descriptive marks must “merely describe” or “immediately describe” the goods. Illustrative marks held descriptive for consumer foods are provided in McCarthy on Trademarks, § 11:23, including: Aloe Crème Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., 423 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1970) (ALO for cream of aloe plant); Milwaukee Nut Co. v. Brewster Food Service, 277 F.2d 190 (CCPA 1960) (BEER NUTS for salted nuts); In re Entenmann’s, Inc., 15 USPQ.2d 1750 (TTAB 1990) (OATNUT for bread containing oats and nuts); and In re General Foods Corp., 177 USPQ 403 (TTAB 1973) (PUDDING TREATS for pudding deserts). In sharp contrast to these illustrative marks, BANANA BITES (with BANANA disclaimed) cannot reasonably be construed to merely or immediately describe frozen chocolate dipped bananas. If one must exercise “mature thought or follow a multi-stage process” to determine attributes of the product, then the term is suggestive, not descriptive. In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ. 496 (TTAB 1978). One cannot ask another person “please get me my BANANA BITES” and expect that the person will have a descriptive understanding that BANANA BITES refers to frozen chocolate dipped bananas. If a customer were to ask a store clerk who had never encountered Applicant’s mark in association with Applicant’s goods where to find the BANANA BITES, the clerk would not know whether to direct the customer to the fruit section (for whole bananas), the snack section (for banana flavored chips), the candy aisle (for banana candies), or even to the breakfast cereal section (for cereals that include banana). The clerk may even direct the customer to the liquor section, thinking BANANA BITES referred to an alcoholic beverage with banana flavoring and a strong “bite.” The clerk would certainly not assume the customer was searching for frozen chocolate covered bananas unless she was familiar with Applicant’s goods sold under Applicant’s mark. With BANANA disclaimed, this mark is not descriptive of any of these goods, nor is it descriptive of a quality or a characteristic of the goods. Indeed, the Examiner’s own chain of reasoning indicates that the term BANANA BITES is suggestive of Applicant’s goods. To reach the conclusion that BANANA BITES is descriptive for frozen chocolate dipped bananas, the Examiner makes the following mental steps: (1) bananas are long curved fruit with yellow skin, (2) BITES is the plural of the term BITE, (3) BITE is defined as to grip, cut off or tear with or as with the teeth or jaws, (4) Bananas can be gripped, cut off, or torn into with or as with the teeth or jaws, (5) this mark must describe Applicant’s goods because these goods feature bananas that are eaten by tearing into them with the teeth or jaws. Even after following the Examiner’s reasoning, all a consumer would know from seeing Applicant’s mark is that Applicant’s goods feature banana in an edible form. As discussed above, this chain of reasoning is nonsensical, as it leads to the conclusion that the term BITES is always descriptive of edible food, which is clearly not the case. What is shown is that BANANA BITES is not descriptive of frozen chocolate dipped bananas but instead is at best suggestive of a possible attribute of the bananas. When Applicant replaces the word BITES with synonyms, the suggestiveness of the mark appears. Other similar marks include: BANANA NIBBLES, BANANA CHEWS, BANANA NUGGETS, etc. Under the mental step test, no one when told of the mark BANANA BITES (with BANANA disclaimed) could leap to the conclusion that the goods are frozen chocolate dipped bananas. Therefore, the mark is suggestive and the rejection should be withdrawn. c. Media & Dictionary Test A mark is likely to be found descriptive when “the mark’s dictionary definition corresponds with its meaning and context.” Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 232 (5th Cir. 2009). The Examiner cites to the dictionary definition of BITE as being “to grip, cut off or tear with or as if with the teeth or jaws.” However, Applicant’s goods are not consumed by cutting off or tearing off pieces of banana using the teeth or jaws. Instead, the term BITES suggests the ease with which the product may be consumed due to the small size of the individual pieces. The Examiner’s definition does not refer to any concept such as ease of consumption such as that obtained with pre-made small portions of frozen chocolate covered banana. The use of the term BITES as defined by the Examiner is clearly not descriptive of Applicant’s goods.
The TMEP Defines the mark as Suggestive The TMEP provides that “suggestive marks are those that, when applied to the goods at issue, require imagination, thought or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of those goods. Thus, a suggestive term differs from a descriptive term, which immediately tells something about the goods.” In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363 (TTAB 1983) (SNO-RAKE held suggestive for snow removal hand tool). Therefore, a designation does not have to be devoid of all meaning in relation to the goods to be registrable.” TMEP 1209.01(a). Clearly a mark like BANANA BITES, much like SNO-RAKE, suggests some faint association with the goods, but it does not clearly and immediately tell something about the goods. The TMEP clearly provides the Examiner with guidance as to the suggestive nature of the mark.
Conclusion It is well established that any doubt in the determination at the interstice between the suggestive/distinctive line is resolved in favor of Applicant. In re Merrill, 828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir., 1987); In re Aid Laboratories, Inc., 221 USPQ 1215, 1216 (TTAB 1983); In re Gourmet Bakers, Inc., 173 USPQ 565 (TTAB 1972) (any doubt in determining the registrability of [a mark] is resolved in favor of applicant "on the theory that any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration will have an opportunity ... to oppose the registration of the mark and to present evidence, usually not present in the ex parte application, to that effect.") Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the mark BANANA BITE (with Banana disclaimed) is suggestive not descriptive of Applicant’s products and therefore should be allowed. Reconsideration and allowance is respectfully requested. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EVIDENCE SECTION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_389814067-162359228_._BANANA_BITES_-Response_to_Office_Action_dated_4-28-13.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (10 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0002.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0003.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0004.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0005.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0006.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0007.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0008.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0009.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0010.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0011.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_389814067-162359228_._Registration_List_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (19 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0012.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0013.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0014.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0015.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0016.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0017.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0018.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0019.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0020.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0021.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0022.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0023.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0024.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0025.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0026.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0027.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0028.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0029.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\856\806\85680633\xml7\RFR0030.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Response to Final Office Action with graphics and exhibits | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Robert S. Beiser/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Robert S. Beiser | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of Record, Illinois Bar Member | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DATE SIGNED | 10/28/2013 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE FILED | YES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SUBMIT DATE | Mon Oct 28 16:45:10 EDT 2013 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/RFR-XX.XX.XXX.XX-20 131028164510653468-856806 33-5006bcea5ae37d6856f5aa 7d3ab29284db8db9b4d7b3fc1 11394c71a34134cf-N/A-N/A- 20131028162359228103 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PTO Form 1960 (Rev 9/2007) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017) |
Attorney Docket No.: 41903.00.0006
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office
|
Applicant: Diana’s Banana Inc. |
|
|
Serial No. 85/680633 |
Examiner: Florentina Blandu |
|
Mark: BANANA BITES |
Law Office No.: 117 |
|
Filing Date July 18, 2012 |
|
Trademark Office Action Response
Commissioner for Trademarks
Box 106
2900 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22313-1453
Dear Examiner Blandu:
This is a response to the Office Action dated April 28, 2013. Please amend the application in considering the following remarks.
Remarks
The Examiner has rejected the present application under Section 2(e)(1) as being descriptive.
The Rejection
As the Examiner notes, Applicant’s mark is BANANA BITES for “frozen confections, namely, chocolate dipped bananas” in International Class 030. The term BANANA has been disclaimed, as the Examiner aptly noted that the term is descriptive when applied to Applicant’s goods.
However, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner that BITES is also descriptive when applied to Applicant’s goods, specifically, to frozen chocolate dipped bananas. The Examiner states that “BITES is the plural of the term BITE and it is defined as to grip, cut off or tear with or as if with the teeth or jaws.” The Examiner reasons that the term BITES is descriptive of Applicant’s goods because Applicant’s goods feature “bananas that are eaten by tearing into them with the teeth or jaws.”
While Applicant understands the Examiner’s position, Applicant respectfully submits that this reasoning is incorrect when applied to Applicant’s mark with Applicant’s goods. As an initial matter, Applicant submits that Applicant’s goods, specifically chocolate dipped bananas, are not whole bananas that are gripped, cut off, or torn as with the teeth or jaws. Instead, Applicant’s goods are small portions of banana that have been dipped in chocolate. Images showing Applicant’s mark being used with Applicant’s goods are included below:
As shown, Applicant’s goods are small portions of frozen banana that have been dipped in chocolate. Each individual portion may be consumed separately, without having to tear the portion off from an entire banana.
Indeed, applying the Examiner’s reasoning to goods such as Applicant’s would render the terms BITE and BITES descriptive for all of International Class 030 (Staple Foods), as all solid foods are necessarily eaten by tearing into the food with the teeth or jaws. A quick glance at previously registered marks for food products shows this result to be ridiculous. The following is a list of marks in in International Class 030 which include the term BITES or the singular term BITE:
|
Mark |
Reg. No. |
Goods |
Disclaimer |
|
BAGEL BITES |
3,505,189 |
Dough-based pockets with filling consisting primarily of meats and cheese |
BAGEL |
|
BROWNIE BITES |
1,693,366 |
Bakery Goods |
BROWNIE |
|
CRAB BITES |
1,870,710 |
Packaged hors d’oeuvres consisting primarily of a flour based wrapper filled with crab meat and spices |
CRAB |
|
COOKIE BITES |
1,859,852 |
Miniature cookies |
COOKIE |
|
TAMALE BITES |
3,470,859 |
Tamales for retail, wholesale and catering, including tamales made from scratch, ready to eat tamales, and tamales made from flavored dough with raisins and cinnamon, tortilla dough, mexican style food products, namely, tamales, tacos, enchiladas and salsa, mexican rice mix, primarily consisting of long rice, onion, garlic, chicken broth, serrano pepper, peas, corn, carrots, and salt, tortilla chips, tamale sauce, tortillas, tortilla shells, sopes and dough for sopes, flautas and dough for flautas, tostadas, dough for tostadas, colored tortillas, corn chips, taco chips, pita chips, tortilla wraps, masa |
TAMALE |
|
BAKERY BITES |
2,196,701 |
Edible decorations for cakes, cupcakes, cookies, and the like |
BAKERY |
|
SPICY BITE |
1,708,496 |
Sandwiches; namely, hot dogs and buns |
|
|
BREAKFAST BITE |
1,688,000 |
Sandwiches; namely, sausages and buns for consumption on or off the premises |
|
|
SOFT PRETZEL-BITES |
1,525,995 |
Snack foods, namely a baked, soft pretzel product |
|
|
BUNNY BITES |
1,664,288 |
Candy |
|
|
MIGHTY BITE |
1,997,772 |
Candy |
|
|
BIG BITE |
2,780,103 |
Sandwiches, namely hot dogs and buns for consumption on or off the premises |
|
|
BUG BITES |
2,113,442 |
Chocolate |
|
|
FROST BITES |
4,027,531 |
Frozen desserts consisting of chocolate covered gelato |
|
|
BAGEL BITES TO GO |
3,295,423 |
Frozen bagels with various toppings |
BAGEL |
|
GREAT BITE |
3,807,474 |
Mints and candy |
|
|
RECESSION BITES |
3,650,938 |
Candies |
|
|
JUICY BITES |
2,948,053 |
Candy |
|
|
BAR BITES |
3,166,618 |
Candy |
|
Each of these marks is for a food product, which is necessarily eaten using the teeth or jaws. Applying the Examiner’s reasoning, the first six listed marks would be entirely descriptive and unregisterable, as BITES is the only word not disclaimed in the mark. However, as is clear from the fact that these marks exist on the Principal Register without having the terms BITES or BTIE disclaimed, these terms are not considered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be descriptive of food products simply because the food product is consumed by tearing into it with the teeth or jaws. For this reason, reconsideration and allowance is respectfully requested.
BANANA BITES for Applicant’s Goods is Suggestive under all Three Tests
“The descriptive-suggestive borderline is hardly a clear one.” McCarthy on Trademarks, § 11:66. There are various tests to help determine where the mark falls on this spectrum: (1) the competitors’ need test, (2) the degree of imagination test, and (3) the actual use test. Each test is reviewed in turn.
a. The “Competitors’ Need” Test
The competitors’ need test is based on the principle that no single applicant should be granted a government-sanctioned monopoly over a term that would prevent its competitors from selling the same goods. In the Office Action, the Examiner states that BANANA BITES (with BANANA disclaimed) describe Applicant’s goods because “[t]he applicant features bananas that are eaten by tearing into them with the teeth or jaws.”
The Federal Circuit has explained that a term is merely descriptive if it “conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of the identified goods.” In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). The law is based in the concept that if a single applicant was granted the exclusive right to use the mark “Steelbuilding.com,” competitors who need to use the words “steel building” would be prevented from competing as this is the only term that can possibly describe a steel building. Similarly, as an example, the mark APPLE could not be granted for an apple-flavored juice without unduly hindering commerce. This would be true even if the juice did not contain apple as an ingredient and the term APPLE merely related to the taste of the juice. As McCarthy explains, “[t]he more imagination that is required to associate a mark with the product, the less likely the words used will be needed by competitors to describe their products.” Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976). This test for descriptiveness can be summed up in a simple question: is the suggestion made by the mark so remote and subtle that it is really not likely to be needed by competitive sellers to describe their goods? If the answer is yes, then this tends to indicate that the mark is suggestive, not descriptive. McCarthy, § 11:68.
Accordingly, the question to be asked in the present case is whether another producer besides Applicant could sell “frozen confections, namely, chocolate dipped bananas” if the mark BANANA BITES (with BANANA disclaimed) is protected? Clearly, the answer is yes. While the term BANANA is certainly necessary to refer to frozen chocolate dipped bananas, there are countless alternatives to BITES that could be used by competitors to describe such products (e.g., tastes, nibbles, chews, tasters, portions, chunks, slices, pieces, cubes, morsels, mouthfuls, nugget, etc.). Further, the individual portions of a mark are not considered in isolation in determining whether the mark is descriptive or suggestive. For example, the term SEASON-ALL for aluminum storm windows was found to be suggestive and nondescriptive due to the impression created by the mark as a whole. Aluminum Fabricating Co. v. Season-All Window Corp., 259 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1958). The term BANANA BITES is not needed by Applicant’s competitors to sell chocolate dipped bananas. Failure to use these two words does not hinder competition. The mark BANANA BITES is suggestive that the frozen chocolate dipped bananas may be easily consumed or that the bananas come in small portions. The trademark is “catchy” and “suggestive” but not descriptive. Therefore, the rejection is improper and must be withdrawn.
b. The “Mental Leap” Test
If a mental leap is required to perceive that the subject mark somehow relates to the corresponding goods, then the mark is suggestive, not descriptive. McCarthy on Trademarks, § 11:67. Descriptive marks must “merely describe” or “immediately describe” the goods. Illustrative marks held descriptive for consumer foods are provided in McCarthy on Trademarks, § 11:23, including: Aloe Crème Laboratories, Inc. v. Milsan, Inc., 423 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1970) (ALO for cream of aloe plant); Milwaukee Nut Co. v. Brewster Food Service, 277 F.2d 190 (CCPA 1960) (BEER NUTS for salted nuts); In re Entenmann’s, Inc., 15 USPQ.2d 1750 (TTAB 1990) (OATNUT for bread containing oats and nuts); and In re General Foods Corp., 177 USPQ 403 (TTAB 1973) (PUDDING TREATS for pudding deserts). In sharp contrast to these illustrative marks, BANANA BITES (with BANANA disclaimed) cannot reasonably be construed to merely or immediately describe frozen chocolate dipped bananas.
If one must exercise “mature thought or follow a multi-stage process” to determine attributes of the product, then the term is suggestive, not descriptive. In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ. 496 (TTAB 1978). One cannot ask another person “please get me my BANANA BITES” and expect that the person will have a descriptive understanding that BANANA BITES refers to frozen chocolate dipped bananas. If a customer were to ask a store clerk who had never encountered Applicant’s mark in association with Applicant’s goods where to find the BANANA BITES, the clerk would not know whether to direct the customer to the fruit section (for whole bananas), the snack section (for banana flavored chips), the candy aisle (for banana candies), or even to the breakfast cereal section (for cereals that include banana). The clerk may even direct the customer to the liquor section, thinking BANANA BITES referred to an alcoholic beverage with banana flavoring and a strong “bite.” The clerk would certainly not assume the customer was searching for frozen chocolate covered bananas unless she was familiar with Applicant’s goods sold under Applicant’s mark. With BANANA disclaimed, this mark is not descriptive of any of these goods, nor is it descriptive of a quality or a characteristic of the goods.
Indeed, the Examiner’s own chain of reasoning indicates that the term BANANA BITES is suggestive of Applicant’s goods. To reach the conclusion that BANANA BITES is descriptive for frozen chocolate dipped bananas, the Examiner makes the following mental steps: (1) bananas are long curved fruit with yellow skin, (2) BITES is the plural of the term BITE, (3) BITE is defined as to grip, cut off or tear with or as with the teeth or jaws, (4) Bananas can be gripped, cut off, or torn into with or as with the teeth or jaws, (5) this mark must describe Applicant’s goods because these goods feature bananas that are eaten by tearing into them with the teeth or jaws. Even after following the Examiner’s reasoning, all a consumer would know from seeing Applicant’s mark is that Applicant’s goods feature banana in an edible form. As discussed above, this chain of reasoning is nonsensical, as it leads to the conclusion that the term BITES is always descriptive of edible food, which is clearly not the case. What is shown is that BANANA BITES is not descriptive of frozen chocolate dipped bananas but instead is at best suggestive of a possible attribute of the bananas. When Applicant replaces the word BITES with synonyms, the suggestiveness of the mark appears. Other similar marks include: BANANA NIBBLES, BANANA CHEWS, BANANA NUGGETS, etc. Under the mental step test, no one when told of the mark BANANA BITES (with BANANA disclaimed) could leap to the conclusion that the goods are frozen chocolate dipped bananas. Therefore, the mark is suggestive and the rejection should be withdrawn.
c. Media & Dictionary Test
A mark is likely to be found descriptive when “the mark’s dictionary definition corresponds with its meaning and context.” Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 232 (5th Cir. 2009). The Examiner cites to the dictionary definition of BITE as being “to grip, cut off or tear with or as if with the teeth or jaws.” However, Applicant’s goods are not consumed by cutting off or tearing off pieces of banana using the teeth or jaws. Instead, the term BITES suggests the ease with which the product may be consumed due to the small size of the individual pieces. The Examiner’s definition does not refer to any concept such as ease of consumption such as that obtained with pre-made small portions of frozen chocolate covered banana. The use of the term BITES as defined by the Examiner is clearly not descriptive of Applicant’s goods.
The TMEP Defines the mark as Suggestive
The TMEP provides that “suggestive marks are those that, when applied to the goods at issue, require imagination, thought or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of those goods. Thus, a suggestive term differs from a descriptive term, which immediately tells something about the goods.” In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363 (TTAB 1983) (SNO-RAKE held suggestive for snow removal hand tool). Therefore, a designation does not have to be devoid of all meaning in relation to the goods to be registrable.” TMEP 1209.01(a). Clearly a mark like BANANA BITES, much like SNO-RAKE, suggests some faint association with the goods, but it does not clearly and immediately tell something about the goods. The TMEP clearly provides the Examiner with guidance as to the suggestive nature of the mark.
Conclusion
It is well established that any doubt in the determination at the interstice between the suggestive/distinctive line is resolved in favor of Applicant. In re Merrill, 828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir., 1987); In re Aid Laboratories, Inc., 221 USPQ 1215, 1216 (TTAB 1983); In re Gourmet Bakers, Inc., 173 USPQ 565 (TTAB 1972) (any doubt in determining the registrability of [a mark] is resolved in favor of applicant "on the theory that any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration will have an opportunity ... to oppose the registration of the mark and to present evidence, usually not present in the ex parte application, to that effect.")
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the mark BANANA BITE (with Banana disclaimed) is suggestive not descriptive of Applicant’s products and therefore should be allowed.
Reconsideration and allowance is respectfully requested.
