UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86372642
MARK: SOLARIS
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Philip Morris Products S.A.
|
|
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: 9/17/2016
THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 17, 2016 in which applicant submitted a copy of the foreign registration. The foreign registration is acceptable.
FINAL REFUSAL FOR LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
In applicant’s response of June 5, 2015, applicant requested that the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) be withdrawn. However, based on the evidence previously provided and that attached hereto, the proposed mark when used in conjunction with the identified goods is likely to be confused with the registrant’s mark.
In this case, applicant seeks registration of the wording SOLARIS for use in conjunction with:
Batteries for electronic cigarettes; batteries for electronic devices that are used for heating tobacco, battery chargers for electronic devices that are used for heating tobacco; USB chargers for electronic devices that are used for heating tobacco; car chargers for electronic cigarettes; car chargers for devices that are used for heating tobacco, in International Class 9;
Electronic vaporizers; electric liquid heaters; apparatus for generating vapor, namely, electronic vaporizers and wired vaporizers for personal use and not for medical purposes, in International Class 11; and
Tobacco, raw or manufactured; tobacco products, namely, cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos, tobacco for roll your own cigarettes, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff tobacco, cigarettes containing clove as well as tobacco, moist powder tobacco known as snus, tobacco substitutes not for medical purposes; smokers' articles, namely, cigarette paper and tubes, cigarette filters, tobacco tins, cigarette cases, ashtrays, pipes, pocket apparatus for rolling cigarettes, cigarette lighters, matches; tobacco rolled in stick tubes, heated tobacco products, namely, electronic tobacco stick holders that heat tobacco products; electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarettes for use as an alternative to traditional cigarettes; smoker's articles for electronic cigarettes, namely, electronic rechargeable cigarette cases and boxes, empty cartridges, chargers and extinguishers; replacement parts and fittings for use in connection with the foregoing goods, in International Class 34.
The registrant is already using the mark SOLARIS in conjunction with “cigars.”
SIMILARITY OF MARKS
In the present case, applicant’s mark is SOLARIS and registrant’s mark is SOLARIS. These 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). 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. In re i.am.symbolic, Llc, 116 USPQ2d at 1411.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
RELATEDNESS OF GOODS
The applicant’s goods are in part identical in that applicant intends to use its proposed mark in conjunction with cigars, and otherwise closely related in that the remaining items to be provided by the applicant all fall within the broad description of articles used by smokers. Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks. See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272 (TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel on the same patients to treat the same disease).
The attached Internet evidence consists of excerpts from www.yelp.com, www.ovtc.com, www.hayestobacconist.com, www.cigarnvapes.com, www.somervillesmokeshop.com, http://smokeshopwaco.com, http://oceancigarsnj.com, www.brandcigarsnewtown.com, www.janesvillesmokeshop.com and www.ozsmoke.com. This evidence establishes that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Evidence obtained from the Internet may be used to support a determination under Section 2(d) that goods and/or services are related. See, e.g., In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1371 (TTAB 2009); In re Paper Doll Promotions, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1660, 1668 (TTAB 2007). The Internet has become integral to daily life in the United States, with Census Bureau data showing approximately three-quarters of American households used the Internet in 2013 to engage in personal communications, to obtain news, information, and entertainment, and to do banking and shopping. See In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639, 1642 (TTAB 2015) (taking judicial notice of the following two official government publications: (1) Thom File & Camille Ryan, U.S. Census Bureau, Am. Cmty. Survey Reports ACS-28, Computer & Internet Use in the United States: 2013 (2014), available at http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-28.pdf, and (2) The Nat’l Telecomms. & Info. Admin. & Econ. & Statistics Admin., Exploring the Digital Nation: America’s Emerging Online Experience (2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_-_americas_emerging_online_experience.pdf). Thus, the widespread use of the Internet in the United States suggests that Internet evidence may be probative of public perception in trademark examination.
The evidence showing the applicant’s mark is likely to be confused with the registrant’s mark, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.
RESPONSE OPTIONS
(1) A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals.
(2) An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.
37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.
In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues. TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
/Verna B. Ririe/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 104
(571) 272-9310
(571) 273-9104 (office fax)
verna.ririe@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.