UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

 

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: 11/17/2015

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

This communication responds to applicant’s response dated October 29, 2015.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

• Likelihood of Confusion;
• Identification of Goods/beyond the scope.

Likelihood of Confusion: maintained; repeated and made Final:

The applicant applied to register the mark: “FOSSA" for edible chews for dogs made of lamb and sheep horns; all-natural digestible chewing bones for dogs; pet treats in the nature of bully sticks; protein for animal consumption; chewing treats of pig ears, pig snouts, pig hooves, pig ankles, cow hooves, sheep hooves, bone marrow, and other animal byproducts; animal foodstuffs, namely, flaked food made of sheep horns; desiccated liver treats for pets; dehydrated fish products made from fish, namely, fish chips; dietary supplements for pets, namely, fish oils and fish powders; fish skins; fish leather; animal byproducts, namely, marrow from bones and horns; religious artifacts; religious items; fashion accessories; decorative items, namely, figurines, sculptures, holiday-type ornaments, and decorative keepsakes and trinkets; powders and extracts from mosses; jewelry made of sheep horns; drinking vessels and tableware made of sheep horns; dietary food supplements and nutritional supplements prepared using natural materials in Int. class 31.

The registered mark(s) is/are: U.S. Registration No. 4364289 for “FOSSA APPAREL and design” for coats; golf shirts; jackets; polo shirts; pullovers; vests; pants; shorts; sweat pants; swat pants; sweat shirts; sweaters; T-shirts; shirts” in Int. class 25.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely 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).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and 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) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, 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 at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; 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.

Similarities in Appearance, Sound, Connotation and Commercial Impression:

“FOSSA vs. FOSSA APPAREL and design”

These marks both feature the identical term FOSSA in them which has the same commercial impression of  shallow depression or hollow. See previously attached definition.

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  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).  In the present case, applicant’s mark is FOSSA and registrant’s mark is FOSSA APPAREL and design.  Thus, the marks are identical in terms of appearance and sound as to the dominant portion of the marks.  In addition, the connotation and commercial impression of the marks do not differ when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

Marks must be compared in their entireties and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may weigh the individual components of a mark to determine its overall commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1322, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[Regarding the issue of confusion,] there is nothing improper in stating that . . . more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.”) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). 

 

The word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

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 Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

Goods:

The applicant features fashion accessories and jewelry made of sheep horns. The registered mark is for coats; golf shirts; jackets; polo shirts; pullovers; vests; pants; shorts; sweat pants; swat pants; sweat shirts; sweaters; T-shirts; shirts" in Int. class 25.

With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s goods, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods 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)).  Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods of the type described.  See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992). 

In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, it is presumed that these goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.  Further, the application uses broad wording to describe the goods and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods of the type described, including those in registrant’s more narrow identification.

The previously attached Internet evidence consisted of screen shots from various retailers and registrations from the office database showing that fashion accessories, jewelry and clothing are all sold together by the same retailer.  This evidence established that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.  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.

Other Informalities:

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.

Beyond the Scope:

 

Particular wording in the proposed amendment to the identification is not acceptable because it exceeds the scope of the identification in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  The original identification in the application, and any previously accepted amendments, remain operative for purposes of future amendment.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.07(d).

 

An acceptable identification of goods and/or services is required in an application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.71(a); TMEP §§805, 1402.01.  An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Scope is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §1402.07(a). 

 

The application originally identified the goods as follows:  “edible chews for dogs made of lamb and sheep horns; all-natural digestible chewing bones for dogs; pet treats in the nature of bully sticks; protein for animal consumption; chewing treats of pig ears, pig snouts, pig hooves, pig ankles, cow hooves, sheep hooves, bone marrow, and other animal byproducts; animal foodstuffs, namely, flaked food made of sheep horns; desiccated liver treats for pets; dehydrated fish products made from fish, namely, fish chips; dietary supplements for pets, namely, fish oils and fish powders; fish skins; fish leather; animal byproducts, namely, marrow from bones and horns; religious artifacts; religious items; fashion accessories; decorative items, namely, figurines, sculptures, holiday-type ornaments, and decorative keepsakes and trinkets; powders and extracts from mosses; jewelry made of sheep horns; drinking vessels and tableware made of sheep horns; dietary food supplements and nutritional supplements prepared using natural materials.”

 

However, the proposed amendment identifies the goods and/or services as follows: “waste management services in Int. Class 40.” 

 

This portion of the proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the original identification because the applicant amended from goods to services and furthermore the applicant amended to services which were not covered by the original identification of goods.

 

Thus, the identification, incorporating this amendment, is not acceptable.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.71(a); TMEP §§805, 1402.01.

 

Identification of Goods:

 

 Applicant must clarify the identification of goods by providing further information and clarification about the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Various goods are classified incorrectly.  Applicant must amend the application to classify the goods in the correct International Classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a), 1401.03(b).

 

The wording “religious artifacts; religious items; fashion accessories; decorative items, namely, figurines, sculptures, holiday-type ornaments, and decorative keepsakes and trinkets; powders and extracts from mosses; fish skins; fish leather; animal byproducts, namely, marrow from bones and horns” in the identification of goods must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.

 

 Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

 International  Class 5

 

 Dietary supplements for pets, namely, fish oils; dietary food supplements and nutritional supplements prepared using natural materials.

 

International  Class 8

 

Tableware made of sheep horns, namely, knives, forks and spoons.

 

International  Class  14:

 

 Jewelry made of sheep horns.

 

International  Class  31

 

Edible chews for dogs made of lamb and sheep horns; all-natural digestible chewing bones for dogs; pet treats in the nature of bully sticks; protein for animal consumption; pet chewing treats of pig ears, pig snouts, pig hooves, pig ankles, cow hooves, sheep hooves, bone marrow, and other animal byproducts; animal foodstuffs, namely, flaked food made of sheep horns; desiccated liver treats for pets; dehydrated fish food made from fish, namely, fish chips; fish food, namely, fish powders.

 

International  Class  21:

 

 Drinking vessels made of sheep horns.

 

For assistance regarding an acceptable listing of goods and/or services, please see the on-line searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services, at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.

 

Recitation and Identification Amendment Advisory:

 

 Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

 If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b)

 

Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP § 1403.01; and

 

Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01.

 

Remedies for Final Action:

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(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).

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring this additional fee. 

 

 

 

/LDA/

Lourdes Ayala, Attorney at Law

Law Office 106

Telephone Number 571-272-9316

Fax: 571-272-9106

Lourdes.Ayala@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.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 11/17/2015 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86691634

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 11/17/2015 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.