To: | Peachtree Nutrition Limited (nwells@legendslaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87872802 - ZAP - 4708.43 |
Sent: | 8/7/2018 12:33:34 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM114@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87872802
MARK: ZAP
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Peachtree Nutrition Limited
|
|
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. A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 8/7/2018
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion
The following applies to international class 032 only.
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, 177 USPQ 563 (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.
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.
In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services. Syndicat Des Proprietaires Viticulteurs De Chateauneuf-Du-Pape v. Pasquier DesVignes, 107 USPQ2d 1930, 1938 (TTAB 2013) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see TMEP §1207.01. That is, the 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). Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).
Facts
In the case at hand applicant seeks to register “ZAP” in standard characters for “Juices; fruit juices; fruit beverages; fruit drinks and fruit juices; beverages consisting principally of fruit juices; non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit and vegetable juices; juice shots containing fruit and vegetable juices; fermented drinks; Douzhi (fermented bean drink); fermented Kombucha drinks.” The cited registered mark is “ZAP COLA” in an illustration which includes words for “Soft drinks, namely, sodas.”
Similarity of the Marks
When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under the respective marks is likely to result. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1049, (TTAB 2014); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).
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). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751. In the current case the dominant portion of the cited registered mark is “ZAP”. The other term “COLA” is weaker because it is descriptive in nature and has been disclaimed as such by the registrant. Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods 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). Therefore the dominant portion of the cited registered mark is identical to the applicant’s mark.
The applicant has also merely formed their mark by removing matter from an already registered 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 USPQ707, 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.
Finally the fact that the cited registered mark contains a design element does not obviate the likelihood of confusion between the two marks. 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).
Therefore because the applicant’s mark is identical to the dominant portion of the cited registered and the applicant has merely formed their mark by removing a term from the registrant’s already registered mark the marks similar in connotation and create a similar commercial impression.
Relatedness of the Goods
The goods of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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 current case the applicant and the registrant are offering highly related goods. Specifically the applicant and the registrant are offering related beverages. See the attached online excerpt showing the goods offered by both the applicant and the registrant emanating from a common source.
Therefore, with the contemporaneous use of highly similar marks, for highly related goods consumers are likely to reach the mistaken conclusion that the goods originate from a common source. As such, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
International Class 029:
Jellies, jams, compotes, {must provide more detail, e.g. fruit preserves} preserves; dairy desserts {the applicant must indicate the specific type of desserts that are being claimed and classify the goods accordingly as they could be classified in class 030, e.g. ice cream desserts in class 030}; chilled dairy desserts{the applicant must indicate the specific type of desserts that are being claimed and classify the goods accordingly as they could be classified in class 030, e.g. ice cream desserts in class 030, Frozen dessert consisting of fruit and cream or cream substitutes in class 030}; desserts made from milk products{the applicant must indicate the specific type of desserts that are being claimed and classify the goods accordingly as they could be classified in class 030, e.g. ice cream desserts in class 030, Frozen dessert consisting of fruit and cream or cream substitutes}; artificial milk based desserts{the applicant must indicate the specific type of desserts that are being claimed and classify the goods accordingly as they could be classified in class 030, e.g. ice cream substitutes, in class 030, Frozen dessert consisting of fruit and cream substitutes}; yoghurt desserts, namely, {must indicate specific type of dessert and classify the goods accordingly, e.g. custard style yoghurts in class 029, frozen yogurt confections in class 030}; yoghurts; fruit desserts, namely, {must indicate specific desserts and classify the goods accordingly, e.g. Frozen dessert consisting of fruit and cream or cream substitutes in class 030, fruit cakes in class 030}; fruit salads; preserved, processed, frozen, dried and cooked fruits; preparations made from fruits, namely, {must indicate the specific preparations and classify the goods accordingly}; milk; milk products {must provide more detail, e.g., Milk products excluding ice cream, ice milk and frozen yogurt}; dairy products and dairy substitutes, namely, {must indicate the specific products, e.g. cream, being dairy products, artificial cream}; yoghurt drinks; coconut milk; {“coconut water” is properly classified in international class 032 so must be moved}; preparations made from prepared, dried, desiccated or processed coconut, namely, {must indicate the specific preparations and classify the goods accordingly, e.g. coconut cream in class 029, coconut-based fruit ice in class 030}}; almond milk; soya {must provide more detail and classify accordingly, e.g. soya patties in class 029, soya flour in class 030}; soya milk; soya yoghurt; preparations made from nuts, namely, {must provide more detail and classify the goods accordingly, e.g. prepared nuts,}; fermented foods, namely, {must provide more detail, e.g. fermented fruits, fermented vegetables, fermented bean curd}; fermented fruits and vegetables; kimchi; fermented vegetable foods, namely, {must indicate specific type of food, e.g. kimchi}; fermented soybeans (natto); fermented soybeans; fermented bean curd; salted and fermented seafood (jeotgal); fermented tofu; fermented milk; cooked dishes consisting of fermented vegetables, fermented fruits, fermented sauces and fermented pastes
International Class 030:
Desserts {must provide more detail, e.g. bakery desserts, ice cream desserts}; puddings; puddings for use as desserts; prepared desserts, namely, {must provide more detail, e.g. dessert souffles, dessert mousse}; ice cream desserts; ices and ice creams; frozen yogurt; foodstuffs made of sugar for sweetening desserts, namely, {must provide more detail, e.g. cake frosting}; sugar; foodstuffs made of a sweetener for sweetening desserts namely, {must provide more detail, e.g. cake frosting}; foodstuffs made of honey and treacle, namely, {must indicate the specific foodstuffs}; custards; muesli desserts, namely, {must provide more detail, e.g. grain-based food bars, museli bars}; snack foods and snack bars made from cereal, oats, muesli, granola, coconut, chocolate, cake, confectionary and corn, namely, {must indicate the specific foods and snack bars and classify the goods accordingly, e.g. museli bars, cereal bars, grain-based food bar}; chocolate based bars; popcorn; flour; preparations made from flour, namely, {must indicate the specific type of preparations, e.g. cake mixes, cake pops}; pastry; cakes; buns; biscuits; pastries; cookies; muffins; croissants; gingerbread; tapioca; sago; chocolate; chocolate brownies; confectionery, namely, {must indicate specific type of confectionery, e.g. fondonts, zefir, confectionery made of sugar}; rice cakes; chocolate coated rice cakes; dressings for food, namely, {must provide more detail, e.g. dressings for salad, coleslaw dressing}; food dressings namely, {must provide more detail, e.g. dressings for salad, coleslaw dressing};salad dressings; dressings for salad; salad dressings containing cream; sauces; condiments {must indicate specific type of condiments, e.g. chutneys, minced garlic, soya bean paste}; prepared wasabi; miso; kombucha {must provide more detail, e.g. kombucha tea}; fermented sauces; Fermented hot pepper paste for use as a seasoning; {“kimchijeon” is vague, e.g. kimchi pancakes (kimchijeon)}; fermented hot pepper paste (gochujang)
International Class 032:
Juices {must specify type and classify the goods accordingly, .e.g. meat juices in class 029, vegetables juices in class 032, fruit juices for cooking in class 029}; fruit juices; fruit beverages; fruit drinks and fruit juices; beverages consisting principally of fruit juices; non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit and vegetable juices, namely, {must provide more details, e.g. non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages, non-alcoholic vegetable juice beverages}; Non-alcoholic drinks, namely, energy juice shots containing fruit and vegetable juices; fermented drinks {must provide more detail and classify the goods accordingly, e.g. fermented milk in class 029}; Douzhi (fermented bean drink) {must provide more detail and classify the goods accordingly}; fermented Kombucha drinks, namely, {must provide more detail and classify the goods accordingly, e.g. kombucha tea}
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.
Filing Basis
An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin. 15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016. In addition, the applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law. 15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.
Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin when it becomes available. TMEP §1003.04(a). A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1004.01. If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, the applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1016. In addition, applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration is not written in English. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b). The translation should be signed by the translator. TMEP §1004.01(b).
If the foreign registration is not yet available, applicant should inform the trademark examining attorney that the foreign application is still pending and request that the U.S. application be suspended until a copy of the foreign registration is available. TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(a).
If applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of the Section 44(e) basis, applicant may amend the basis to Section 1(a) or 1(b), if applicant can satisfy the requirements for the new basis. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)-(b), 1126(e); TMEP §806.03. Please note that, if the U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date, applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, provided there is a continuing valid basis for registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.03(h).
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 $125 per 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 or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.
/DAVID I/
David I
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 114
571-270-1526
david.i@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.