UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87932083
MARK: ORANGE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Espro, 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. 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: 9/25/2018
Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made on a case-by-case basis by applying 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see TMEP §1207.01.
Registration No. 4636574
Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is ORANGE and registrant’s mark is ORANGE. 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), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 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. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
The applicant’s goods are identified as “Coffee mugs; coffee cups; Coffee services in the nature of tableware; Sets of tasting cups for experiencing different coffee flavor profiles; Tasting cups for experiencing specific coffee flavor profiles; Cups for detecting flavor notes in gourmet coffees; Cups for detecting flavor notes in specialty coffees; Cups for detecting flavor notes in coffees; Coffee services not of precious metal; Non-electric coffee dripper for brewing coffee; Non-electric coffee makers; Coffee grinders, hand-operated; Coffee filters not of paper being part of non-electric coffee makers.” The registrant’s goods are identified as “Reusable self-sealing lids for household use featuring a stackable component; reusable self-sealing lids for bowls, containers and the storage of food featuring a stackable component; sealing lids for cooking use featuring a stackable component.”
The registrant’s lids could be used with the applicant’s cups, mugs and service items. The goods could be used together and are all household kitchen items.
The goods of the parties are related. The marks used on the goods are identical. Consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods come from the same source. Registration is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Registration No. 4269351
Comparison of the Marks
The applicant’s mark is ORANGE. The registered mark is ORANGE SIPP’R and design.
When evaluating a composite mark containing both words and designs, the word portion is more likely to indicate the origin of the goods and/or services because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods and/or services. Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
The applicant’s mark is identical to the dominant portion of the registered mark.
Comparison of the Goods
The compared goods 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are 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).
The applicant’s goods are identified as “Coffee mugs; coffee cups; Coffee services in the nature of tableware; Sets of tasting cups for experiencing different coffee flavor profiles; Tasting cups for experiencing specific coffee flavor profiles; Cups for detecting flavor notes in gourmet coffees; Cups for detecting flavor notes in specialty coffees; Cups for detecting flavor notes in coffees; Coffee services not of precious metal; Non-electric coffee dripper for brewing coffee; Non-electric coffee makers; Coffee grinders, hand-operated; Coffee filters not of paper being part of non-electric coffee makers.” The registrant’s goods are identified as “drinking cups.”
The applicant and registrant both use their marks on cups. The registration uses broad wording to describe its drinking cups, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow coffee cups, tasting cups and other more specifically identified cups. See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000). Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and 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)).
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on 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)).
The applicant’s other goods are items that would be used with drinking cups and are all kitchen type household items and items that would be sold to the same class of customer through the same trade channels.
The goods of the parties are the same type of goods and related goods. The applicant’s entire mark is identical to the dominant portion of the registered mark. Consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods come from the same source. Registration is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
Registration No. 5371078
Comparison of the Marks
The applicant’s mark is ORANGE. The registered mark is ORANGE BEAN COFFEE and design.
Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he dominance of BARR in [a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is reinforced by its location as the first word in the mark.”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
When evaluating a composite mark containing both words and designs, the word portion is more likely to indicate the origin of the goods and/or services because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods and/or services. Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
The wording BEAN COFFEE in the registrant’s mark is generic for some of the applicant’s goods and describes what is used in the other goods.
The applicant’s entire mark is identical to the arguably dominant portion of the registered mark.
In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); 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).
Comparison of the Goods
The compared goods 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are 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).
The applicant’s goods are identified as “Coffee mugs; coffee cups; Coffee services in the nature of tableware; Sets of tasting cups for experiencing different coffee flavor profiles; Tasting cups for experiencing specific coffee flavor profiles; Cups for detecting flavor notes in gourmet coffees; Cups for detecting flavor notes in specialty coffees; Cups for detecting flavor notes in coffees; Coffee services not of precious metal; Non-electric coffee dripper for brewing coffee; Non-electric coffee makers; Coffee grinders, hand-operated; Coffee filters not of paper being part of non-electric coffee makers.” The registrant’s goods are identified as “Coffee cups; Coffee cups, tea cups and mugs; Coffee filters not of paper being part of non-electric coffee makers; Coffee grinders, hand-operated; Coffee measures; Coffee mugs; Coffee percolators, non-electric; Coffee pod holders; Coffee pots; Coffee pots not of precious metal; Coffee pots of precious metal; Coffee scoops; Coffee servers; Coffee services not of precious metal; Coffee services of precious metal; Coffee stirrers; Hand-operated coffee grinders; Hand-operated coffee grinders and pepper mills; Non-electric coffee dripper for brewing coffee; Non-electric coffee makers; Non-electric coffee percolators; Non-electric coffee pots; Non-electric coffee pots not of precious metal; Non-electric coffee servers not of precious metal; Non-electric coffee servers of precious metal; Non-electrical coffee grinders.”
The applicant and registrant use their marks on the same type of goods and on other coffee related products.
The goods of the parties are the same type of goods and related goods. The applicant’s entire mark is identical to the dominant portion of the registered mark. Consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods come from the same source. Registration is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
Section 2(e)(1) Descriptiveness Refusal
The attached evidence from www.en.oxforddictionaries.com shows that ORANGE is defined as “A round juicy citrus fruit with a tough bright reddish-yellow rind.”
The applicant’s goods are identified as “Coffee mugs; coffee cups; Coffee services in the nature of tableware; Sets of tasting cups for experiencing different coffee flavor profiles; Tasting cups for experiencing specific coffee flavor profiles; Cups for detecting flavor notes in gourmet coffees; Cups for detecting flavor notes in specialty coffees; Cups for detecting flavor notes in coffees; Coffee services not of precious metal; Non-electric coffee dripper for brewing coffee; Non-electric coffee makers; Coffee grinders, hand-operated; Coffee filters not of paper being part of non-electric coffee makers.”
The attached evidence from several websites also shows that tasting or cupping of coffee is done to determine and analyze coffee flavors and qualities. The evidence shows that cups and coffee implements such as the applicant’s goods are used to taste and analyze the flavors and qualities.
The attached evidence from www.scaa.org, www.counterculturecoffee.com, www.seedcofee.com and www.winefolly.com shows that coffee and wine contain notes or flavors of orange. A feature of the applicant’s goods is that they are used in detecting and analyzing orange flavors or notes in coffee.
The word ORANGE is descriptive when used in association with the applicant’s goods and registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
Request for Information
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional product information about applicant’s goods because the nature of such goods is not clear from the present record. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. The requested product information should include fact sheets, instruction manuals, advertisements and promotional materials, and/or a photograph of the identified goods. If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ. Applicant must also describe in detail the nature, purpose, and channels of trade of the goods.
Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement for information.
Further, applicant must submit the following:
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
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.
/Kelley L. Wells/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 118
571-272-9312
kelley.wells@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.