To: | Sierra Packaging and Converting, LLC (PTO@LRRC.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88120537 - SIERRA - 150237-29 |
Sent: | August 30, 2019 07:32:58 PM |
Sent As: | ecom112@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88120537
Mark: SIERRA
|
|
Correspondence Address: LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 201 EAST WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1200
|
|
Applicant: Sierra Packaging and Converting, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 150237-29
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: August 30, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 6/13/2019.
In the previous Office action, registration was refused due to a likelihood of confusion with U.S. Reg. No. 5004392 (HISIERRA for Plastic pouches sold empty and plastic films, for merchandise packaging). Applicant submitted argument for registration on the basis that (1) the stylization of registrant’s mark distinguishes the marks, and (2) the presence of the syllable “HI” in registrant’s mark, and (3) the existence of third party registrations for SIERRA marks. Applicant also cites prior use as a basis for finding no likelihood of confusion. Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reason(s) set forth below.
Applicant was also required to reclassify its plastic flexible packaging film into international class 016. That amendment is accepted and that requirement has been satisfied.
Additionally, based on applicant’s explanation that the specimen contain a true photograph of the actual goods, the refusal of the class 017 specimen is withdrawn and the original specimen is accepted.
Section 2(d) Refusal citing U.S. Reg. No. 5004392 Continued and Maintained
Both parties’ marks are in standard characters, therefore the arguments citing stylization of the do not form a basis to withdraw the refusal.
Applicant’s cites to third party registrations is also unpersuasive. Applicant has submitted printed or electronic copies of third-party registrations for marks containing the wording SIERRA to support the argument that this wording is weak, diluted, or so widely used that it should not be afforded a broad scope of protection. These registrations appear to be for goods and/or services that are predominantly different from or unrelated to those identified in applicant’s application.
The weakness or dilution of a particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of similar marks in use in the marketplace in connection with similar goods and/or services. See Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1579-80, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Evidence of widespread third-party use of similar marks with similar goods and/or services “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” in that particular industry or field. Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373-74, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1345, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1062-63 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
However, evidence comprising third-party registrations for similar marks with different or unrelated goods and/or services, as in the present case, has “no bearing on the strength of the term in the context relevant to this case.” See Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1058 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1328, 123 USPQ2d at 1751). Thus, these third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording SIERRA is weak or diluted.
Accordingly, the refusal is continued and maintained.
Applicant was further advised that U.S. Application Serial No. 87956417 posed a potential bar to registration. The referenced prior-pending application has since registered. Therefore, registration is refused as follows.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is determined 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) (called the “du Pont factors”). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered. M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).
Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services. See 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)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Doubt Resolved In Favor of Registrant
Comparison of the Marks
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. 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)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Here, the marks are “SIERRA” and “HISIERRA.”
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); 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. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
The only difference between the two marks is the presence of the modifier “HI.” As discussed in the previous section, for these goods SIERRA is neither dilute nor weak. This means SIERRA is the most memorable part of the marks and give how slight the addition of the modifier is and the general recollection of the average consumer, the marks are similar marks.
As to the stylization in registrant’s mark, applicant is advised that a mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).
Comparison of the Goods and Services
Here, the goods and services are:
Registrant: Plastic pouches sold empty and plastic films, for merchandise packaging
Applicant: Plastic bags for packaging; Plastic film for packaging, namely, shrinkable plastic sleeves for use on commercial products; Plastic flexible packaging bags and pouches having a pull tab opening and sold in bulk to industrial and commercial manufacturers for merchandise packaging; Pull tab openings sold as a component part of reclosable plastic packaging bags and pouches for merchandise packaging; plastic adhesive-coated laminated packaging bags and pouches sold in bulk to industrial and commercial manufacturers; plastic flexible packaging film sold in bulk to industrial and commercial manufacturers
Injection molding of plastic for others; assembly of products for others; laminating of plastic sheets; printing services; manufacturing of printed labels, printed flexible packaging, printed inserts and outserts for product packages; Plastic pouch and bag manufacturing
Both parties identify types of commercial packaging with their marks. A plain reading of both parties’ goods indicate both marks identify plastic pouches, bags (which encompass pouches), and plastic film for commercial uses. Therefore, the goods are highly similar if not legally identical goods that are closely related. Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Given the highly similar goods and uses for those goods and similar marks, it is likely that consumers who encounter both marks will be confused as to the source of the goods.
As for applicant’s class 40 services, the registrant’s goods are the products manufactured by the applicant. Custom manufacturing of plastics is a service that is often provided by the same source as the individual goods. Previously, the examining attorney attached evidence from Unifles, Inteplas and Inno-Pak, all of which produce finished goods and provide services such as custom printing and production of commercial and industrial packaging. See evidence attached again to this Office action. Because the goods and services are of a type that can be provided by the same source, the registrant’s goods and applicant’s services are related.
For these reasons, registration is refused under Section 2(d).
NEW ISSUE – Attorney Bar Information Required
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
Servance, Renee
/Renee Servance/
Managing Attorney, Law Office 112
571-272-6596
renee.servance@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE