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.  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: 6/9/2019

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned trademark examining attorney.

 

This new non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 3/21/2019.  In a previous Office action dated 3/15/2019, applicant was required to comply with a request for additional information about the goods.  The trademark examining attorney notes that this requirement has been satisfied.  See TMEP §713.02. 

 

However, based on information and documentation in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new refusals: Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – Not in Lawful Use in Commerce as of Filing Date – CSA; Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – Not in Lawful Use in Commerce – FDCA.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – Not in Lawful Use in Commerce as of Filing Date – CSA
• Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – Not in Lawful Use in Commerce – FDCA

 

SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – NOT IN LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE AS OF FILING DATE – CSA

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark was not in lawful use in commerce as of the filing date of the application.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. 

 

To qualify for federal trademark and/or service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful.  Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”).  Thus, the goods and/or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. 

 

Here, the items to which the proposed mark are applied were unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971, as of 9/26/2018, the date on which the application was filed.  Applicant’s goods consist of, or include, items that are or were prohibited by the CSA, namely, dietary supplements for human consumption, food supplements, herbal supplements, natural remedy preparations for the treatment of gastro-intestinal conditions, hormonal and chemical imbalances, and sleep disorders, natural supplements for treating depression and anxiety, and natural herbal supplements containing cannabidiol (CBD). 

 

As evidenced by the specimen submitted with the application and the additional information and documentation regarding the goods submitted in applicant’s Office action response, applicant’s goods contain cannabidiol (CBD).  Specifically, the specimen depicts the packaging for the goods, which are labeled “CBD drops” and indicated as containing 1000 mg of cannabidiol.  The Office action response includes additional images of the packaging for applicant’s products, this time for “Hemp CBD drops” that are “made from 100% Oregon hemp” and contain 2000 mg of cannabidiol.  The label on the side of the packaging indicates that “CBD hemp extract” is one of the primary ingredients in the product.  It is also noted that a warning label on the packaging states that the product is “derived from hemp and could contain THC.”  Additional images of product packaging and screen captures from applicant’s website show the mark being used on a variety of “CBD drops” supplements with varying levels of CBD.  Applicant has also responded to the inquiries in the initial Office action by stating affirmatively that its products contain CBD.

 

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a chemical constituent of the cannabis plant that is encompassed within the CSA’s definition of marijuana.  See Clarification of the New Drug Code (7350) for Marijuana Extract, http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_extract_7350.html, copy attached; see also, 21 C.F.R. §1308.11(d)(58).  Applicant’s identified goods are broad enough to include products produced from “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin” (subject to certain exceptions). 21 U.S.C. §802(16). 

 

In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful.  See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976).  The claimed use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not in lawful commerce as of the filing date. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352.    

 

On December 20, 2018, the CSA was amended to remove hemp from the definition of marijuana and specifically exclude “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)” from Schedule I, 21 U.S.C. §812(c )(17).  The goods identified did not potentially comply with applicable federal laws until that date.  Because the identified goods consist of or include items that are or were prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, the applicant did not have a valid basis for filing the application.  Nevertheless, to the extent the applicant’s goods are derived from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, the goods may presently be lawful under the CSA.

 

Due to the changed circumstances and the potential lawfulness of certain products and activities that meet the definition of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (AMA), applicant may request to amend the filing date of the current application to be December 20, 2018.  See Examination Guide 1-19 Examination of Marks for Cannabis and Cannabis-Related Goods and Services after Enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill http://www.gov.uspto.report/sites/default/files/documents/Exam%20Guide%201-19.pdf. Applicant must specifically state for the record that such a change to the filing date is being authorized and must establish a valid filing basis under 37 C.F.R. §2.34 by satisfying the relevant requirements. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34 et seq., TMEP §§806 et seq.  In the event of such an amendment, the undersigned examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03 For instructions on how to satisfy basis requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Basis webpage.  In addition, applicant may be required to amend their identification of goods to be compliant with the amended definition of hemp if applicant wishes to overcome this refusal (see advisory below).

 

In lieu of amending the filing date, applicant may elect to abandon the current application and file a new application with a new fee that will have an application filing date that is later than the enactment of the December 20, 2018 amendments to the AMA.  Alternatively, applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.

 

Applicant should note, however, that even if applicant amends the application as outlined above to obviate this CSA refusal, such amendment will not overcome the additional FDCA refusal set forth immediately below.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – NOT IN LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE – FDCA

 

Registration is also refused under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907, because the goods are not in compliance with the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).  The goods to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. 

 

This refusal issues when “(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application record or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or (2) when the applicant’s application-relevant activities involve a per se violation of a federal law.”  In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1351 (citing Kellogg Co. v. New Generation Foods Inc., 6 USPQ2d 2045, 2047 (TTAB 1988); Santinine Societa v. P.A.B. Produits, 209 USPQ 958, 964 (TTAB 1981)); TMEP §907.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food to which has been added a drug or a biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public.  21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act). 

Cannabidiol (CBD) is an active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug, Epidiolex®, (see http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm611046.htm copy attached) and is the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements.  See FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-derived Products:  Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm copy attached.

Applicant’s goods are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items that are or were prohibited by the FDCA, namely, dietary supplements for human consumption, food supplements, herbal supplements, natural remedy preparations for the treatment of gastro-intestinal conditions, hormonal and chemical imbalances, and sleep disorders, natural supplements for treating depression and anxiety, and natural herbal supplements containing cannabidiol (CBD).

The specimen of record and the information and documentation included in applicant’s Office action response plainly indicate that applicant’s identified goods consist of or include items that are prohibited by the FDCA, namely, supplements containing CBD and that such goods are currently being marketed, promoted or offered for sale to consumers.  Specifically, as noted above, the specimen depicts the packaging for the goods, which are labeled “CBD drops” and indicated as containing 1000 mg of cannabidiol.  The Office action response includes additional images of the packaging for applicant’s products, this time for “Hemp CBD drops” that are “made from 100% Oregon hemp” and contain 2000 mg of cannabidiol.  The label on the side of the packaging indicates that “CBD hemp extract” is one of the primary ingredients in the product.  It is also noted that a warning label on the packaging states that the product is “derived from hemp and could contain THC.”  Additional images of product packaging and screen captures from applicant’s website show the mark being used on a variety of “CBD drops” supplements with varying levels of CBD.  Applicant has also responded to the inquiries in the initial Office action by stating affirmatively that its products contain CBD.

It is unlawful to introduce food containing added CBD into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived.  See Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on signing of the Agriculture Improvement Act and the agency’s regulation of products containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds.

 http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm copy attached.

 

In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful.  See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976)  Accordingly, because applicant’s goods consist of or include items that violate federal law, the applied-for mark as used in connection with such goods is not in lawful use in commerce.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

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.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

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.  

 

/J. Evan Mucha/

J. Evan Mucha

Examining Attorney

Law Office 106

(571) 270-1989

evan.mucha@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 6/9/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88131854

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 6/9/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/J. Evan Mucha/

J. Evan Mucha

Examining Attorney

Law Office 106

(571) 270-1989

evan.mucha@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.