To: | Brill, Inc. (bcipdocketing@bclplaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88136496 - MUSE - 2394245 |
Sent: | August 01, 2019 03:43:33 PM |
Sent As: | ecom100@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88136496
Mark: MUSE
|
|
Correspondence Address: BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP |
|
Applicant: Brill, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 2394245
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: August 01, 2019
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 87433462 and 86969689
Please note that the potential refusal based on prior-pending Serial No. 88091296 is obviated based on applicant’s most recent response deleting the applied-for software goods in Class 9. However, the potential for likelihood of confusion as to U.S. Application Serial No(s). 87433462 and 86969689 remains. Specifically, the 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. Moreover, the prior-pending goods broadly encompass those for use with three dimensional (3D) printing of food. Further, where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).
Requirement maintained and continued.
The following requirement is maintained and continued:
• IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
See TMEP §713.02.
The proposed wording “edible ingredients in the nature of edible ink and binder for use with three dimensional (3D) printing of food” in the identification of goods in Class 2 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. For example, as written, it is unclear whether this wording identifies binders in the nature of chemical additives for use as binding agents in Class 1 and/or binding agents for paints in Class 2.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
CLASS 2: edible ingredients in the nature of edible ink and binder in the nature of binding agents for paints for use with three dimensional (3D) printing of food; edible printing ink; edible printing compositions and edible printing powders and liquids, each of the foregoing in the nature of printing compositions
CLASS 7: three dimensional (3D) printers for food
CLASS 30: edible ingredients in the nature of flavored and unflavored powdered sugar and confectionary dry mix containing sugar for use with three dimensional (3D) printing of food
Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).
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.
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Evin L. Kozak/
Staff Attorney
Law Office 100
571-272-9237
evin.kozak@uspto.gov