United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88221638
Mark: SAKA
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: SAKA Wines, LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: September 10, 2019
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
SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
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.
Applicant’s mark is SAKA. Registrant’s mark is SAKA. The two marks are identical.
Applicant intends to use the mark on the following class 32 goods to which this refusal pertains:
Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juices; Non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages; Non-alcoholic sparkling fruit juice beverages; Fruit beverages; Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, carbonated beverages; Water beverages
Registrant uses the mark on goods identified as follows, as recited in the registration:
[Beer; preparations used in the making of beers consisting of barley, yeast and hops; ] mineral water, spring water, drinking water, soda pops, soda water [soft drinks, namely, tonic water; vegetable juices and fruit drinks, vegetable juice and fruit juice concentrates and non-alcoholic vegetable and fruit extracts used in the preparation of beverages; concentrates, syrups or powders used in the preparation of soft drinks, namely, beverages in powder and granulated form extracted from fruits, grape must, turnip juice, tomato juice; colas, soda pops, isotonic drinks; vegetable juices, namely, boza, traditional Turkish drink and salep, namely, a traditional Turkish hot drink made from powdered roots of salep.]
The bracketed wording is essentially deleted goods, therefore, registrant’s goods are as follows:
mineral water, spring water, drinking water, soda pops, soda water
Therefore, applicant’s broadly identified goods of “non-alcoholic beverages, namely carbonated beverages” encompass many of the registrant’s more narrowly defined goods such as “soda pops.” In addition, these and the other goods are related and often emanate from the same commercial source (see attachments regarding Coke® and Dr. Pepper®/Snapple® companies showing production of a wide variety of non-alcoholic beverages such as the applicant’s and the registrant’s goods).
In light of the foregoing, the examining attorney concludes that a likelihood of confusion exists between the applicant’s and the registrant’s marks.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal:
NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO USE IN COMMERCE UNDER CSA
Registration is refused because applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark 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/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 evidence of record indicates that the items or activities to which the proposed mark will be applied are or were unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971, as of December 7, 2018, the date on which the application was filed.
Specifically, an article from a third party website, attached here, discusses applicant’s launch of a cannabis-infused alcohol-removed sparkling brut and still rosé wine. Also attached is a page from applicant’s website discussing applicant’s infusion beverages containing cannabinoids.
In addition, attachments her show that cannabis is a constituent of some candles and ice creams.
The CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and any material or preparation containing marijuana. 21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]” as “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)).
In this case, the attached excerpt from applicant’s website and a third party website plainly indicate that applicant’s identified goods include items that are prohibited by the CSA, namely, beverages containing cannabinoids.
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) Because use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods and/or services was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce in connection with such goods and/or services. See In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016)(“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); TMEP §907.
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 and/or services identified did not potentially comply with applicable federal laws until that date. Because the identified goods and/or services consist of or include items or activities that are or were prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, the applicant did not have a valid basis for filing the application.
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 lieu of amending the filing date, applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal. Applicant may also choose to file a new application with a new fee that will have a later application filing date that is later than the enactment of the December 20, 2018 amendments to the AMA.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal:
NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO LAWFULLY USE IN COMMERCE UNDER FDCA
Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.
To qualify for federal trademark/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 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.
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 and/or services are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items or activities that are or were prohibited by the FDCA, namely, beverages containing cannabidiol and THC.
The attached webpage from a third party website and an excerpt from applicant’s website plainly indicate that applicant’s identified goods are cannabis-infused and contain both cannabidiol/CBD and THC.
It is unlawful to introduce food containing added CBD into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, beverages, 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) Because introduction of such goods into commerce was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce in connection with such goods and/or the identified services. See e.g. In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
REQUIREMENT FOR INFORMATION – MARIJUANA RELATED GOODS
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, advertisements, and/or similar materials relating to the goods/services. If such materials are not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods. Any information submitted in response to this requirement must clearly and accurately indicate the nature of the goods/services identified in the application.
In addition, applicant must submit a written statement indicating whether the goods identified in the application comply with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. See 37 C.F.R. §2.69; TMEP §907. The CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and marijuana-based preparations. 21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]”). The CSA also makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia, i.e., “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under [the CSA].” 21 U.S.C. §863. In December 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration issued clearer guidance on the definition of marijuana and extracts from marijuana which can include cannabidiol (CBD) under new Schedule 1 Drug Code 7350. See the attachment from DEADIVERSION.USDOJ.GOV. Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act was modified in December 2016 to include a new Drug Code, 7350, which is called “marijuana extract.” The new 7350 Drug Code has been interpreted by the DEA as including extracts comprised of cannabinoids from cannabis plants including CBD. See www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_extract_7350.html (copy attached). Section 802(16) defines marijuana as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L, whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of such plant, every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seeds of such plant which are incapable of germination.” If the oil/extract/compound/derivative used in goods is obtained from any part of the Cannabis sativa L plant that is not specifically excluded from the definition of marijuana under 21 USC Section 802(16), then the plant and any oil, extract, compound or derivative therefrom is marijuana under the CSA.
Finally, applicant must provide written responses to the following questions:
Failure to satisfactorily respond to a requirement for information is a ground for refusing registration. See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re Garden of Eatin’ Inc., 216 USPQ 355, 357 (TTAB 1982); TMEP §814.
Please note that merely stating that information about the goods/services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to the above requirement and is insufficient to make the relevant information properly of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
Applicant is advised that, upon consideration of the information provided by applicant in response to the above requirement, registration of the applied-for mark may be refused on the ground that the mark, as used/intended to be used in connection with the identified goods, is not lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127. Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful use to be the basis for federal registration of the mark. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.69; In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993); In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); TMEP §907.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
Nora Buchanan Will
Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
phone 571-272-9135
fax 571-273-9135
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
