To: | Upfield Europe B.V. (ipdocketing@haynesboone.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88230800 - FLORA PROFESSIONAL - 70698 |
Sent: | 6/24/2019 7:52:33 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM127@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88230800
MARK: FLORA PROFESSIONAL
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Upfield Europe B.V.
|
|
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: 6/24/2019
Based on information and/or documentation in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new refusal and/or requirement: Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion. See TMEP §§706, 711.02.
In a previous Office action dated March 19, 2019, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): Identification of Goods and Services Requirement; Multiple-Class Application Requirements. In addition, the search for potentially conflicting registered and pending marks was deferred until applicant responded to the outstanding identification issues.
In applicant’s response dated May 15, 2019, applicant provided an amended identification.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3118778, 5235515, 5472353, and 4088906. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
The applied-for mark is FLORA PROFESSIONAL in connection with “Butter; margarine; creams, namely sour cream, cream powder, artificial cream, cream alternatives and substitutes, namely, vegetable-based cream, sour cream substitutes; non-dairy milk and cream, namely, rice milk, almond milk, oat milk, coconut milk, soya milk; oils, namely edible oils, cooking oil, nut oil for food, vegetable oils for food, coconut oil and fat for food, animal oils for food, edible oils derived from fish excluding cod-liver oil, soya bean oil for food, seed oils for food, namely, sesame seed oil, rapeseed oil, linseed oil, flavored oils for food, namely, chili oil, olive oil for food, spiced oils for food, butter oil for food, blended oil for food, hydrogenated oils for food, hardened oils for food; spreads, namely, vegetable spreads, vegetable-based spreads, dairy spreads, dairy-based spreads, low fat dairy spreads, cheese spreads, meat spreads, meat-based spreads, nut paste spreads, nut-based spreads; food, namely vegetable-based snack foods, nut-based snack foods; food ingredients, namely, vegetable extracts for food, eggs, milk, preserved fruits and vegetables, frozen fruits and vegetables, dried fruits and vegetables, cooked fruits and vegetables; food products, namely, dips, dairy-based dips, meat substitutes, vegetable- and plant-based meat substitutes, fruit-based snack foods, fruit- and nut-based snack bars, nut- and seed-based snack bars, legume-based snack foods, tofu-based snack foods, soya-based snack foods, snacks of processed edible seaweed; edible products, namely, processed edible seeds, not being seasonings or flavorings, edible fats” in International Class 29.
The registered marks are:
1) FLORA in design form in connection with the relevant goods “Unrefined edible and refined edible oils, namely, oil and oil blends from grains and seeds; processed edible seeds; protein-based, nutrient-dense snacks, namely, defatted and fortified nut and seed cake supplements” in International Class 29.
2) FLORA AROMATICS in design form in connection with “Vegetable oils” in International Class 29.
3) FLORA FINE FOODS in design form in connection with the relevant goods “ Canned beans; Canned fish; Canned fruits and vegetables; Canned or bottled vegetables; Canned processed olives; Canned tomatoes; Canned vegetables; Canned, cooked or otherwise processed tomatoes; Cheese food; Cheese powder; Cooked vegetables; Dried fruit and vegetables; Fruit and vegetable granules for use in prepared meals or food; Marinated Vegetables; Parmesan cheese; Pickled vegetables; Pickled vegetables in soy sauce, soybean paste or vinegar; Preserved vegetables; Preserved vegetables (in oil); Processed garlic; Processed peppers; Processed pignoli pine nuts; Romano cheese; Sheep cheese” in International Class 29.
4) FLORA NELLE in connection with “Cheese” in International Class 29.
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. In this case, the most relevant factors are the similarities between the marks and the relatedness of the goods.
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).
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).
When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (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)). In this case, the word portion of the design marks all contain or consist entirely of the term FLORA.
As the applied-for mark and the registered marks all contain or consist entirely of the term FLORA, consumers may find the marks to be confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
The attached evidence from Organic Valley, Horizon Dairy, and Stonyfield Organic establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures relevant goods, such as registrant’s “cheese” and dairy or milk products such as applicant’s “Butter; margarine; creams, namely sour cream, cream powder, artificial cream, cream alternatives and substitutes, namely, vegetable-based cream, sour cream substitutes; non-dairy milk and cream, namely, rice milk, almond milk, oat milk, coconut milk, soya milk, food products, namely, dips, dairy-based dips” and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark. In addition, where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks. See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272 (TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel on the same patients to treat the same disease).
The further attached evidence from Oliver’s & Co, Foodmatch, and Williams Sonoma establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures relevant goods, such as registrant’s “olive oil” and spreads such as applicant’s “spreads, namely, vegetable spreads, vegetable-based spreads, dairy spreads, dairy-based spreads, low fat dairy spreads, cheese spreads, meat spreads, meat-based spreads, nut paste spreads, nut-based spreads, edible fats” and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.
Finally, the attached evidence from KIND, Larbar, and Nature Valley establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures relevant goods, such as registrant’s “protein-based, nutrient-dense snacks, namely, defatted and fortified nut and seed cake supplements” and applicant’s “fruit-based snack foods, fruit- and nut-based snack bars, nut- and seed-based snack bars, legume-based snack foods, tofu-based snack foods, soya-based snack foods” and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services as listed above are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Furthermore, in this case, the applications or registration uses broad wording to describe the goods as listed below, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including the applicant’s or registrants’ more narrow goods as listed below.
Registrant’s “processed edible seeds” encompass applicant’s “edible products, namely, processed edible seeds, not being seasonings or flavorings”.
Registrant’s “cooked vegetables, dried fruits and vegetables, canned fruits and vegetables, and canned or bottled vegetables” encompass applicant’s “food, namely vegetable-based snack foods, preserved fruits and vegetables, frozen fruits and vegetables, dried fruits and vegetables, cooked fruits and vegetables; meat substitutes, vegetable- and plant-based meat substitutes, snacks of processed edible seaweed; tofu-based snack foods”.
Applicant’s “food ingredients, namely, vegetable extracts for food” encompass registrant’s “Fruit and vegetable granules for use in prepared meals or food”.
See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Registrant’s “vegetable oils” encompass applicant’s “vegetable oils for food; soya bean oil for food; flavored oils for food, namely, chili oil, olive oil for food”. Additionally, the attached evidence from Live Science, Basically, and Eat This, Not That, shows that cooking oils, including applicant’s “spiced oils for food, oils, namely edible oils, cooking oil, blended oil for food, hydrogenated oils for food, hardened oils for food; nut oil for food, coconut oil and fat for food, animal oils for food, edible oils derived from fish excluding cod-liver oil, butter oil for food” have the same use or purpose as registrant’s “vegetable oils”. Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks. See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272 (TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel on the same patients to treat the same disease).
Additionally, the goods and/or services 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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
As the applied-for mark and the registered marks all contain or consist entirely of the term FLORA, and as the registrants’ goods and the applicant’s goods are all closely related, registration of the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “PROFESSIONAL” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from Merriam-Webster shows this means of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession. Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods because applicant is engaged in the profession of providing edible goods.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “PROFESSIONAL” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
Riley, Vanessa
/Vanessa Riley/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 127
(571) 272-7259
vanessa.riley@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.