To: | Cali Holdings, LLC (trademarkprosecution@zuberlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88275517 - PERSONALZ - 2969-1007 |
Sent: | September 27, 2019 01:14:19 PM |
Sent As: | ecom121@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88275517
Mark: PERSONALZ
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Cali Holdings, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 2969-1007
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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: September 27, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 9/10/2019.
In a previous Office action(s) dated 3/11/2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark under Section 2(d). The examining attorney also required an amendment to the identification of goods, and an assignment to amend the applicant’s name.
Applicant responded by providing arguments in favor of registration, and by stating that the applicant misspelled the ownership information in the application. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. The trademark examiner notes that the requirement to provide an assignment is withdrawn. However, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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.
The Marks at Issue
In this case, the applicant’s mark is PERSONALZ for, “Processed Foods and Edible Oils.”
Registrant’s mark is PERSONALS for, “Frozen confections.”
Similarity of the Parties’ Marks
The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Furthermore, there is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark. See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
In this case, the overall commercial impression of the applicant’s mark and the cited registered marks is similar because the marks are identical but for the last letter in each mark. Applicant’s mark PERSONALZ ends with a Z, and Registrant’s mark PERSONALS ends with an S. Thus, while the overall commercial impression created by each mark may carry slight differences, these differences do not obviate a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).
Relatedness of the Parties’ Goods and/or Services
In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe “Processed foods,” which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Frozen confections.” 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)).
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.
For these reasons, consumers are likely to encounter the parties’ goods and/or services in the same market channels.
Applicant’s Arguments
In its response, applicant argues four main points: 1) the goods are not related; 2) the marks are different in appearance; 3) the marks are different in sound; and 4) the marks are different in meaning.
Applicant argues that the goods are not related. However, the wording “Processed food” is extremely broad, and frozen confections necessarily go through a processing treatment from raw ingredients to frozen confections.
Applicant argues that the marks are different in sound, appearance, and meaning. Although the marks are not identical in sound and appearance, it is the overall commercial impression in each mark which is compared. In this case, the slight differences in sound and appearance do not mitigate the similarities of the marks. Also, as explained in the previous office action, PERSONALZ and PERSONALS is identical in sound. Further, PERSONALZ is a mere intentional misspelling of PERSONALS. As such the marks are identical in meaning.
Given the strong similarities between the key elements of the parties’ marks, consumers encountering the marks in the same commercial contexts are likely to confuse the marks and mistake the underlying sources of related goods and/or services provided under the marks. Registration is refused to prevent such confusion.
AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES REQUIRED
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
In Class 29:
Processed foods, namely, {indicate specific foods e.g. grapefruit, peanuts, lamb, etc.}; Edible Oils
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.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that the identification of goods is acceptable. However, the wording Processed foods, by itself identifies multiple goods in different classes e.g. Processed oils and fats for food, Processed seeds used as a flavoring for foods and beverages, Processed cereal-based food to be used as a breakfast food, snack food or ingredient for making other foods, Processed cactus for food purposes, Processed bee pollen for food purposes, etc.
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 final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)
/Alexander Mangubat/
Alexander Mangubat
Examining Attorney
Law Office 121
(571)270-3561
Alexander.Mangubat@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE