Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

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 16, 2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

NO CONFLICTING MARKS NOTED

 

The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

 

1)     Refusal Under Section 2(e)(1)--Merely Descriptive.

2)     Cannabis-Related Goods Refusal – No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use in Commerce as of Filing Date.

3)     FDCA Refusal - No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use in Commerce as of Filing Date.

4)     Request for Information Requirement.

5)     Identification of Goods Requirement.

 

REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(e)(1)--MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, purpose and function of applicant’s goods and services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). 

 

“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.

 

The applicant has applied for registration of the proposed mark, 420, for which the applicant describes the goods as “Liquid nutritional supplement; Nutritional supplements formed and packaged as bars; Nutritional supplements; Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix; Nutritional supplement energy bars.”  The number “420” is a widely used and recognized slang term for cannabis or marijuana.  See Attached.[1]  The attached evidence shows that cannabis based oils and derivatives are commonly being infused in foods and beverages. 

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s proposed mark, 420, is merely descriptive of a feature, characteristic, use or purpose of the identified goods, and is properly refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Please note the additional grounds for refusal.

 

CANNABIS-RELATED GOODS REFUSAL – NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO LAWFULLY USE IN COMMERCE AS OF FILING DATE

 

Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce with respect to goods that are not lawful under federal law.  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 unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.  As indicated above, the attached evidence shows that cannabis based oils and derivatives are commonly being infused in foods and beverages. 

 

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 wording contained in the applied-for mark plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods include items that are prohibited by the CSA, namely, cannabis infused products. 

 

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 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.  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).  Because the identified goods consist of or include items or activities that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, the applicant did not have a valid filing basis for any such items or activities.  To the extent the applicant’s goods are derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, such goods may be lawful.

 

Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the identification of goods and services to specify that all cannabis-containing items are “solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”  Please see the complete requirement for an acceptable identification of goods and/or services below.

 

The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.  Applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.

 

FDCA REFUSAL - NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO LAWFULLY USE IN COMMERCE AS OF FILING DATE

 

Registration is further 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. 

 

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

 

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 will be 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.  The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed Epidiolex® on schedule V of the CSA on September 27, 2018.  Nevertheless, marijuana and CBD derived from marijuana remain unlawful.  No other cannabis-derived drug products have been approved by the FDA. 

 

Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug.  21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)  An unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j); see also FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-questions-and-answers.

 

Applicant’s goods are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items or activities that are or were prohibited by the FDCA.  Specifically, the wording contained in the applied-for mark plainly indicates that applicant’s nutritional supplements and bars contain CBD and that such goods are currently being marketed, promoted or offered for sale to consumers.

 

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)  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.  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.   

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

 

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.  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 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.  

 

Finally, applicant must provide written responses to the following questions:

1. Do or will applicant’s identified goods include any oils, extracts, ingredients or derivatives from the plant Cannabis sativa L (also known as cannabis, marijuana or hemp)?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” does the hemp used or to be used in applicant’s goods contain more than 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry weight basis?
3. If applicant has any documentation relative to the THC content of the oils, extracts or derivatives used or to be used in the goods, please submit them with the response.
4. If applicant’s goods do or will contain oils, extracts, ingredients or derivatives from the plant Cannabis sativa L which has more than 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry weight basis, identify the part or parts of the plant used in obtaining the oils, extracts, ingredients or derivatives.
5. If the “hemp” is grown in the United States of America, was the hemp used in the goods obtained from an authorized grower or supplier of industrial hemp from a hemp growing pilot program set up under the 2014 Farm Bill?
6. Do the applicant’s goods contain “naturally occurring trace amounts” of CBD and/or hemp?
7. Does the applicant’s goods feature hemp which is obtained from the mature stalks and sterilized seeds?
8. Do or will the goods include cannabidiol (CBD)?
9. If so, will there be more than a trace amount of CBD in the goods, e.g., more than 50 parts per million (PPM)?
10. Do or will applicant’s identified goods include CBD which is derived from, oils, extracts or ingredients from plants other than Cannabis sativa L (also known as hemp, marijuana or cannabis)?
11. Upon information and belief, do applicant’s goods comply with the Controlled Substances Act?
12. Upon information and belief, do applicant’s goods comply with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?
13. Is the applicant seeking FDA approval for its goods?

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 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). 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because as worded, the exact nature of the goods are is unclear.  Where indicated, the applicant must specify the exact nature of the goods by its common commercial name.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  The suggested changes are in bold.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

“Liquid nutritional supplement; Nutritional supplements formed and packaged as bars; Nutritional supplements; Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix; Nutritional supplement energy bars; all of the foregoing solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis,” in International Class 5. 

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  See 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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES AND ABANDONMENT ADVISORY – FULL REFUSAL

 

For this application to proceed further, 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.

 

In addition, because applicant filed a TEAS RF application, applicant must respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to avoid incurring an additional fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(b)(1), (c). 

 

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  

 

 

 

 

 

 

/Howard Smiga/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

571-272-9220

Howard.Smiga@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.