| To: | Atlas Hemp Company, LLC (graham@lowegrahamjones.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88293451 - UNICORN - ATHC-2-1000 |
| Sent: | 4/21/2019 9:13:44 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM109@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 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88293451
MARK: UNICORN
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Atlas Hemp Company, LLC
|
|
|
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: 4/21/2019
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.
INTRODUCTION
Summary of Issues:
SECTION 2(D) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – CLASSES 3 & 34
The applicant has applied to register UNICORN (& design) for (CLASS 3) Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of essential oils; (CLASS 34) Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes.
The registered mark is UNICORN (& design) for (CLASS 34) Chemical flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin; Flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes.
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 the present case, applicant’s mark is similar to the registered mark in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b). Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).
Specifically, both applicant’s and registrant’s mark share the common term UNICORN in combination with a design element consisting of a unicorn. In both marks, the term UNICORN is the only term. And, although the design element in registrant’s mark contains a banner and some geometric elements, the overall commercial impression conveyed by the mark is that of a unicorn both in the literal term “unicorn” and the in the design that comprises a unicorn.
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 considered in their entireties, applicant’s mark conveys the same overall commercial impression as the registered mark such that consumers are likely to regard the mark of the applicant and that of the registrant as confusingly similar.
B. COMPARISON OF THE GOODS
In the present case, the goods of the applicant and registrant overlap with respect to “Flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes.” The remaining goods of the parties are related in that they are all types of e-liquids for use with electronic cigarettes that are often sold in the same channels of trade.
The attached copies of printouts of third-party Registration Nos. 5608769; 5574998; 5519307; 5725980; 5714991; 5670627; 5136781; 5694340; 5669343; and 5652480 obtained from the USPTO X-Search database show a single mark used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case. These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods/services of the applicant and the goods/services of the registrant are of a kind that may emanate from a single source. See In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-1218 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Since the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Applicant should also note the following prior-filed pending applications.
NOTICE OF PRIOR-FILED PENDING APPLICATIONS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no similar registered marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). However, marks in prior-filed pending applications may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.
The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87618595 and 87488049 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED – CANNABIS-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. If such materials are not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and/or services. 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/Will any of the goods identified in the application include or contain marijuana, marijuana-based preparations, extracts or derivatives from marijuana, synthetic marijuana, or any other controlled substance under the CSA?
2. Do/Will any of the goods identified in the application include or contain tetrahydocannabinol (THC)?
3. Do/Will any of the goods identified in the application contain hemp or hemp oil with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis?
4. Do/Will applicant’s Dietary and nutritional supplements; Dietary supplements in the form of capsules and tinctures contain any cannabidiol (CBD) from any source? If yes, specify the source.
5. Will/Are any of applicant’s goods intended or designed primarily for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance?
6. Upon information and belief, do applicant’s goods comply with the Controlled Substances Act?
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 and 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 in connection with the identified goods and/or services, is not in lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127.
ASSISTANCE
An applicant may check the status of or view documents filed in an application or registration using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. Enter the application serial number or registration number and click on “Status” or “Documents.”
If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney.
/Deborah Lobo/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
(571) 272-3263
deborah.lobo@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.
