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:  August 25, 2019

 

 

This letter is in response to applicant’s correspondence filed on July 31, 2019.

 

In the initial Office action, registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion with U.S. Registrations Nos. 4020863 and 4377108 and under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) based on descriptiveness. 

 

Applicant has offered arguments in support of registration.  The examining attorney has carefully considered these arguments and has found them unpersuasive.

 

 

Registration Refused – Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4020863 and 4377108.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant has applied to register ORANGE for “surgical masks.”

 

The registered marks are:

 

 ORANGE NITRILE for “dental gloves; gloves for medical purposes; gloves for medical use; gloves for use in hospitals; medical examination gloves; medical gloves; nitrile gloves for medical use; protective gloves for medical use;”

 

OUTRAGEOUS ORANGE for “gloves for medical use; gloves for use in hospitals; latex medical gloves; surgical gloves.”

 

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.

 

Dissimilarity of the Marks

Applicant argues in both cases that the additional wording renders the marks dissimilar.

 

Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.  The marks are identical in part.

 

Difference in Goods

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 attached representative sample of evidence shows that the goods are issue are all important personal protective equipment used in the medical field. 

 

Consumer Sophistication

Applicant argues that the purchasers are sophisticated.  The fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii); see, e.g., Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. 1317, 1325, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1163-64 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Top Tobacco LP v. N. Atl. Operating Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1170 (TTAB 2011).  Further, where the purchasers consist of both professionals and the public, the standard of care for purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated potential purchaser.  In re FCA US LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1214, 1222 (TTAB 2018) (citing Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. at 1325, 110 USPQ2d at 1163).

 

Lack of Fame

Applicant’s inability to determine the fame of the registered marks renders this factor neutral in a likelihood of confusion determination.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(ix).

 

Similar Marks for Similar Goods

Prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017).  Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits.  In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d at 1793 n.10 (quoting In re Boulevard Entm’t, 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

 

Conclusion

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

The marks are highly similar and the goods and/or services closely related.  Therefore, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4020863 and 4377108.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

 

Registration Refused – Mark is Merely Descriptive

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

 

Applicant has applied to register ORANGE for “surgical masks”.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  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)). 

 

Applicant states that the mark is not generic for the goods but has provided no proof.  Due to the nature of the applied-for mark, applicant must provide the following information and documentation regarding the goods and wording appearing in the mark: 

 

(1)        Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods and/or services in the application, including any materials using the terms in the applied-for mark.  Merely stating that information about the goods and/or services is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record.

 

(2)        If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ.  If the goods feature new technology and information regarding competing goods and/or services is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and/or services.  Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade.  For services, the factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement.; and

 

(3)        Applicant must respond to the following questions: 

 

What color or colors will the goods be?

 

 Do applicant’s competitors identify color to advertise similar goods and/or services? 

 

Who is the typical consumer of applicant’s goods and/or services? 

 

Where are applicant’s goods and/or services typically purchased (provide examples of online and brick-and-mortar store venues)?

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e). 

 

Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. 

 

Use of a term as an adjective or adjectival phrase does not prevent that term from being generic if it refers to the relevant genus or category of goods and/or services.  See In re Serial Podcast, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1061, 1068 (TTAB 2018) (quoting TMEP §1209.01(c)(ii) and cases cited therein).  Thus, an adjective or adjectival phrase may be generic if it denotes a narrower subcategory of the identified goods and/or services.  See, e.g., In re Northland Aluminum Prods. Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 1560, 227 USPQ 961, 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding BUNDT generic for ring cake mixes); In re Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1950, 1959 (TTAB 2018) (holding MECHANICALLY FLOOR-MALTED generic for malt used for brewing and distilling and for processing agricultural grain); TMEP §1209.01(c)(ii).

 

The name of an ingredient, a key aspect, a central focus or feature, or a main characteristic of goods and/or services may be generic for those goods and/or services.  See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 604, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1637-38 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s holding of CHURRASCOS (a type of grilled meat) generic for restaurant services); In re Hotels.com LP, 573 F.3d 1300, 1304, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s holding of HOTELS.COM generic for travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for temporary lodging, and providing information about temporary lodging); In re Emergency Alert Sols. Grp., LLC, 122 USPQ2d 1088, 1091-93 (TTAB 2017) (holding LOCKDOWN ALARM generic for training services focusing on the use of and response to lockdown alarms); In re Meridian Rack & Pinion, 114 USPQ2d 1462, 1465-66 (TTAB 2015) (holding BUYAUTOPARTS.COM generic for on-line retail store services featuring auto parts); TMEP §1209.03(v); see also A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 292, 1 USPQ2d 1364, 1365 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding CHOCOLATE FUDGE generic for diet sodas).  Thus, a term does not need to be the name of a specific product and/or service to be found generic.  Any term that the relevant public understands to refer to the genus can be generic.  Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d at 603, 118 USPQ2d at 1637 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).

 

 

 

Attorney Bar Information and Attestation

Attorney bar information required.  Applicant’s attorney must provide the following bar information:  (1) his or her bar membership number, if the bar provides one; (2) the name of the U.S. state, commonwealth, or territory of his or her bar membership; and (3) the year of his or her admission to the bar.  37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).  This information is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO.  Id.  If the attorney’s bar does not issue bar membership numbers, applicant must state this for the record.  See id.

 

Attorney attestation required.  Applicant’s attorney must provide the following statement:  “I attest that I am an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory).”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).  This is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO.  Id. 

 

Questions Regarding Office Action

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

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  

 

 

/allison holtz/

Allison Holtz

Law Office 111

allison.holtz@uspto.gov (preferred)

571-272-9383

 

 

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.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on August 25, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88306593

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/allison holtz/

Allison Holtz

Law Office 111

allison.holtz@uspto.gov (preferred)

571-272-9383

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from August 25, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”