United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88310219
Mark: THC
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.
|
|
|
Applicant: Pineapple Ventures, Inc.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: September 20, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
CSA REFUSAL
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
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 and/or services 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.
In the present case, the identification and wording in the mark 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. “On-line retail store services featuring general consumer merchandise including skin creams, skin and body topical lotions, creams and oils for cosmetic use, anti-inflammatory salves, pain relief medication, preparation for the relief of pain, herbal tinctures for medical purposes, dietary supplements, electronic cigarette accessories, all of the foregoing containing oils derived from hemp that is legally produced under federal law”. Specifically, applicant’s applied-for mark is THC which is an acronym for tetrahydrocannabinol, a psychoactive compound in marijuana. http://www.acronymfinder.com/Tetrahydrocannabinol-(psychoactive-compound-in-marijuana)-(THC).html. And although applicant has attempted to indicate the goods are “legally produced under federal law”, this add-on language is merely conclusory.
The CSA also 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 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 and/or services 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 and/or services. 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 and/or services 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 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.” The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.
However, applicant should note the amendment noted above will not obviate the FDCA Refusal below.
FDCA REFUSAL
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
Registration is 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 application identifies items or activities that involve a per se violation of federal law. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1352. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food or beverage 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).
In the present case, the application identifies the following goods for which applicant has alleged a bona fide intent to use in commerce: “On-line retail store services featuring general consumer merchandise including anti-inflammatory salves, pain relief medication, preparation for the relief of pain, herbal tinctures for medical purposes, dietary supplements, all of the foregoing containing oils derived from hemp that is legally produced under federal law”
It is unlawful to introduce food or beverages 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 addition, 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 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 and/or the identified services. 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.
Applicant should note the additional grounds for refusal below.
REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(a) - DECEPTIVE
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes deceptive matter in relation to the identified services. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); see In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1047 (TTAB 2002); In re Organik Techs., Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1690 (TTAB 1997); TMEP §1203.02.
A mark is deceptive if the following criteria are met:
(1) The applied-for mark consists of or contains a term that misdescribes the character, quality, function, composition, or use of the goods and/or services.
(2) Prospective purchasers are likely to believe that the misdescription actually describes the goods and/or services.
(3) The misdescription is likely to affect a significant portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to purchase the goods and/or services.
See In re Budge, 857 F.2d at 775, 8 USPQ2d at 1260; In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1391-92 (TTAB 2013); TMEP §1203.02(b); see also In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1353, 1356, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492-93, 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the test for materiality incorporates a requirement that a “significant portion of the relevant consumers be deceived”).
In this case, applicant’s mark is THC, which indicates that goods contain tetrahydrocannabinol, a psychoactive compound in marijuana. See attached evidence from http://www.acronymfinder.com/Tetrahydrocannabinol-(psychoactive-compound-in-marijuana)-(THC).html, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tetrahydrocannabinol, and http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/THC. However, applicant has applied for the mark in connection with “On-line retail store services featuring general consumer merchandise including skin creams, skin and body topical lotions, creams and oils for cosmetic use, anti-inflammatory salves, pain relief medication, preparation for the relief of pain, herbal tinctures for medical purposes, dietary supplements, electronic cigarette accessories, all of the foregoing containing oils derived from hemp that is legally produced under federal law” .
As an initial matter, goods containing more than .03% THC and food, beverages, supplements and products deemed “drugs” with any THC are not legal under current federal law. See attached from http://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-questions-and-answers. Further, THC is an ingredient that is important to a significant portion of the relevant consumers’ purchasing decision and consumers would be likely to believe this misdescription in the mark because THC proffers the following benefits and are products with this ingredient are more appealing and desirable:
See attached http://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/what-is-thc-14655181, http://www.thegrowthop.com/cannabis-health/thc-benefits-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-getting-high, http://nationalpainreport.com/thc-vs-cbd-for-pain-the-differences-and-interactions-by-winston-peki-8837164.html, http://papaandbarkley.com/product/releaf-balms/, http://greenlightapproved.com/cannabis-lotions-ointments-balms-bomb/, and http://www.gocaliva.com/blog/cannabistopicals.
A misdescriptive ingredient or component would be material to the purchasing decision of a significant portion of the relevant consumers when the evidence demonstrates that the misdescription would make the product or service more appealing or desirable to prospective purchasers. See In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d at 1392 (citing In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1694, 1698-99 (TTAB 1992)); TMEP §1203.02(d). Accordingly, the misdescription is likely to affect a significant portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to seek out applicant’s services that feature such goods.
If the featured goods do not, in fact, contain THC, the applied-for mark will deceive the public as to an important factor in its purchasing decision. See TMEP §1203.02. Marks that are deceptive under Section 2(a) are not registrable on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register under any circumstances. TMEP §1209.04. Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act.
ALTERNATIVE REFUSAL - SECTION 2(e)(1) DECEPTIVELY MISDESCRIPTIVE
Because the mark refers to “THC” the public will believe the featured goods contain THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Consumers are likely to believe this misrepresentation because as indicated by the evidence previously referenced, applicant’s featured goods are commonly made with THC.
Regarding the first part of the test, a mark is misdescriptive when the mark merely describes a significant aspect of the featured goods that the goods could plausibly possess but in fact do not. In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d 1051, 1052 (TTAB 2015); In re Schniberg, 79 USPQ2d 1309, 1312 (TTAB 2006); In re Phillips-Van Heusen, 63 USPQ2d 1047, 1048 (TTAB 2005); see TMEP §1209.04. To be merely descriptive, a mark must immediately convey knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of an applicant’s goods or services. In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).
Regarding the second part of the test, the Board has applied the reasonably prudent consumer test in assessing whether consumers are likely to believe the misrepresentation. In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d 1051, 1052 (TTAB 2015) (citing R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 226 USPQ 169, 179 (TTAB 1985)). The attached referenced evidence shows that the reasonably prudent consumer is likely to believe the representation. The Trademark Act does not prohibit the registration of misdescriptive terms unless consumers who encounter the mark are likely to believe the misrepresentation. Binney & Smith Inc. v. Magic Marker Indus., Inc., 222 USPQ 1003 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §1209.04.
Applicant should note the additional grounds for refusal below.
REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
Registration of the applied-for mark THC is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark THCBIZ in U.S. Registration No. 4682992. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the services, and similarity of the trade channels of the services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Similarity 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the present case, the applicant’s applied for mark contains the identical letter THC as registrant’s mark THCBIZ. 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.
Consequently, the marks are confusingly similar and consumers will believe they identify the same source.
Relatedness of the Services
With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The applicant’s identified services are: “Providing business assistance, advisory, and consulting services to others in the legal cannabis industry”. Registrant’s identified services are, in pertinent part, “Providing business information via a website”
The attached Internet evidence from http://thinkcanna.com/, http://americancannabisconsulting.com/service/, and http://quantum9.net establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services 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).
Conclusion
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the 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).
Upon encountering THC and THCBIZ, both used on the respective identified services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that they emanate from a common source. Therefore, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. Applicant should note the additional potential grounds for refusal below.
ADVISORY: PRIOR-FILED 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 mark 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.
SPECIMEN REQUIREMENT – SPECIMEN UNACCEPTABLE
THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO CLASS 009 ONLY
Specifically, applicant has applied for the mark THC in connection with “Battery packs; Electric batteries; Batteries, electric”. However, applicant submits a specimen consisting of a photograph of the applied-for mark on an electronic cigarette/vape pen. The attached third party evidence illustrates the difference in the identified goods versus what applicant’s specimen shows. See attached http://www.google.com/search, http://en.wikipedia.org and http://worldspipe.com/shop/premium-oil-pens/oil-pens/wp-510-oil-pen/. Therefore, the mark is not shown in use in commerce with any of the identified goods.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.61(b), 2.69; Cf. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1284, 73 USPQ2d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discussing Patent Rule 1.105(a)(1), which is the equivalent of Trademark Rule 2.61(b)); TMEP §§814, 907. The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, advertisements, and/or similar materials relating to the goods and/or services. 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 and/or services identified in the application.
In addition, applicant must submit a written statement indicating whether the goods/services identified in the application comply with the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). 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). See 37 C.F.R. §2.69; TMEP §907. Furthermore, under the 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).
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. Do or will the goods include cannabidiol (CBD)?
6. If so, will there be more than a trace amount of CBD in the goods, e.g., more than 50 parts per million (PPM)?
7. 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)?
8. Is applicant currently seeking FDA approval of the marketing of its goods identified in the application?
9. If the answer to Question 4 is “yes,” please provide a copy of such application.
11. Is applicant’s specimen of record an electronic cigarette or vape pen?
Failure to satisfactorily respond to a requirement for information is a ground for refusing registration. See In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1758 (TTAB 2016) (affirming refusal of registration because applicant’s appeal brief failed to address the relevant refusals, including a refusal based on noncompliance with a requirement for information); In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013) (“Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusal,” where applicant provided equivocal responses to examining attorney’s questions and did not address this issue in its brief). Applicant’s failure to respond to an information requirement may result in an adverse evidentiary inference being drawn regarding applicant’s goods. Id. at 1651; In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); 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).
MARK DESCRIPTION AMENDMENT REQUIREMNET
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of the stylized letters “THC” to the right of a hexagon design with interesting triangles within the hexagon. The background is for shading purposes only and is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
ASSISTANCE
Please call or email 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
/Heather A. Sales/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
(571) 272-7835
Heather.Sales@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
