Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) 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:  March 24, 2020

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communications filed on 3/22/2020.

 

In a previous Office Action dated 9/26/2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark and the Controlled Substances Act. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the Identification Requirement and New Attorney Requirements.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the New Attorney Requirements have been satisfied. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

The Controlled Substances Act Refusal has been obviated by the applicant’s identification amendment.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

However, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the Section 2(d) Refusal and Identification Requirement. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification Requirement

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL - 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. 4778900.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registration.

 

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 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.  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.

 

Applicant’s applied-for mark is: “SOLARA” for “Cannabis preparations, namely dried flower derived from industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

 

The cited registered mark is Reg. No. 4778900: “SOLARA” for “Electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarettes for use as an alternative to traditional cigarettes.”

 

Comparison 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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant’s mark is “SOLARA”.

 

Registrant’s mark is “SOLARA”.

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark registrant’s mark are both “SOLARA” in standard characters.  These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.  Id.

 

Applicant has not refuted the similarity of the marks.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Applicant’s mark is for “Cannabis preparations, namely dried flower derived from industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

 

Registrant’s mark is for “Electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarettes for use as an alternative to traditional cigarettes.”

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on 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)). 

 

Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods 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)).  Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods of the type described.  See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000). 

 

In this case, the applicant identified cannabis and marijuana for smoking and vaporing; registrant identified e-cigarettes, which are used to smoke and vaporize. These goods are often used and sold together in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers. Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to 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 are related.

 

Further, the previously attached Internet evidence, from Green Solution, Have A Heart, and Maggie’s Farm, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. The evidence also shows that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).

 

Applicant has argued that its goods are different in nature from the registrant’s goods. Applicant argues that these goods are never sold together or under the same mark. Applicant claims that none of the aforementioned websites show use of the same mark for cannabis and for smoking and electronic cigarettes. Applicant’s argument regarding this seems based on the idea that electronic cigarettes are inherently limited to use with nicotine products. While this is common, especially given that use of these goods with cannabis-based products is only recently legal federally, electronic cigarettes are not inherently limited to use with nicotine; as the attached evidence from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states, “E-cigarettes can be used to deliver marijuana and other drugs.”

 

Applicant also makes a point of noting that registrant’s goods are empty electronic cigarettes, and that these goods do not include the tobacco used in the electronic cigarettes. However, as indicated in the evidence from the CDC, e-cigarettes can and are used with cannabis flowers. Attached evidence from Forbes, HinesSight, Patriot Care, and KannaBoomers discusses using cannabis flowers or buds in e-cigarettes or oral vaporizers (the CDC evidence also explains that “vaping” or use of oral vaporizers, is another commonly used means of discussing the use of electronic cigarettes). This evidence shows that applicant’s and registrant’s goods are actually complementary, and often used together. 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; In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882-83 (TTAB 1986) (holding bread and frozen chicken parts to be related because they are complementary goods that are appropriate for use together in sandwiches and may otherwise be sold to the same purchasers for use in a single meal); In re Vienna Sausage Mfg. Co., 230 USPQ 799, 799-800 (TTAB 1986) (holding sausage and cheese to be related because they are complementary goods that may be used together in recipes, sandwiches, and hors d’oeuvres); Polo Fashions, Inc. v. La Loren, Inc., 224 USPQ 509, 511 (TTAB 1984) (holding bath sponges and personal products, such as bath oil, soap, and body lotion, to be related because they are complementary goods that are likely to be purchased and used together by the same purchasers). 

 

Additionally, in response to applicant’s arguments, additional evidence is attached from these previously mentioned sources, Green Solution, Have A Heart, and Maggie’s Farm, and from the additional sources of Lightshade, Rhythm, and the legion of Bloom, with notes and annotation to indicate the electronic cigarettes and cannabis goods. This shows that applicant’s and registrant’s goods are commonly sold and used together, and are related. Id.

 

Lastly, where the marks of the respective parties are identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

Accordingly, when consumers encounter marijuana and smoking accessories sold under identical marks, they are likely to be confused.

 

Based on the analysis above, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Conclusion

 

Lastly, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).

 

Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT

 

Applicant has identified the following goods, as amended:

 

Class 34: Cannabis preparations, namely dried flower derived from industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

 

The wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because applicant must clarify the nature and use of the goods; “Cannabis preparations, namely dried flower…” is indefinite. Applicant must specify the nature or use of these goods, and clarify how they are properly within Class 34. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. If accurate:  “Cannabis preparations, namely dried flowers for smoking...”

 

If accurate, applicant may adopt the suggestion below, which reflects all of the necessary changes discussed above and shows added or amended language underlined for clarity:

 

Class 34: Cannabis preparations, namely dried flowers for smoking, being derived solely from industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

 

Applicant’s goods 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 or add goods 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 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 will further limit scope, and once goods 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.

  

ASSISTANCE

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Kimberly M. Ray/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7834

Kimberly.Ray@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.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on March 24, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88312468

 

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. 

 

 

/Kimberly M. Ray/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7834

Kimberly.Ray@uspto.gov

 

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 March 24, 2020, 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.”