| To: | John Boyle (john@johnsCBD.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88341567 - OMNI OIL - N/A |
| Sent: | February 08, 2020 05:44:30 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom108@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88341567
Mark: OMNI OIL
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: John Boyle
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: February 08, 2020
SEARCH RESULTS
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).
CBD-Specified Goods - Based on Identification - Not in Lawful Use in Commerce as of Filing Date
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark encompasses goods that were not in lawful use in commerce as of the filing date of the application. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.
To qualify for federal trademark 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 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 items or activities to which the proposed mark are applied include those that are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. Applicant’s identified goods consist of, or include, items or activities that are prohibited by the CSA, namely, “Dietary and nutritional supplements containing cannabidiol.”
Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. Applicant’s identified goods are broad enough to include products produced from “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). 21 U.S.C. §802(16)(definition of “marihuana” – commonly referred to as “marijuana”).
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) The claimed use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not in lawful commerce as of the filing date. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352.
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 that feature cannabidiol consist of or include items that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, namely those containing cannabidiol derived from marijuana, 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 to specify that all cannabidiol-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 below.
APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS WILL NOT OVERCOME THE FDCA REFUSAL BELOW.
The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.
ADVISORY – AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate. The wording that appears in bold and/or italics below represents the suggested changes. Any wording that is crossed out represents matter that must be deleted from the identification.
International Class 5: Dietary and nutritional supplements containing cannabidiol solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] 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 in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
Applicant is advised that any future specimen provided by applicant supporting use of the mark must not show unlawful use of cannabis/CBD in excess of the amount indicated above.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
FDCA Refusal - Based on ID – Not Lawful Use in Commerce
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is not in lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. The goods 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.
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.
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 use in commerce: “Dietary and nutritional supplements containing cannabidiol.”
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) Accordingly, because applicant’s goods consist of or include items or activities that are a per se violation of federal law, the applied-for mark as used in connection with such goods is not in lawful use in commerce.
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “OIL” because it is not inherently distinctive. This unregistrable term at best is merely descriptive of a feature of the applied-for goods, namely, a thick smooth liquid. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). Please see the attached definition of “oil,” as well as the specimen of record that states the goods are a “full spectrum oil.”
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “OIL” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
ENTITY UNCERTAIN
If applicant is an individual, applicant should simply request that the legal entity be amended to “individual” and must indicate his/her country of citizenship for the record. TMEP §803.03(a). Alternatively, if applicant is a limited liability company, applicant must provide the correct name of the limited liability company and the U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization. TMEP §803.03(h).
If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration may be refused because the application was void as filed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b). An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).
Response guidelines
For this application to proceed, 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.
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
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. 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.
/Lindsey H. Ben/
Lindsey H. Ben
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
Phone: (571) 272-4239
Lindsey.Ben@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
