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:  May 07, 2020

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on April 13, 2020.

Applicant has argued against the Section 2d refusal, and amended the identification of goods. However the argument is not persuasive, and the amendment is not enough to overcome the refusal. Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No(s). 5958724.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

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. 5958724.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

Applicant applied to register the mark ARJA for the amended goods, “Plant-based, vegan cosmetics for adults and children; Plant-based, vegan non-medicated skin care preparations for adults and children; Plant-based, vegan beauty soap for adults and children; On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring non-medicated skin care preparations, beauty soap, and cosmetics”

The registered mark is ARGA MAKE MOMENTS COUNT for, “Toiletries, namely, cologne, toothpaste, body lotion; Non-medicated body cleaning and beauty care preparations, namely, cosmetics, skin care preparations, skin lotions, skin soaps, soaps for body care; Perfumed body, skin, face, hair and hand lotions; Perfumery and fragrances; Shower and bath foam; Hair preparations and treatments, namely, hair care preparations, hair moisturizers, hair oils and hair straightening preparations; Soaps and gels, namely, bath soap, beauty soap, cosmetic soaps, non-medicated hand soaps, non-medicated facial soaps, bath and shower gels, body gel, eyebrow gel and nail gel; Bathtubs; Hot tubs; Hydrotherapy baths; Spa baths being vessels; Whirlpool-jet installations; Fittings for massage baths, namely, faucets; all the aforementioned excluding electrical herbal vaporizers for household use and replacement parts therefor, electric and battery-operated aromatherapy diffusers for personal use and replacement parts therefor, electric portable vaporizers for personal household use, all being not for medical use; Promoting the sale of bath tubs, hydromassage pools, hydrotherapy baths and spa baths through promotional contests and the distribution of related printed material for others.”

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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

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. 

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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

In this case, applicant’s mark ARJA is similar to the registered mark ARGA MAKE MOMENTS COUNT because of the common use of the phonetically equivalent words (meaning the words sound alike when spoken) ARJA and ARGA in both of the marks. As such, the marks sound alike when spoken.

Applicant has argued that the marks “are phonetically different. The first word of the registered mark ARGA, has a ‘G’ followed by an ‘A,’ which pursuant to English phonics rules, is pronounced with a hard ‘G’ sound like gas.” Applicant continues, the mark “ARJA, is pronounced entirely different with a soft ’J’ sound like ‘jam.’ Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because case law states, there is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). As such, there is no correct way to pronounce applicant’s ARJA or the registrant’s ARGA. Therefore, the marks most certainly could be pronounced alike.

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

The compared goods and/or services 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 and/or services] 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).

In this case, applicant’s “plant-based vegan cosmetics for adults and children and vegan non-medicated skin care preparations for adults and children and plant-based, vegan beauty soap for adults and children” are related to the registrant’s “cosmetics, non-medicated skin care preparations and skin care preparations, and beauty soap and skin soaps and soaps for body care, because the registrant’s different products are a broad category of products that would include applicant’s more specific goods.  For example, as the attached Internet stories show, the registrant’s “cosmetics non-medicated skin care preparations” is a broad category of goods that would include applicant’s “plant-based, vegan cosmetics and skin care preparations.” Additionally, the attached evidence also shows in regards to class 35, stores sell both “plant-based, vegan cosmetics and skin care products” as well as “cosmetics and non-medicated skin care preparations.” Accordingly, consumers encountering the goods of the parties would mistakenly believe the goods originate from a common source.

Registration is therefore refused and made FINAL under Section 2d.

Telephone for Clarification Recommended

.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).

/Inga Ervin/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

United States Patent & Trademark Office

571-272-9379

571-273-9379(fax)

Inga.Ervin@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 May 07, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88342239

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. 

Ervin, Inga

/Inga Ervin/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

United States Patent & Trademark Office

571-272-9379

571-273-937

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 May 07, 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.”