UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 6/11/2019

 

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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• TEAS Plus Status Lost
• Prior Pending Conflicting Application Advisory
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Services Requires Amendment

 

TEAS PLUS STATUS LOST

 

Applicant must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class because the application as filed did not meet the TEAS Plus application filing requirements.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(a), (c); TMEP §§819.01 et seq., 819.04.

 

Applicant filed a TEAS Plus application that identified one or more services from the USPTO’s U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual) that used a fill-in-the-blank format.  However, applicant inserted wording in the identification that is clearly inappropriate or unrelated to the preceding services.  At the time of filing, a TEAS Plus application must include an identification of services from the ID Manual.  TMEP §819.01(g); see 37 C.F.R §2.22(a)(8).  By inserting inappropriate wording, applicant has, in effect, failed to submit an identification from the ID Manual.  See TMEP §819.01(g). 

 

Because applicant has not satisfied all the TEAS Plus application filing requirements, applicant must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class.  See 37 C.F.R §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c); TMEP §819.04.  The additional fee is required even if applicant later satisfies this requirement by properly filling in the blank/deleting the unacceptable wording in the identification.  TMEP §819.01(g).

 

PRIOR PENDING CONFLICTING APPLICATION ADVISORY

 

The effective filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88172899 (HALAL BRANDS) precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

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 application.  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.

 

However, applicant should note and respond to the ground for refusal and requirement that follow.

 

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. 5046716 (HALAL THERAPEUTICS BRIDGING THE GAP).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the 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 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 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)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, applicant’s mark is the singular term “HALAL” in standard characters. Registrant’s mark is the composite mark featuring the stylized wording “HALAL THERAPEUTICS BRIDGING THE GAP” with design elements. Applicant’s mark is highly similar to registrant’s mark in appearance, sound, and connotation.

 

Both applicant’s and registrant’s marks feature the wording “HALAL.” This wording comprises the entirety of applicant’s mark, whereas this wording is the first element in registrant’s composite mark. Registrant’s mark features additional wording, however, this does not obviate the likelihood of confusion. 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.

 

In addition, marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

The only remaining differences between the marks are with regard to their varied stylizations and use of design elements, or lack thereof. Applicant’s mark appears in standard characters, whereas registrant’s mark features stylized wording and design elements. However, the differences in stylization and use of design elements do not obviate the likelihood of confusion.

 

A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

In addition, and as fully discussed below, where the services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Because the marks are highly similar, purchasers are likely to believe that the services emanate from the same source. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar, and the first prong of the likelihood of confusion test is met.

 

Comparison of the Services

 

The second prong of the likelihood of confusion test is a comparison of applicant’s and registrant’s services.

 

Applicant’s services constitute various business, advertising, marketing, and consulting services.

 

Registrant’s services are marketing services.

 

The compared 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 various business, advertising, marketing, and consulting services are closely related to registrant’s marketing services.

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of webpages from various marketing and advertising agencies, establishes that the same entity commonly provides business consulting, marketing, and advertising services and markets these services under the same mark. In addition, the evidence shows that these services are 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 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).

 

See:

 

-        AdEasel: http://adeasel.com/about_adeasel/

 

-        Aronfield: http://aronfield.com/what-we-do/

 

-        Half a Bubble Out: http://www.halfabubbleout.com/our-services

 

The evidence shows that purchasers are accustomed to encountering the services of the applicant and registrant offered under the same mark. Therefore, purchasers are likely to believe the services emanate from the same source. Accordingly, the services of applicant and the registrant are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis, and the second prong of the test is met.

 

Conclusion

 

Because the marks are highly similar and the services are closely related, there is a likelihood of purchaser confusion as to the source of the services. Therefore, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

However, applicant should note and respond to the requirement that follows.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES REQUIRES AMENDMENT

 

The wording used to describe portions of the applicant’s services needs clarification because it is indefinite and the nature of the services are unclear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. As previously noted, applicant filed a TEAS Plus application that identified one or more services from the USPTO’s U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual) that used a fill-in-the-blank format.  However, applicant inserted wording in the identification that is clearly inappropriate or unrelated to the preceding services.

 

The following are examples of indefinite wording and improper entries in applicant’s identification of services:

 

• The wording “abstracting services in the nature of extracting and summarizing information from archived records” is indefinite because applicant has failed to specify the particular field or subject matter of the records, e.g., medical, property, or financial records.

 

• The wording “Administration of a consumer membership program for enabling participants to receive product samples and discounts in the field of Goods, Services, Blockchain and other Technologies” is indefinite because applicant has failed to identify specific goods and has included the improper wording “services, blockchain and other technologies” that is inappropriate for this particular fill-in-the-blank entry.

 

• The wording “Administering a membership club by means of selecting said goods based on consumer expectations and arranging periodic shipment to club members” is indefinite because applicant has failed to specify particular goods.

 

• The wording “Administration of employee benefit plans concerning a wide variety of enterprises” is indefinite because applicant has failed to indicate the type of employee benefit plan, and because the wording “a wide variety of enterprises” is too broad/not specific.

 

• The wording “Advertisement and publicity services by physical and virtual properties” is indefinite because applicant has failed to specify the means by which advertisement and publicity services are provided, e.g., by television, internet, radio, mail, etc. The wording “physical and virtual properties” does not clearly identify the nature of how applicant provides these services.

 

• The wording “Advertising services in the field of Goods, Services, Blockchain and other Technologies” is indefinite because applicant has failed to specify particular goods and services. While “advertising services” is an acceptable identification for Class 35 and no further specification is required, if applicant does provide specification, such specification must be clear and definite.

 

• The wording “Advertising services, namely, promoting and marketing the goods and services of others in the field of a wide variety of consumers and enterprises via print and electronic media” is indefinite because applicant has failed to specify the field of its services, e.g., cultural events, restaurants, shopping, travel, etc. The wording “a wide variety of consumers and enterprises” is indefinite and too broad.

 

• The wording “Agency representation for home renters obtaining needed essential services” is indefinite and must be amended to provide clarification as to the “essential services,” e.g., utility hook-up services.

 

• The wording “Business management services, namely, managing office functions in the nature of Goods, Services, Blockchain and other Technologies for others” is indefinite because applicant has failed to indicate specific office functions, e.g., copying, printing, etc.

 

• The wording “Consulting services in the field of medical practice management for others in the field of Goods, Services, Blockchain and other Technologies”  is indefinite because applicant has failed to identify specific areas of medical practice intended for this entry, e.g., dentistry, anesthesia, veterinary, etc.

 

• The wording “Distribution of advertising materials in the nature of Goods, Services, Blockchain and other Technologies” is indefinite because applicant has failed to identify specific advertising materials, e.g., printed material, samples, videos, etc.

 

• The wording “Fuel management services in the field of Goods, Services, Blockchain and other Technologies” is indefinite because applicant has failed to identify specific fields related to fuel management, e.g., aviation, trucking, vehicle fleets, etc.

 

• The wording “Lobbying services, namely, promoting the interests of a wide variety of consumers and enterprises in the fields of legislation and regulation” is indefinite because applicant has failed to identify specific groups for whom applicant is promoting their interests, e.g., motorcyclists, mathematicians, skydivers, authors.

 

The aforementioned entries are just a few examples of indefinite entries in applicant’s identification of services. Applicant must amend these entries and others to provide clarification as to the field, subject matter, and/or nature of its services, using relevant and appropriate wording for each fill-in-the-blank entry. In reviewing indefinite entries, applicant should note its entries that contain the following phrases:

 

·       “Goods, Services, Blockchain and other Technologies” – applicant must provide specific and definite wording as to the types of goods and services, and also ensure that these identifications are relevant and appropriate for fill-in-the-blank entries.

·       “a wide variety of consumers and enterprises” – applicant must provide specific and definite wording as to the purpose or type of consumers and enterprises.

·       “physical and virtual properties” – applicant must provide specific and definite wording as to the nature of the “physical and virtual properties.”

 

The applicant should note the following when amending the identifications.

 

·       The applicant may use different wording of its own when amending the identifications of services.  The applicant must follow the guidelines discussed herein to ensure specificity and accuracy.  Please note that while identifications of services can be clarified or limited by amendment, it is impermissible to add to or broaden the scope of the services beyond those originally listed in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06, 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the services will further limit scope, and once services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

·       For guidance on drafting acceptable identifications of goods and/or services, use the USPTO’s online U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual), which is continually updated in accordance with prevailing rules and policies.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

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.

 

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.  

 

 

/Matthew D. McClellan/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 121

Phone: (571) 272-5148

Matthew.McClellan@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 6/11/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88353212

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

 

(2)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 6/11/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/Matthew D. McClellan/

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp. 

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.