| To: | Thanh Michelle Nguyen (michelle.mventure@gmail.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88355323 - KUR - N/A |
| Sent: | January 14, 2020 01:03:02 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom105@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88355323
Mark: KUR
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Thanh Michelle Nguyen
|
|
|
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: January 14, 2020
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:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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). 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 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
Applicant’s mark is KŪR in standard character form, owned by Thanh Michelle Nguyen. Registrant’s mark in Registration No. 4425989 is KÜR in standard character form, owned by Miracle Water Inc. Registrant’s mark in Registration No. 5088459 is CURE & design, owned by Cure M, LLC. Registrant’s mark in Registration No. 5521193 is QUR in standard character form, owned by K7 Design Group. Registrant’s mark in Registration No. 5581104 is CURE in standard character form.
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).
With respect to Registration No. 4425989, the marks are confusingly similar because they are virtually identical with the only difference being the diacritical marks above the letter “U.” Because they are virtually identical, these trademarks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to Registration Nos. 5088459 and 5581104, the marks are confusingly similar because they are foreign equivalents. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a common, modern foreign language and a mark that is its English equivalent may be held confusingly similar. TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi); see, e.g., In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1127-28 (TTAB 2015); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006). Consequently, marks comprised of foreign wording are translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and connotation with English word marks. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Equivalence in meaning and connotation may be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar. See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d at 1127-28; In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.
Applicant’s mark is in German, which is a common, modern language in the United States. See In re Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 223 USPQ 45 (TTAB 1983) (German).
The doctrine is applied when “the ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent. Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB 1976)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A). The ordinary American purchaser includes those proficient in the foreign language. In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024.
In this case, the ordinary American purchaser would likely stop and translate the mark because the German language is a common, modern language spoken by an appreciable number of consumers in the United States.
The designs in Registration No. 5088459 do not obviate the similarity of the marks. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
With respect to Registration No. 5521193, the marks are confusingly similar because they consist of phonetic equivalents. 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).
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant’s goods are “CBD, cannabidiol in all forms (oral, edibles, vape)” and “cannabis in all forms (oral, edibles, vape, smoke).”
Registrant’s goods in Registration No. 4425989 are “Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks and soft drinks enhanced with vitamins, minerals, nutrients, amino acids and/or herbs, aerated water, soda water and seltzer water” in International Class 32.
Registrant’s goods in Registration No. 5088459 are “Nut and seed-based snack bars” in International Class 29.
Registrant’s goods in Registration No. 5521193 are “Lip balm” in International Class 3.
Registrant’s goods in Registration No. 5581104 include “Cosmetic preparations; cosmetic preparations for skin care; cosmetic preparations for body care; cosmetic preparations for the hair and scalp; non-medicated preparations all for the care of skin, hair and scalp; moisturizing preparations for the skin; non-medicated skin care preparations; skin cleansers; skin creams; skin lotions; skin conditioners; non-medicated skin serums; beauty serums; beauty creams; beauty gels; face creams; face creams for cosmetic use; lotions for face and body care; cosmetics; cosmetics and make-up; cosmetic creams; body and beauty care cosmetics; cosmetic sunscreen preparations; non-medicated sun care preparations; sunscreen creams; gels for cosmetic purposes; make up removing preparations; essential oils; non-medicated lip care preparations; hair care preparations; hair care lotions; mousse for hair; hair gels; hair sprays; hair styling preparations; non-medicated hair treatment preparations for cosmetic purposes; hair cleaning preparations; hair shampoo; hair conditioners; shampoos; non-medicated bath preparations” in International Class 3.
In this case, the applicant uses broad wording to describe the CBD and cannabis goods, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow goods. Specifically, applicant has identified all goods containing CBD and cannabis in all forms. Thus, this wording encompasses any goods should they contain CBD and/or cannabis. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, 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 registrants’ goods are related.
Therefore, upon encountering applicant’s and registrants’ marks used on the identified goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4425989, 5088459, 5521193 and 5581104. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT REFUSAL
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.
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.
Here, the items or activities with which the proposed mark will be used include those that are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. The application identifies the following cannabis and cannabidiol goods: “CBD, cannabidiol in all forms (oral, edibles, vape)” and “cannabis in all forms (oral, edibles, vape, smoke).”
Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. Applicant’s identified goods and/or services 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”).
Furthermore, the CSA makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport “drug paraphernalia,” which is defined as “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing in the human body a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 863. Under the CSA, marijuana is a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(a), (c), 841, 844.
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.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; 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). The goods and/or services that feature cannabis and cannabidiol did not potentially comply with applicable federal laws until that date. Because the identified goods and/or services that feature cannabidiol consist of or include items or activities that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, namely those containing cannabis and cannabidiol derived from marijuana, the applicant did not have a valid basis for filing the application for such goods. Nevertheless, to the extent the applicant’s goods will be derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, the goods may presently be lawful.
Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the identification of goods and services to specify that all cannabis and 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.” With respect to drug paraphernalia, applicant must amend the identification of goods to specify that these items are “exclusively for use with cannabis and CBD products 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.
The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.
Applicant should note the following additional refusal.
FOOD DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT REFUSAL
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 and/or services for which applicant has alleged a bona fide intent to use in commerce: “CBD, cannabidiol in all forms (oral, edibles, vape)” and “cannabis in all forms (oral, edibles, vape, smoke).”
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.
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS
Furthermore, the identification of goods must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
Acceptable examples are indicated in bold font below. Applicant will note that the underlined wording may be used to overcome the Controlled Substances Act Refusal indicated above. The underlined wording will not overcome a refusal based on the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
International Class 3: Cosmetics containing cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 5: Dietary supplements containing cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 29: Edible cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) oils solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 30: Gummy candies containing cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 31: Fresh cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) herbs solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 32: Soft drinks containing cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 33: Alcoholic beverages containing cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD), except beer, solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 34: Oral vaporizers for smoking cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) exclusively for use with cannabis and CBD products 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 and/or services 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 and/or services or add goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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 and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services 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.
ADVISORY: MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATIONS
Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.
If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined or multiple-class application, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). As indicated above, the application identifies goods that are classified in at least 8 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 2 classes. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
ENTITY CLARIFICATION
If applicant is an individual, applicant must request that the legal entity be amended to “individual” and must indicate his or her country of citizenship. See TMEP §803.03(a). Alternatively, if applicant is a corporation, applicant must provide the legal name of the corporation and U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization. See TMEP §803.03(c).
If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will 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).
FILING BASIS REQUIRED
An applicant may add one or more of the following four bases to an application after filing:
(1) Use of the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a);
(2) A bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b);
(3) A foreign registration of the same mark for the same goods and/or services in an applicant’s country of origin, under Section 44(e); and/or
(4) A claim of priority based on an earlier-filed foreign application of the same mark for the same goods and/or services, which is filed within six months after the filing date of the foreign application, under Section 44(d).
Although an applicant may assert more than one basis, an applicant may not assert both Section 1(a) for use and Section 1(b) for intent to use for identical goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(b); TMEP §806.02(b).
For more information about the different legal requirements for each basis, for submitting more than one basis, and for instructions on how to satisfy these requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Basis webpage.
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 relevant federal law, including the Controlled Substances Act and 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:
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).
Applicant is advised that, upon consideration of the information provided by applicant in response to the above requirement, registration of the applied-for mark may be refused on the ground that the mark, as used/intended to be used in connection with the identified goods, is not lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127. Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful use to be the basis for federal registration of the mark. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.69; In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993); In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); TMEP §907.
ADVISORY: HIRING TRADEMARK COUNSEL
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.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
Joanna E. H. Fiorelli
/Joanna E. H. Fiorelli/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
571-272-4245
joanna.fiorelli@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
