To: | Coral Reefer, LLC (atltrademark@gtlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88369091 - SEAS THE DAY - 182331.01010 |
Sent: | January 16, 2020 02:32:23 PM |
Sent As: | ecom109@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88369091
Mark: SEAS THE DAY
|
|
Correspondence Address: 3333 PIEDMONT RD., NE, SUITE 2500
|
|
Applicant: Coral Reefer, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 182331.01010
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 16, 2020
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
NO SIMILAR MARKS
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).
Applicant, however, should note the following refusals.
SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – VIOLATION OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intention to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see John W. Carson Found. v. Toilets.com Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1942, 1948 (TTAB 2010); TMEP §907.
To qualify for federal trademark/service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful. In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350 (TTAB 2016); In re JJ206, LLC, Serial Nos. 86474701 & 86236122 (TTAB October 27, 2016); See 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); CreAgri, Inc. v. USANA Health Scis., Inc., 474 F.3d 626, 630, 81 USPQ2d 1592, 1595 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, any goods or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws. See 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,” and [that the sale or] the shipment of goods in violation of [a] federal statute . . . may not be recognized as the basis for establishing trademark rights’” (quoting Clorox Co. v. Armour-Dial, Inc., 214 USPQ 850, 851 (TTAB 1982))); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. If the items or activities that the mark is intended to be used in connection with are unlawful, actual lawful use in commerce is not possible and there can be no bona fide intent to lawfully use the mark in commerce.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and marijuana-based preparations. 21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]”). In addition, the CSA makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia, i.e., “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 into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under [the CSA].” 21 U.S.C. §863.
In the present case, the application identifies applicant’s goods as follows: “Herbal tinctures for medical purposes; medicated oils; liquid nutritional supplements.”
The attached excerpt from applicant’s website plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods/services include items and/or activities that are prohibited by the CSA, namely, marijuana, THC and tinctures, oils and supplements containing marijuana and THC.
Because these goods and/or services are prohibited by the CSA, applicant does not have a bona fide intention to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.
SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – VIOLATION OF THE FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT
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 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.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food 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.
Applicant’s goods and/or services are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items or activities that are or were prohibited by the FDCA, namely, “Herbal tinctures for medical purposes; medicated oils; liquid nutritional supplements.”
The attached excerpt from applicant’s website plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods/services include supplements containing CBD.
It is unlawful to introduce food 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 of 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 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.
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.
/Robert J. Struck/
Robert J. Struck
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
Robert.Struck@uspto.gov
571-272-1513
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
RESPONSE GUIDANCE