To: | CAN Technologies, Inc. (trademark_docketing@cargill.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88379504 - NURTURE - N/A |
Sent: | 6/5/2019 9:18:18 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM113@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88379504
MARK: NURTURE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: CAN Technologies, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 6/5/2019
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.
SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2173219 and 2004608. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark “NURTURE” and design for use in connection with the following goods:
Class 5 –
|
“Animal feed supplements.” |
Class 31 –
|
“Animal feed.” |
The registered marks, which are owned by different registrants, are as follows:
Introduction to Section 2(d) Analysis
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 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. 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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Similarity of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “NURTURE” and design and registrants’ marks are “NURTURES” (Registration No. 2004608) and “NURTURE” (Registration No. 2173219). The literal elements in these marks are essentially identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Though Registration No. 2004608 appears in plural form, an applied-for mark that is the singular or plural form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar. Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).
Additionally, though the applied-for mark contains a design element, the design element does not obviate the similarities 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. 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)). Therefore, the word portion of the mark is dominant as the feature consumers will use when recalling the source of applicant’s goods.
Thus, for these reasons, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe Animal feed supplements and animal feed, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including vitamin supplement for cats (Registration No. 2004608) and pet food, namely, dog food and cat food (Registration No. 2173219), which merely describes a particular type of supplemental provided to a particular animal, and food provided to particular types of animals. See e.g., http://www.lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/item01932/Cat-Mix?sourcecode=PPL602W&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyILEuNPT4gIVBV8NCh18rwbxEAQYAiABEgLZe_D_BwE, http://www.dinovite.com/dinovite-for-cats-new-formula/?msclkid=6a369d263cd01a84ffa6c1de5a2dee59&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping%20-%20Pet%20Food&utm_term=4585238366128525&utm_content=Cat%20Food, and http://www.chewy.com/wholistic-pet-organics-digest-all/dp/169649?utm_id=272259755&msclkid=2486529705f812c985460e6f6326cd8a&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping-Product%20Targets-Hard%20Goods-NB&utm_term=4585444526252652&utm_content=Cat%20Vitamins%20Supplements (showing cat vitamin supplements that are added to food) and http://www.imedpub.com/scholarly/animal-feed-journals-articles-ppts-list.php (“Animal feed is the food given to animals which are domestic often refers to fodder in course of care and management of farm animals by humans for profit. Supply of quality feed ensures the health of animals. Various feeds include poultry feed, sheep husbandry, cat food, pet food, pig farming, cattle feeding, dog food, equine nutrition and bird food.”;) 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 registrant’s goods are related.
Ultimately, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant. Therefore, registration must be refused under Section 2(d).
Response to Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
REQUIREMENTS
If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
NEW DRAWING REQUIRED
Applicant must submit a new drawing with the TM symbol deleted from the drawing of the mark; this symbol is not part of the mark and is not registrable. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72; TMEP §807.14(a). Although applicant must delete this matter, applicant may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72; TMEP §§807.14 et seq. For more information about deleting matter from the drawing, see the Drawing webpage.
AMENDMENT TO THE MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIRED
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of a stylized "NURTURE" with the "N" being formed from the stylized design of a pig and a piglet, all within a rectangle outline.
Alternatively, if the rectangular outline in not a part of the mark, then applicant must submit a new drawing with the rectangular outline removed.
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.
Applicant should file a response online using the Response to Examining Attorney Office Action Form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-application-process/filing-online/response-forms.
If applicant requires technical assistance in using the online response form, applicant may email TEAS@uspto.gov or call the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199.
ASSISTANCE
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.
/Tiffany Y. Chiang/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(571) 272-7681
tiffany.chiang@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.