To: | Rule Beverage Company LLC (efiling@knobbe.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88401056 - RAGER TOTAL BODY FUEL - HANBEV.9827T |
Sent: | January 08, 2020 12:44:02 PM |
Sent As: | ecom126@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88401056
Mark: RAGER TOTAL BODY FUEL
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Rule Beverage Company LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. HANBEV.9827T
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: January 08, 2020
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 8207168, 88207138, and 88188844
Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued. The following requirement is satisfied:
• Identification of Goods
See TMEP §713.02.
The following refusal is maintained and continued:
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
See id. These refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE REGARDING THE SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL IS UNPERSUASIVE
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below.
The Marks Are Similar
Third Party Registrations Are Not Dispositive
The weakness or dilution of a particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of similar marks in use in the marketplace in connection with similar goods. See Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1579-80, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Evidence of widespread third-party use of similar marks with similar goods “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” in that particular industry or field. Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373-74, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1345, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1062-63 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
However, evidence comprising only a small number of third-party registrations for similar marks with similar goods, as in the present case, is generally entitled to little weight in determining the strength of a mark. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1751-52 (Fed. Cir. 2017); AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973). These few registrations are “not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them.” AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d at 1406, 177 USPQ at 269; In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1735 (TTAB 2018). Thus, the few similar third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording BODYFUEL or BODY FUEL is weak or diluted.
Further, evidence comprising third-party registrations for similar marks with different or unrelated goods, as in the present case, has “no bearing on the strength of the term in the context relevant to this case.” See Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1058 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1328, 123 USPQ2d at 1751). Thus, these third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording BODYFUEL or BODY FUEL is weak or diluted.
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Derek van den Abeelen/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 126
(571) 270-3997
derek.vandenabeelen@uspto.gov