| To: | SOGO by Dümmen Orange Co., Ltd. (trademarks@webblaw.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88403657 - POPCORN - 9081-1902623 |
| Sent: | July 31, 2019 02:17:56 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom128@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88403657
Mark: POPCORN
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: JULIE W. MEDER, REGISTRATION NO. 36,216 |
|
|
Applicant: SOGO by Dümmen Orange Co., Ltd.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 9081-1902623
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: July 31, 2019
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
REFUSAL – SECTION 2(d) – 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 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.
Similarity of the Marks
The applied-for mark is “POPCORN” in standard characters and the registered mark is “PINK POPCORN” in standard characters.
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).
The use of the term “POPCORN” in both marks in relation to “plants” in Class 031 is unique and makes the term the dominant element in both marks in creating a commercial impression. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
Further, even if potential purchasers realize the apparent differences between the marks, they could still reasonably assume, due to the overall similarities in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression in the respective marks, that applicant's goods sold under the “POPCORN” mark constitute a new or additional product line from the same source as the goods and services sold under the “PINK POPCORN” mark with which they are acquainted or familiar, and that applicant’s mark is merely a variation of the registrant’s mark. See, e.g., SMS, Inc. v. Byn-Mar Inc. 228 USPQ 219, 220 (TTAB 1985) (applicant’s marks ALSO ANDREA and ANDREA SPORT were “likely to evoke an association by consumers with opposer's preexisting mark [ANDREA SIMONE] for its established line of clothing.”).
As such, the applied-for mark “POPCORN” is similar to the registered mark “PINK POPCORN”.
Similarity of the Goods
In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe “live landscaping plants,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrowly defined “ornamental plants.” 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 registrant’s 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)).
The attached evidence from The American Heritage dictionary defines “landscaping” or “landscape” as “to adorn or improve by contouring and by planting flowers, shrubs or trees” or “to arrange grounds aesthetically or maintain grounds as profession.” The attached evidence from HGTV and The Spruce describe “landscaping plants” as several various types of plants including perennials, annuals, ground covers, vines, shrubs, and trees. The attached evidence from Wikipedia describes “ornamental plants” as “plants that are grown for decorative purposes in gardens and landscape design projects.” Furthermore, the attached evidence from Hunker lists several types of “ornamental plants” that include roses, bulb plants, trees, conifers, shrubs, and herbs. Therefore, this evidence shows that “landscaping plants” is a broad term that includes “ornamental plants.”
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.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the applied-for mark “POPCORN” is confusingly similar to the registered mark “PINK POPCORN” because the registered mark entirely incorporates the applied-for mark and the registered goods are broad enough that it encompasses the goods that the applied-for mark offers in Class 031. Therefore, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
REQUIREMENT – IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Applicant must clarify some of the wording in the identification of goods because it is indefinite. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
The wording “other propagating material” is indefinite and the application must make clear the exact nature of the goods because “other propagating material” could mean “plant seeds,” “plant seedlings,” or “plant bulbs.” Please see the suggested changes below.
Furthermore, the wording “plants” in Class 031 is indefinite because “plants” could be classified as “dried plants” or “live plants.” It appears that “ornamental plants” in the identification is referring to “live plants.” Please see the suggested changes below.
Suggested Changes:
Applicant should note that any wording in bold, in italics, underlined and/or in ALL CAPS below offers guidance and/or shows
the changes being proposed for the identification of goods and/or services. If there is wording in the applicant’s version of the identification of goods and/or
services which should be removed, it will be shown with a line through it such as this: strikethrough. When making
its amendments, applicant should enter them in standard font, not in bold, in italics, underlined or in ALL CAPS.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 031: Live plants, namely, ornamental plants, plant cuttings, plant parts, plant seeds, plant seedlings, plant bulbs,
and other plant propagating material of Phalaenopsis varieties
See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07. Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted. See 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 Application Requirements – ITU
(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 fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods that could be in more than one class; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class. 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.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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
/Jalandoni, Chad/
/Chad Jalandoni/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 128
(571) 272-3329
chad.jalandoni@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
