To: | Mars, Incorporated (Mars.US.MP@effem.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88407242 - VITALIZE - N/A |
Sent: | July 15, 2019 09:16:29 AM |
Sent As: | ecom117@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88407242
Mark: VITALIZE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Mars, Incorporated
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 15, 2019
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.
Prior Conflicting Application
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88314813 precedes applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced application. If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Duplicate Mark
Applicant seeks to register the mark VITALIZE for “Fortified drink mixes containing cocoa flavanol additives”.
Applicant may respond to this refusal by abandoning the application or surrendering the registration. To expressly abandon the application, an applicant should use the TEAS Request for Express Abandonment (Withdrawal) of Application form; to surrender the registration, the TEAS Surrender of registration for cancellation form should be used.
The applicant should also note the following additional ground for refusal.
Likelihood of Confusion
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).
Applicant seeks to register the mark VITALIZE for “Fortified drink mixes containing cocoa flavanol additives”.
The Registrant owns the mark VITA LIZE stylized and design for use with “Nutritional supplement drink shots”.
In the first step of the analysis, the examining attorney finds that the applicant’s mark VITALIZE sounds like the literal portion of the applicants’ mark VITA LIZE. The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. 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).
Because the literal terms in both marks are similar in appearance, sound and commercial impression, the examining attorney finds that the marks VITALIZE and VITA LIZE stylized are confusingly similar.
In the second step of the analysis, the examining attorney finds that the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods are related. The applicant has broadly identified its goods as “fortified drink mixes containing cocoa flavenol”. The registrant provides “nutritional supplement drink shots”. Thus the applicant and the registrant appear to provide nutritional drinks as a supplement.
Because the literal terms VITALIZE and VITA LIZE look and sound similar and the goods are related as nutritional drink supplements, the examining attorney refuses registration of the mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant May Respond
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
Goods
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Fortified drink mixes, namely, dietary supplement drink mixes containing cocoa flavanol additives. International Class 5.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please call or e-mail the assigned examining attorney.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/D. Beryl Gardner/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
571-272-9162 (O)
571-273-9162 (F)
beryl.gardner@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE